Acer releases 24-inch IPS display for $329, adjustable height, swivel, tilt

By on May 1, 2012, 3:00 PM

Acer has just released a brand-new IPS display that not only sports some decent features, but with an MSRP of $329, sports a great price as well. The 24-inch LCD is being marketed as a commercial offering and as such, bucks the long-held view that business equipment is always more expensive.

If you aren't aware, IPS (in-plane switching) panels are a competing technology to TN panels. Although twisted nematic displays are by far the most common because of how cheaply they can be produced, IPS LCDs offer one distinct advantage over TN panels: far superior viewing angles with minimal color shifting.

With the B243PWL, Acer joins Dell in selling affordable IPS displays. In 2010, Dell announced a line of inexpensive IPS displays ranging from 21.5 to 23 inches while just last year, the company began offering its U2412M -- a 24-inch IPS monitor under its premium UltraSharp brand -- for $399 MSRP. That same LCD is now selling for $288.

The 24-inch Acer B243PWL offers full 1080p with a resolution of 1920x1200 and a supposed 100,000,000:1 contrast ratio (dynamic, of course) with LED backlighting. For the price, this monitor's adjustability might surprise you. The B243PWL features tilt, swivel and height adjustment. The IPS panel also ships with DisplayPort, VGA, DVI connectivity (sorry, no HDMI) and enjoys a three-year warranty. 

As an aside, has anyone else noticed larger displays with an aspect ratio of 16:10 are becoming increasingly difficult to find? Most LCDs seem to be 16:9 anymore @ 1920x1080 instead of 1920x1200. In fact, a quick search on Newegg reveals just 19 LCD with 1920x1200 versus 243 that weigh in with 1920x1080.




User Comments: 13

Got something to say? Post a comment
LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

Yes Rick - and the 16:9 trend on the computer monitor side is a bit frustrating for me. I really feel like I'm missing some real estate when using a 1920x1080 monitor and I can't afford a higher resolution 2440x or 2560x monitor.

Lionvibez said:

I'll take my HP ZR24w over this thanks. Its a business class monitor that has a 3 year onsite warranty.

Its S-IPS this monitor is probably e-ips.

And this author is incorrect TN panels offer the quickest response times out of all panels type currently.

Another reason why all the 120hz panels are TN panels and not IPS.

But once you get use to a nice calibrated IPS panel you won't go back to TN no thanks.

I agree with you LNCpapa 16:10 for the win.

My current work monitor is a 16:9 monitor and my 16:10 at home does seem phyiscally bigger, not to mention i'm not missing out on the 11% of extra pixels I get at 1920x1200.

likedamaster said:

14ms response time. That is unacceptable for a 24". My 2560 x1600 30" is at 6ms. Terrible, not worth the price at all.

Staff
Rick Rick, TechSpot Staff, said:

And this author is incorrect TN panels offer the quickest response times out of all panels type currently.

Correct. Updated.

Wagan8r Wagan8r said:

I've been bemoaning the extinction of the 16:10 aspect ratio as they keep getting harder to find. I'm glad that I got my Samsung T260HD when I did, but the 10,000:1 contrast ratio is pretty outdated now. I'm hoping that 16:10 makes a comeback with most tablets going that route i.e. 1280x800 or the Asus Transformer Infinity at 1920x1200.

Lionvibez said:

I've been bemoaning the extinction of the 16:10 aspect ratio as they keep getting harder to find. I'm glad that I got my Samsung T260HD when I did, but the 10,000:1 contrast ratio is pretty outdated now. I'm hoping that 16:10 makes a comeback with most tablets going that route i.e. 1280x800 or the Asus Transformer Infinity at 1920x1200.

10,000:1 contrast ratio is all marketing and means nothing. Just like the 100,000,000:1 quoted for this Acer.... umm ya right!

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

Cheaper ips? Yes please! The Dell ips panels are usually 16:10. Will be getting one (ips panel) for my next monitor if the response us good enough for gaming as well...

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

I've been bemoaning the extinction of the 16:10 aspect ratio as they keep getting harder to find. I'm glad that I got my Samsung T260HD when I did, but the 10,000:1 contrast ratio is pretty outdated now. I'm hoping that 16:10 makes a comeback with most tablets going that route i.e. 1280x800 or the Asus Transformer Infinity at 1920x1200.
Try and wrap your head around this. "Contrast ratio" is the absolute difference between absolute darkness and as bright as something can be.

What amuses me, is they keep dropping the illumination levels of monitors, and yet, they then measure the contrasts as being higher. Yep, beats be how they do that. Must be the new math.

If you'd like to see an example of a 1.000.000: 1 true contrast ratio. Contemplate the sun, and the light of the full moon. I hope I've remembered correctly when I say that to photograph under the light of the full moon, requires 1,000,000 times the exposure of a picture taken in full sunlight.

In any event, you can't keep reducing the overall brightness of a monitor, and then keep claiming its contrast is higher. It really is against the laws of physics.

And yeah, computer monitors should be 16:10, and not pander to a bunch of imbeciles that wholeheartedly believe an iPad is the only TV remote control device they'll ever need..

