BenQ courts professionals with PD2500Q monitor

BenQ is probably not the first brand mentioned when the topic of conversation turns to calibrated professional monitors, as it often does on relaxed evenings at Wayne Manor. The company is hoping to change buyers' perceptions with the PD2500Q professional monitor, which the manufacturer says is just the first in a series of factory-calibrated displays. As one might guess from the model number, the PD2500Q is built around a 25" panel, in this case an IPS unit with a resolution of 2560×1440 pixels.

BenQ lists response time as 4 ms grey-to-grey. The company touts 100% coverage of the sRGB color space, but doesn't provide a figure for the bigger Adobe RGB color space. The PD2500Q's brightness is quoted as 350 cd/m², while the static contrast ratio should hit 1000:1. The panel's maximum refresh rate is listed at 76 Hz. The PD2500Q is color-calibrated from the factory, and according to TechPowerUp, future additions to the PD monitor series will also come factory-calibrated. We must note that the existing PD2700Q doesn't come pre-calibrated.   

The back of the PD2500Q has an HDMI jack along with DisplayPort and mini-DisplayPort connectors. A pair of 2W stereo speakers and a USB 3.0 hub are integrated into the display, which should make photographers and other heavy users of high-speed USB happy. The stand is adjustable for height, tilt, pivot, and swivel. BenQ includes specialized display modes that it says are optimized for CAD/CAM, photo processing, and animation. Slim 8 mm bezels are intended to make multi-display setups more seamless.

BenQ did not provide pricing or availability information for the PD2500Q. The larger PD2700Q is available now from Newegg for $379 though, so we wager the PD2500Q won't stray too far from that price.

Comments closed
    • Srsly_Bro
    • 3 years ago

    At work I use two 25″ 1440p dells on win 7 and it’s awful. Anyone have experience with this size/res on a modern OS that scales?

      • dyrdak
      • 3 years ago

      Don’t expect any better from Windows 10. I rather have non-scaled (if tiny) interface than blotchy crap served by newer version of Windows whenever it considered attached display to by high dpi (I know, MS will blame software developer for not keeping their apps with times, yet their own computer management console is primary example of what not to do).

      • anotherengineer
      • 3 years ago

      Don’t know.

      At work I have two 22″ Dells @ 1680×1050 on win7 16:10 ftw 😉 and an Intel 6500 skylake with the integrated graphics pushing AutoCAD, only a little bit of visual corruption 😉

      wanna trade?

      • Chrispy_
      • 3 years ago

      Nope.

      Even if Windows is designed to handle DPI values other than 96, Most software and websites are not.

      Everything not designed in vector graphics or vector fonts will be designed to work at 96dpi, so you really don’t want to get a desktop monitor (for 2-3′ viewing disances) unless it’s 80-110 dpi.

      I figure I can stop limiting myself to 80-110dpi screens in another decade or two when the only raster graphics left are all stored at 10x the required resolution and scaled down gracefully with cleanup filters, rather than scaled up ungracefully and turned into a low-resolution blurry mess like we have now.

      • stdRaichu
      • 3 years ago

      Out of curiosity, what’s your problem with this setup? I’m also using two 2560×1440 25″ monitors and don’t have any problems with W7 or any other OS – scaling certainly isn’t needed from where I’m sitting.

      As Chrispy points out, pretty much any time to invoke scaling, stuff is either going to either look crap or flat-out break.

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        It depends how good your eyesight is; “Normal” for a lot of people is 96dpi (1080p at 23″) and this is what Windows has defaulted to for almost 22 years now.

        1440p at 25″ is 119dpi which is significantly smaller, especially since most people are used to 24″ 1080p panels at 92dpi.

        Compared to a very common 24″ 1080p monitor, your setup results in 30% smaller everything and if you’re not young that’s going to be a non-trivial amount of squinting and discomfort. I’m under 40 and my eyes are pretty damn good for my age but I still find 27″ about the limit of reading comfort for a 1440p monitor. At desktop viewing distance, I would occasionally find myself leaning in closer even at 27″ for some of the smaller text.

    • Anton Kochubey
    • 3 years ago

    76 Hz? Uhh.. does it has FreeSync?

      • K-L-Waster
      • 3 years ago

      Not sure that graphic artists and image editors care…

        • synthtel2
        • 3 years ago

        The question at this point should never be “why Freesync?”, it should be “why not Freesync?” Just because a monitor’s primary purpose is professional graphics work doesn’t mean it’ll never be used for gaming, and this feature is all but free. 😉

          • psuedonymous
          • 3 years ago

          [quote<]it should be "why not Freesync?" [/quote<]Amd the reasomn for any momnitor where you give a damn about colour reproduction has an easy answer: because you give a damn about colour reproduction. Just using a stock panel controller and unlocking the normal variation range in scanout rates is great for getting VRR on the super-cheap. It doesn't get you the continuously varying LUT needed for you to get the correct colour across all refresh rates though: as the refresh rate changes, the expected pixel response rate changes. Because this is a nonlinear function, this means colour shifts as refresh rate shifts. An LCD calibrated at 60Hz will be calibrated at 60Hz, but when you start varying that it will drift out of calibration. If BenQ are listing 76Hz as a #you can daily this' refresh rate without a little asterisk and a footnote of "go calibrate it yourself if you want to do this" , I'd be pretty surprised.

            • GrimDanfango
            • 3 years ago

            This is a fair point… for my purposes I think the calibration would remain “close enough”, and I’d much sooner be able to playback different framerates without manually switching refresh rate. But for colour-critical work, it’d certainly be an issue.

            I guess the best solution for me would be a fixed refresh colour-work monitor, and a secondary variable “gamer” monitor for animation playback.

            It’d just be nice to be able to have both in one monitor… I really dislike side-by-side setups.

            • psuedonymous
            • 3 years ago

            Calibrating for a continuously varying refresh rate is probably right out, but calibrating for a set number of refresh rates (e.g. 60Hz, 50Hz, 48Hz/72Hz) and then using software that only outputs those fixed rates would be doable, if likely inviting an additional price premium (but probably not as much of a premium of true broadcast monitors). Some playback software can already automatically switch to a locked set of resolutions and refresh rates, e.g. the MadVR directshow renderer.

        • GrimDanfango
        • 3 years ago

        As a professional VFX artist, I care. I commonly work on 24, 25, 30 and 60fps content. My current monitor allows me to manually switch between 50hz and 60hz so I can playback 25,30,60 content smoothly without jittery framerate pulldowns, but it’s a pain in the ass, especially if I’m switching between two different projects at the same time. Neither 48 or 72hz even works… luckily 24fps projects are rare.

        Variable refresh in a pro monitor could potentially make all that seamless, provided there was a playback app that made use of it (ie, did frame-doubling to keep the playback rate at 50/60, as I presume 25/30 might be below the minimum variable range)

        Edit: What I could really do with is just a 600hz OLED, being the smallest multiple of all four. I guess DisplayPort isn’t exactly up to handling that just yet though 😛

          • K-L-Waster
          • 3 years ago

          Hmmm, VRR would be more of a back-door-hack for that purpose — and would likely come with quality compromises (it is a gaming oriented feature after all, so FPS and smoothness take a back seat to precision). What you really want is a pro monitor with a more efficient way to switch playback rates to match the content you are working on.

      • Chrispy_
      • 3 years ago

      75Hz would make more sense, but perhaps 76Hz is just the number they’ve validated the panels for.

      For video content, the higher the refresh, the better because you want to be able to work at 24fps, 25fps, 30fps and 72, 75 and 60Hz will cover these fps values respectively without dropping into awkward <60 refresh rates.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This