Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Results: Pixel Response And Input Lag

NEC V801 Review: Benchmarking A Massive 80-Inch Monitor
By

To perform these tests we use a high-speed camera that shoots at 1000 frames per second. Analyzing the video frame-by-frame allows us to observe the exact time it takes to go from a zero-percent signal to a 100-percent white field.

The pattern generator is placed at the base of the monitor so our camera can capture the precise moment its front-panel LED lights up, indicating that the monitor is receiving a video signal. With this camera placement, we can easily see how long it takes to fully display a pattern after pressing the button on the generator’s remote. This testing methodology allows for accurate and repeatable results when comparing panels.

Here’s a shot of our test setup. Click on the photo to enlarge.

The brighter section of the camera’s screen is what actually appears in the video. You can see the lights of the pattern generator in the bottom of the viewfinder. We flash the pattern on and off five times and average the results.

Here’s the screen draw result.

Playing games on a giant screen is undeniably cool. But if you demand the highest speed from your rig, the V801 is not quite fast enough. It measures about the same as the other IPS-based monitors we've tested. Though it's probably not quick enough for the most competitive gamers, the panel does a good job of keeping motion blur and smearing to a minimum.

Here are the lag results.

We expected the Pioneer to do better in the input lag test, but it only scored slightly better than the rest of the pack (except for Asus' 144 Hz screen, of course). The V801 was a little below average compared to other IPS desktop monitors. We did play a few console games on it using an Xbox 360. Since its output is limited to 60 Hz, we had no trouble keeping up in fast-paced shooters and first-person titles.

Display all 33 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 14 Hide
    Someone Somewhere , December 9, 2013 9:52 PM
    Yeah, 1920x1080... those pixels are 0.92mm square. That's pretty easy to see with the naked eye; far bigger than a full stop.

    27.5ppi... *shudders*.

    EDIT:
    Quote:
    the V801’s size is better expressed in feet: 227.6 (69.37 square meters for the rest of the world)


    Ummm... 70 square meters is pretty big. That's about half of the average house. I think you'll find it's ~1.76 m² or 19 ft².
Other Comments
  • 8 Hide
    patrick47018 , December 9, 2013 9:49 PM
    Why would you want an 80" monitor that is only 1080P?
  • 14 Hide
    Someone Somewhere , December 9, 2013 9:52 PM
    Yeah, 1920x1080... those pixels are 0.92mm square. That's pretty easy to see with the naked eye; far bigger than a full stop.

    27.5ppi... *shudders*.

    EDIT:
    Quote:
    the V801’s size is better expressed in feet: 227.6 (69.37 square meters for the rest of the world)


    Ummm... 70 square meters is pretty big. That's about half of the average house. I think you'll find it's ~1.76 m² or 19 ft².
  • 0 Hide
    patrick47018 , December 9, 2013 9:56 PM
    On the other had I wouldn't mind having that Pioneer "God" TV
  • -1 Hide
    huilun02 , December 9, 2013 9:57 PM
    Way to make a home cinema system with an average computer.
  • 6 Hide
    16bit , December 9, 2013 10:09 PM
    I wouldn't get such a big monitor/hdtv unless it has a higher than 1080p resolution.
  • -7 Hide
    tanjo , December 9, 2013 10:33 PM
    Thank you for buying this excessively massive monitor to save the environment.
  • 2 Hide
    cangelini , December 9, 2013 10:50 PM
    @Someone: Thanks--missed the calculation error during my edit. Should be fixed now.
  • 6 Hide
    virtualban , December 10, 2013 2:32 AM
    For that size I clicked the article in hopes that maybe it was some 8K monitor. Stopped reading after 1080p
  • 0 Hide
    icemunk , December 10, 2013 5:14 AM
    A wee bit pricey. I'll stick to my six 40" monitors
  • 1 Hide
    baddad , December 10, 2013 6:35 AM
    I've had a Mits 82" DLP since 2011 I paid $1900.00, that is the heart of my media center, so $9400 for just a monitor is a bit much.
  • -2 Hide
    baddad , December 10, 2013 6:36 AM
    I've had a Mits 82" DLP since 2011 I paid $1900.00, that is the heart of my media center, so $9400 for just a monitor is a bit much.
  • 9 Hide
    siliconvideo , December 10, 2013 6:57 AM
    Be careful with current 4k screens, all of them for 2 reasons.