Yes Rick - and the 16:9 trend on the computer monitor side is a bit frustrating for me. I really feel like I'm missing some real estate when using a 1920x1080 monitor and I can't afford a higher resolution 2440x or 2560x monitor.
That's because HDTV resolution isn't any good for computer use, period. It's something they're trying to ram down everybody's throat in the name of universal standardization.

If people whine about the black bars when they're watching a movie on the computer, manufacturers just cut the black bars off! Problem solved.

I suppose we should all just be grateful they didn't adopt "cinemascope" (2.35: 1) proportions. If they did, your new 23" monitor would be about 9" high.

I'll take my HP ZR24w over this thanks. Its a business class monitor that has a 3 year onsite warranty.

Its S-IPS this monitor is probably e-ips.

I own one of each an HP ZR24w, and one of the e-IPS 23" 1080P screens being marketed under different brands. (Mine's a Dell) Compared to the HP, it's a royal piece of crap. I think they're actually only 6 bit color depth, same as TN.

With that said, the 23" Dell is a still far better solution than the Samsung 22" TN, it replaced. I had to replace the Samsung because I couldn't get rid of the greenish cast, and it was completely useless for vertical viewing. The optimum viewing angle, (when vertical), was at best, maybe 30 degrees.

Lionvibez said:

Agreed with everything you said capt.

Its sad that it takes apple to push high resolution displays for the monitor makers to wake the F*** up.

And yes i've heard that e-ips are 6 bit screens!

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

What amuses me, is they keep dropping the illumination levels of monitors, and yet, they then measure the contrasts as being higher. Yep, beats be how they do that. Must be the new math.

If I understand it correctly, Contrast = max illumination / min illumination

So you could reduce the max illumination and greatly reduce the min illumination so the contrast goes up but the display isn't as bright.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

If I understand it correctly, Contrast = max illumination / min illumination

So you could reduce the max illumination and greatly reduce the min illumination so the contrast goes up but the display isn't as bright.

I suppose, but then you wouldn't be able to see how dark it was, now would you?

It does get to the point where the conversation takes root in existentialist dogma. Well, then just then how black does it get.? How the f*** should know, I can't see "true black", and neither can you. (captaincranky says as he passes the joint to Darth Shiv), After all, black is the absence of all light. Eyes require light to function, therefore you can't see "black"

You can certainly see what a dull screen looks like if it's insufficiently backlit. So, therefore, it'll still look like crap, no matter what fantastical contrast ratio number you attach to it. Well, you might be able to, but no such luck for the average Walmart customer.

But yeah, for the ploddingly dull among us, that contrast number sure would impress the heck out of 'em.

I'll explain this one more time, my 24" HP has a brightness of 400 nits, the 23" Dell 300, (or maybe 270) nits. The HP makes the Dell look stupid. The Dell's brill is pegged, so it has nowhere to go but down. I still wouldn't trade it for any TN panel out there.

I have no idea what the claimed contrast ratio of either monitor is, and the reason is, I simply don't care.

The only criterion that actually matters when discussing contrast, is whether or not you can maintain detail both in the highlight and shadow areas of the screen, while maintaining a suitable overall illumination level.

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

It's a funny sort of problem to quantify but as an example, my LCD TV is a few years old now and it is fluoro backlit. If you set the desktop background to black and hide everything, the dynamic contrast sets the fluoro backlight as low as it can go. It doesn't appear "black" in the sense that you can still see a white-ish "glow" emanating from the screen. It illuminates the area around it. In this case, the fluoro backlight is seeping through.

This new LCD monitor on my PC is far better at this test. There is far less illumination. The LED backlighting is much better at not seeping through.

So what you say? Well if you are watching a movie in a dark room and it has "black bars", the better the black, the less you notice them. Truer black just looks better.

In a dark room, you'd want blacker blacks. In a bright room, if your peak contrast is lacking, the colours will appear a bit washed out. So that's where you want higher peak illumination.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

You have to examine the issue in photographic terms. An LCD screen is in reality a color transparency. It's basically an animated light box. A photographer's light box is usually powered by florescent lights.

The darkest a particular film can register is called "Dmax" (maximum density) and the differential until where the film clears completely becomes the contrast ratio.

Point being, at maximum illumination the screen must still prevent all light from passing, or all you see is the light source, and no detail. In TV jargon that's called, "blooming", in photography, it's generally referred to as "blown out highlights.

LIght bleed is common in LCD TVs and monitors, but it doesn't really enter into the overall scenario, it's design flaw that is difficult to eliminate, so it's ignored.

You need at least very basic understanding of the "Zone System" of photography, to understand where the various parts of a scene fall in relation to exposure / negative / print density.

Slide film, as well as LCD will obviously entertain a much greater contrast ratio than will a paper photograph, which is limited by the absolute reflectivity of the paper base, at about 40 or 50 to 1

You still couldn't correctly evaluate an LCD screen, unless you were in a "lightproof" room, and all adaptive controls, would have to be neutralized.

This is the same rule that applies to evaluating sound emitting devices, as they must be put through their paces in an "anechoic chamber".

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.