• expired

Acer ER320HQ 31.5" LED IPS Monitor (1920 x 1080) 4ms - $269 @ Officeworks

240

Acer ER320HQ 31.5" LED IPS Monitor
Just picked one up at OW Castle Hill. Wasn't in the market for one but it looked ok in store and will use it at work and see how it goes.
31.5" view-able and is only 1920 x 1080 (1080p) but should serve its purpose for I will use it for, also has 4ms response time not 14ms as stated on OW website.

Debuted in Japan in October 2016 and retailing for ¥28,944 (~$335AUD)

Currently selling on Amazon Japan for ¥26,310 ($305AUD)
Its not a bad deal for someone after a Large cheapish monitor

Related Stores

Officeworks
Officeworks

closed Comments

  • +1

    There a few select uses for a monitor with this size and resolution. 27" is the max I'd use at 1080p.

    • +3

      I'd had 31.5" Phillips FHD monitor from previous deal at $228. Absoultely no problem with 1080p at all for general everyday use for a lot of people if you are only after a bigger screen.

      • +1

        I still use that Philips as a secondary display - there's not a "problem" with 1920x1080 but pixels are clearly visible which lowers image quality. THis is much less of a problem with games/tv/movies.

        • What would you say the sweet spot in distance is away from you before the pixels aren't visible?

        • +1

          @wukachuka: http://isthisretina.com/

          Although take the recommended distances with a grain of salt. Obviously everyone's eyes, expectations, and tolerances are different.

        • @grb:
          Very Handy! thanks!

  • kind of tempting…

  • -1

    Not many monitors these day have DisplayPort….the Lenovo desktop I bought from the previous deal only has DisplayPort and VGA (and I try to avoid VGA if possible)…. Has anyone has experience with HDMI to DisplayPort adaptor/converter? Thanks,

    • -3

      This monitor has HDMI, DVI-D (DisplayPort) and D-Sub (VGA) ports. It also has pretty good inbuilt speakers surprisingly as well as a Headphone jack which is a bonus.
      I do use a DisplayPort to HDMI converter (a cheap MSY UNITEK adapter) from my HTPC (780Ti) to my primary TV (4K) + HDMI to the secondary TV (FHD) next to it and have never had a problem

    • A lot of monitors have DisplayPort … but anyhow I haven't had experience but DisplayPort is more capable than HDMI (talking about max res/refresh) so I imagine a converter will have no issues.

      • I check every monitor on display at my local Officeworks yesterday, not a single one has DisplayPort (most are HDMI and VGA)

        • DisplayPort is extremely common, but most often seen on higher end products and in the business sector. HDMI 2.0 is also in it's infancy, so on older GPUs DP is the only way to run high resolution and/or high refresh rate monitors because of its much higher bandwidth.

          I suppose Officeworks simply doesn't stock high end monitors? But check out every UHD and high refresh QHD/UWQHD monitor and you'll find a DP connection.

          Also, DP is quite versatile and is easily converted to HDMI (albeit with the use of a not so cheap "active" adapter).

        • @grb: HDMI 1.3 easily supports 1080p though and has been around since FHD became mainstream. HDMI 2.0 is only necessary for 4K+ applications.

        • @potplanty: Of course for most "normal" monitors and TVs you are correct.

          But 1.3 does not support very high refresh rate "1080p" monitors. Indeed the term "1080p" itself is ambiguous, it only contains the vertical component of the resolution and a redundant letter of the alphabet. For example I could call UWFHD "1080p" even though it is 2560x1080, and there is not a snowflakes hope HDMI 1.3 can run the 144 or 200Hz UWFHD monitors.

        • @grb: Yes, but unless a monitor specifically states a different refresh rate you can be guaranteed it's capping it at 60Hz which is within the scope of HDMI 1.3.

    • Why would VGA not be suitable for a monitor of this resolution / refresh rate?

      (just interested in why you try to avoid it?)

      • +1

        VGA is analog. The other signals are dignal.

        There are all manner of compromises with an anolog signal - although most modern monitors do a good job of sorting out scaling etc, if you have the choice always choose digital for your primary display.

    • So long as you're going to a DisplayPort in, rather than DisplayPort out from your pc, you should be alright.

      If it was the other way around though, you'd need an expensive "active" converter

      • What?

    • I am not sure if you or most people can tell the difference between HDMI and VGA on a 1080p monitor when looking at it.

      • +1

        You can absolutely tell the difference between an analog signal (vga) and digital (hdmi).

      • I think VGA on my monitor looked more saturated.

      • VGA image quality will depend on a number of things including length and quality of cable, nearby sources of EMI, and the controller inside the monitor.