    1) There is no 4K content available from anywhere. The movie studios are pushing to requiring HDCP 2.2 compliant 4k screens before they will release content and all current 4k are not HDCP 2.2 compliant, only HDCP 1.4.

    2) Current HDMI specifications only allow for 4k@30 transport which is sufficient for movies, however the native glass in these devices generally do 4k@60 which means the screens are doing some format conversion. True 4k@60 requires HDMI 2.0 which has only just been released and no chips support yet. So these screens are generally not good for video games either
  • -3 Hide
    siliconvideo , December 10, 2013 7:01 AM
    Be careful with current 4k screens, all of them for 2 reasons.

    1) There is no 4K content available from anywhere. The movie studios are pushing to requiring HDCP 2.2 compliant 4k screens before they will release content and all current 4k are not HDCP 2.2 compliant, only HDCP 1.4.

    2) Current HDMI specifications only allow for 4k@30 transport which is sufficient for movies, however the native glass in these devices generally do 4k@60 which means the screens are doing some format conversion. True 4k@60 requires HDMI 2.0 which has only just been released and no chips support yet. So these screens are generally not good for video games either
  • 4 Hide
    chumly , December 10, 2013 7:32 AM
    Show me the idiot that spends $10k on a 1080p 80" panel. I bet you can see every single pixel with your naked eye from 6 feet.. What a stupid stupid stupid idea.
  • 3 Hide
    photonboy , December 10, 2013 7:40 AM
    LG has a 4K HDTV for $7000 that is 65". Not quite as big but a much better choice. You can also move CLOSER anyway. Of course content is still an issue.
  • 3 Hide
    bystander , December 10, 2013 9:23 AM
    I'm not sure any of you read the first paragraph:
    Quote:
    This 80-inch LED/LCD screen is a commercial-grade model that can be used for just about anything requiring a large display. You would most likely see the V801 in an airport, for example, functioning as a dynamic message board or showing news feeds, for example. Obviously nobody's going to set this beast up on their desktop.


    This is obviously not meant for personal use. This is not meant to be viewed from up close.
  • 1 Hide
    tential , December 10, 2013 10:53 AM
    I love everyone commenting on "You can see EVERY pixel OMG OMG OMG!" yet you've never owned a large display probably.
    I've seen 80 inch TVs in person and these fears are just pathetically sad. I own a 70 inch HDTV as my primary "monitor" and I never go "I NEED 4k!!!!!!"
    Why would I even NEED 4K at the moment? HDMI doesn't support it yet, and there is ZERO 4K content. If for gaming, the gaming rig necessary to power such a thing is WAY too expensive, and new cards will scale better with resolution than past cards.

    People need to stop commenting (mainly people like chumly), when you've never used such a product before.

    My biggest knock is price. If I can get an HDTV for 1/10 the price on some of these black friday/christmas sales, it really makes no sense to get this. I can get that 70-80 inch HDTV for 700-1000 dollars, then pocket the 6k-7k extra and wait for the 4K versions to come out later. Maybe they'll even have OLED 4K by then.
    But that being said, this monitor did compete and beat MOST displays in MANY specs. It's a GREAT monitor. But I just think that if I'm going to invest 8k into a tech, it shouldn't be at the end of its lifestyle. I hope they put this type of effort/quality where it competes/beats many HDTVs out on the market onto their 4K model when it is ready.

    A monitor this big needs to be reviewed also as an "HDTV" where Movies/TV is watched on it and since that was omitted, I think this is pretty much not too useful to most people who would want a display this big.

