ASUS PG279Q Ad

[vanished]

I just saw an ad for this on the forum in the corner and it caught my attention with the slogan.

 

(note this is not the actual ad; this is a slightly larger one with a different aspect ratio but identical content, since the other one had a format I wasn't allowed to link to for some reason)

"The unrivaled king of gaming monitors"

 

Wow, that's quite a claim.  But that's not what I'm going to get into here.  I clicked it, and scrolled down to where there is a little demo with a slider showing a "comparison" between 1080p and 1440p.  Only problem is, if you actually zoom in and count the pixels, you'll notice that they way they've set it up, they are claiming the 1440p to be 9 times better than 1080p (since each of the pixels in the high res image is replace by a 3x3 "pixel" in the low res image).  That's a problem since last time I checked, it was 1.78 times as many pixels.

 

Some of you may be saying "well, I've seen lots of monitor ads pull this trick", and sadly you'd be correct.  This is hardly the first time a company has done this - in fact, I'd go so far as to say it's become standard procedure to exaggerate the improvement.  Some of you may remember a post I made a while back about an MSI laptop using similar questionable marketing practices to make it seem like they were much better than they really were, and here we are again!

 

What will put an end to this!?

[pagani123]

while i will agree with you i have to say i can tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p i get the "screen door effect"

[vanished]

while i will agree with you i have to say i can tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p i get the "screen door effect"

Oh, no question there's a difference - an improvement - but it's no where near as much as they are making it look like with that picture

[Shimejii]

a hefty lawsuit will put an end to it, just depends if the the Government office that deals with these kinds of false advertising would want to do anything

[Juanse]

I just saw an ad for this on the forum in the corner and it caught my attention with the slogan.

 

(note this is not the actual ad; this is a slightly larger one with a different aspect ratio but identical content, since the other one had a format I wasn't allowed to link to for some reason)

"The unrivaled king of gaming monitors"

 

Wow, that's quite a claim.  But that's not what I'm going to get into here.  I clicked it, and scrolled down to where there is a little demo with a slider showing a "comparison" between 1080p and 1440p.  Only problem is, if you actually zoom in and count the pixels, you'll notice that they way they've set it up, they are claiming the 1440p to be 9 times better than 1080p (since each of the pixels in the high res image is replace by a 3x3 "pixel" in the low res image).  That's a problem since last time I checked, it was 1.78 times as many pixels.

 

Some of you may be saying "well, I've seen lots of monitor ads pull this trick", and sadly you'd be correct.  This is hardly the first time a company has done this - in fact, I'd go so far as to say it's become standard procedure to exaggerate the improvement.  Some of you may remember a post I made a while back about an MSI laptop using similar questionable marketing practices to make it seem like they were much better than they really were, and here we are again!

 

What will put an end to this!?

Well, IMO, it's difficult to show the great quality of a monitor through another one, it's quite a disadvantage against normal stores, so they require of this things to make them look the difference, even though it's not so noticeable IRL

[vanished]

Well, IMO, it's difficult to show the great quality of a monitor through another one, it's quite a disadvantage against normal stores, so they require of this things to make them look the difference, even though it's not so noticeable IRL

I can see that issue being a legitimate one for things like colour reproduction and (to a lesser extent) motion blur but there is absolutely no reason why two images can't show a difference in fidelity due to resolution completely accurately.

[pagani123]

a hefty lawsuit will put an end to it, just depends if the the Government office that deals with these kinds of false advertising would want to do anything

the wouldnt trust me there is no point in suing you end up paying more for the thing than anyone would ever get out of it and its a waste of other peoples time the only people that win when someone sues are the lawyers 

[Marinatall_Ironside]

One thing that I've read up on this particular monitor is that it has a maximum refresh rate of 165 Hz, so there is some sensible claim to that contray. Linus Sebastian did a review of this monitor too if you're interested.

https://youtu.be/b3ImK3WMBm4

a hefty lawsuit will put an end to it, just depends if the the Government office that deals with these kinds of false advertising would want to do anything

Lawsuits takes a lot of time and money that not that many would be willing to pay for. I certainly wouldn't want to spend that time, let alone would be risking if I lose the lawsuit or it gets thrown right out the door.

Note: I don't know why the video is showing up. The URL though is. I did up this post on my phone.

[vanished]

One thing that I've read up on this particular monitor is that it has a maximum refresh rate of 165 Hz, so there is some sensible claim to that contray. Linus Sebastian did a review of this monitor too if you're interested.

https://youtu.be/b3ImK3WMBm4

I'm familiar with both Linus' review and the fact that (afaik) it is the only monitor that can hit 165 Hz.  Neither of these excuse their resolution stunt.