        Sometimes the image is bent and doesn't line up with the screen, there's general fuzzyness and weird "shadows" behind text. And sometimes VGA works great and looks indistinguishable from a digital source, but analog is never perfect 1:1.

  • Good deal.

    Another option if you are shopping around - http://www.msy.com.au/peripherals/17282-philips-ips-315-bdm3…

  • +1

    I'm using the last OW deal— the Philips 31.5.

    For me, I'm happy with the 1080. It keeps the icon sizes large w/o adjustment + it allows me to sit further back & still be able to read the text. And no, I cannot see pixels, even if I wear my reading glasses.

    FYI

  • +1

    Do these monitors Heat up much? Oh, and 14ms response time is terrible. Might pass on this one!

  • With a 31.5" monitor at 1920x1080 won't text be blurry as everything gets "stretched".

    I've currently got my PC hooked up to a Hisense 32" 1080p TV temporarily and reading text on it is awful :(

    • I myself have the Philips 31.5 and yes it was horrible. PPI is like ~60 which is atrocious for reading text. I use it now as a secondary monitor and primarily for my PS4 which is much better than a TV due to the input lag.

    • With a 31.5" monitor at 1920x1080 won't text be blurry as everything gets "stretched".

      No.

      It will look EXACTLY THE same as 1920x1080 on a 24" or 27" monitor.

      The difference is that you can sit farther away. Normally 500-600mm for the 24", maybe 750-800mm for the 31.5"

      • +1

        Sitting further away defeats the purpose of using this as a "traditional" computer monitor :)

        • +1

          Yes, precisely.

          So, if you wish to sit an arms length from the screen then you need to have a certain pixel density. If you hold the screen in your hand and peer at it from 200mm away then you need a higher pixel density.

          Conversely, if you sit 1 metre away from the screen, then you don't need a high pixel density.

          Lots of monitors / screens get used at farther viewing distances than the traditional 500mm to 600mm. A good example is PC gaming, watching video, etc.

          In those kinds of applications, you need to be able to view the WHOLE screen, not just focus on a portion of it. Humans don't have eyes lie a house fly - it is not physically possible to have the entire surface of a >30" screen in your foveal vision (sharply focussed) if you sit only 500mm from it.

          Think of yourself sitting back top watch a full length movie, or a kid playing a game like FIFA where you need to see the whole screen at all times. Irrespective of the resolution, you won't sit an arms length from the screen because it's not comfortable.

          Similarly, lots of people use a computer for normal things at a viewing distance of far more than 500-600mm. Even at 1m you will not see pixels on a screen like this.

          Furthermore, considering the content of games, videos, TV, Youtube, etc that most people use computers for, there's no point in having a Uber-pixel screen when you're viewing content at less than 1080p anyway.

          The other (and for many people, the most important) consideration is that a FHD 1920x1080px screen doesn't require massively powerful video card. more pixels needs more power, more memory, and usually a step up in resolution means dropping the frame rates down to accommodate it. You can get used to a lower resolution a lot easier than you can get used to stuttery playback.

          So, no - of course this $270 el-cheapo 31.5" monitor is not the best thing for high productivity work as a primary computer monitor. However that's not the point of it.

    • I've currently got my PC hooked up to a Hisense 32" 1080p TV temporarily and reading text on it is awful :(

      That has absolutely noting to do with the size of screen or the 1080p resolution.

      It's because a TV is useless for acting as a computer monitor. They generally don't have the correct Chroma Sampling rates, and compress / damage the clarity for static images.

      So, a TV is fine for displaying video which is moving all the time and is viewed from 1m to 3m distance… but static high contrast content like text looks absolutely horrendous - made worse if you are sitting close to it.

      Therefore, don't judge the potential image quality of a 32" 1080p Monitor based on how a 32" 1080p TV looks like. A computer monitor will give completely crisp text - where the monitor may fall down compared to a TV is if the refresh rate is too slow for action gaming.

  • +1

    If you are half blind like me, 31.5 at 1080p IPS is brilliant.I love my 31.5 even though most would consider it sub par because of the large size and low res, but I can actually see what Im doing.

  • I'm thrown off by how little info there is on this product, no reviews, no specs on ACER website. I kinda want a wide viewing range as I sometimes have trouble seeing the screen if I'm sitting in other parts of the room to watch movies.

  • These are ideal as a combo dusplay for Xbox or PS4 plus PC gaming, watching movies, surfing internet, etc.

    You cannot do those things comfortably at 500mm viewing dispatch as you cannot take in the whole screen properly at the short distance.

    Similar price or cheaper than a 32" TV (usually 768p) with superior resolution and faster refresh and response.

    They are not intended for use for serious productivity like photoshop etc, they are great as a utility monitor for use in bedrooms etc.

Login or Join to leave a comment