    I feel like a lot of people commenting didn't read though, and simply posted.
  • 1 Hide
    patrick47018 , December 10, 2013 10:55 AM
    Quote:
    I love everyone commenting on "You can see EVERY pixel OMG OMG OMG!" yet you've never owned a large display probably.
    I've seen 80 inch TVs in person and these fears are just pathetically sad. I own a 70 inch HDTV as my primary "monitor" and I never go "I NEED 4k!!!!!!"
    Why would I even NEED 4K at the moment? HDMI doesn't support it yet, and there is ZERO 4K content. If for gaming, the gaming rig necessary to power such a thing is WAY too expensive, and new cards will scale better with resolution than past cards.

    People need to stop commenting (mainly people like chumly), when you've never used such a product before.

    My biggest knock is price. If I can get an HDTV for 1/10 the price on some of these black friday/christmas sales, it really makes no sense to get this. I can get that 70-80 inch HDTV for 700-1000 dollars, then pocket the 6k-7k extra and wait for the 4K versions to come out later. Maybe they'll even have OLED 4K by then.
    But that being said, this monitor did compete and beat MOST displays in MANY specs. It's a GREAT monitor. But I just think that if I'm going to invest 8k into a tech, it shouldn't be at the end of its lifestyle. I hope they put this type of effort/quality where it competes/beats many HDTVs out on the market onto their 4K model when it is ready.

    A monitor this big needs to be reviewed also as an "HDTV" where Movies/TV is watched on it and since that was omitted, I think this is pretty much not too useful to most people who would want a display this big.

    I feel like a lot of people commenting didn't read though, and simply posted.


    We haven't owned 1080P TV's that large for the negative reasons we are talking about, my grandpa owns a 65" and it looks fine if you sit way back but anywhere near it very blurred and distorted due to lack of pixel density
  • 3 Hide
    vmem , December 10, 2013 11:54 AM
    "You would most likely see the V801 in an airport, for example, functioning as a dynamic message board or showing news feeds"

    if my airport is buying $10,000 monitors to show me which gate to go to... I'd rather have a discount on my air fare pls...

    if someone thinks they need a $10,000 monitor to show TEXT on a black background... well, I odn't know what to say
  • 0 Hide
    vmem , December 10, 2013 11:57 AM
    Quote:
    I love everyone commenting on "You can see EVERY pixel OMG OMG OMG!" yet you've never owned a large display probably.
    I've seen 80 inch TVs in person and these fears are just pathetically sad. I own a 70 inch HDTV as my primary "monitor" and I never go "I NEED 4k!!!!!!"
    Why would I even NEED 4K at the moment? HDMI doesn't support it yet, and there is ZERO 4K content. If for gaming, the gaming rig necessary to power such a thing is WAY too expensive, and new cards will scale better with resolution than past cards.

    People need to stop commenting (mainly people like chumly), when you've never used such a product before.

    My biggest knock is price. If I can get an HDTV for 1/10 the price on some of these black friday/christmas sales, it really makes no sense to get this. I can get that 70-80 inch HDTV for 700-1000 dollars, then pocket the 6k-7k extra and wait for the 4K versions to come out later. Maybe they'll even have OLED 4K by then.
    But that being said, this monitor did compete and beat MOST displays in MANY specs. It's a GREAT monitor. But I just think that if I'm going to invest 8k into a tech, it shouldn't be at the end of its lifestyle. I hope they put this type of effort/quality where it competes/beats many HDTVs out on the market onto their 4K model when it is ready.

    A monitor this big needs to be reviewed also as an "HDTV" where Movies/TV is watched on it and since that was omitted, I think this is pretty much not too useful to most people who would want a display this big.

    I feel like a lot of people commenting didn't read though, and simply posted.


    I love how you go into the cost benefit analysis of the whole 4K vs 1080p and the practicality of it... while ignoring the fact that this thing costs $9,400... that's nearly 10 friggin grand. it's sturdy and built to last... now I'd expect there to be 4K content 5 years down the road from now...
Display more comments