Wednesday, December 23rd 2009
BenQ Intros Two LED-Backlit HD Displays
BenQ will release two new full-HD LCD monitors to the market, the 21.5 inch G2222HDL and 24-inch G2420HDBL. The two are characterized by LED backlit illumination, and share nearly identical specifications which include glossy black frames, native resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixel TN panels, 5 ms response time, 1,000:1 contrast ratio with 5,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio, brightness of 250 cd/m², and connectivity which includes DVI and D-Sub. The G2222HDL and G2420HDBL are expected to be priced at £149 and £169, respectively, available from this week.
Source:
TechConnect Magazine
114 Comments on BenQ Intros Two LED-Backlit HD Displays
But I'm waisting my breath here, just go to the Widescreenfixer forums and see what people are saying about this matter. Maybe, just maybe, you'll wake up from your dream world! ;)
imk.cx/pc/widescreenfixer/Better in every way??? You're jocking right?? What's better????? To have wasted space when watching movies? To have wasted space when playing console games or console optimized games (see Mirror's Edge, F.E.A.R 2, etc), to have bad aspect ratio or badly and improper crop in some games (Borderlands, DiRT 2, Bioshock 1.0, etc)?? Hmm? Tell me one thing that a 1200 monitor can do and a 1080 one can't !!! Yeah, more space for Windows desktop and/or 2D apps....LOL!!! Like I said, why don't you buy a 4:3 monster with 1920x1400 resolution if you want more desktop space?
Sorry, but you and Mussels are off base here. There is no downside to picking 1920x1200 or 1920x1440 (if they made them) over a 1080p screen. Both can do everything a 1080p screen can do, plus more.
Again, 1200 and 1440p can both do 1080p, but 1080p cannot do 1200 or 1440, how is this so hard to understand?
So how about you tell me what a 1080p screen can do that a 1200 or 1440 screen can't? I'll give you a hint, it's a trick question. ;)
And the games he showed are PROPER implementations of how differing resolutions and aspect ratios should be handled, the examples you showed are IMPROPER and lazy ways for the developer to do it.
He's on the same page as me.
Eastcoast is willing to use a third party program to fix games aspect ratios, whereas i am not. its as simple as that.
1080 on 1200:
1200 on 1200:
Put real simple, 1080i/p HDTVs have no background menus or environment. Everything operates on overlays so there is absolutely no use for more than 1080 pixels in height. Computers, however, have an operating running behind the video which can be invoked and still maintain the same aspect ratio for the film rendered on top of the desktop.
I dont get the argument about needing more space to watch things on a PC -i (and everyone else i know) plays games and watches movies in fullscreen.
I can't tell without doing a side by side comparison so it really doesn't matter.
In that picture, the task bar and Windows Picture and Fax Viewer menu take up 98 pixels. The window control bar takes up 26 pixels. Combined, there is 124 pixels of stuff not the picture. WP&FV added 4 pixels to each side of the image to maintain the aspect ratio (16:9 image on a 16:10 display). Conversely, WP&FV added 99 pixels to each side of the 1200 tall image to maintain the aspect ratio (16:10 image on a 16:10 display). 16:10 on a 16:10 display wastes 2475% more space than 16:9 on 16:10 with 124 vertical pixels in use for computer functions. With a 16:10 monitor, you can operate menus and the like without using an OSD while a 16:9 requires an OSD without losing significant picture size with the aspect ratio maintained.
Bottomline: it is more work space. Developers not properly handling aspect ratios is a completely separate matter.
we can have heated discussions, but name calling is a nono.
A. Enjoy the game because it has proper aspect ratio
B. Enjoy the game because it supports 16:10 that's no different then 16:9
C. Use 16:9 for those who want it
D. Use a 3rd party app. to correct the aspect ratio
E. Don't care and enjoy the games/apps as is
Wouldnt 1920x1080 be "wide but not as tall" as 1920x1200. See TAViX, your misconception here is that you think that you have somehow gained something on the sides, when in actuality you have lost someting on the top and bottom.
Being able to see more in a game screen does not mean that your 1080 is better than a 1200 monitor. It means coders have poorly programmed their software to take proper advantage of 1200 monitors.
Now, going WAY back to my original comment (that I think kind of started all of this) about moron bean counters cramming 1080 down all of our throats... if they would maintain 1200 monitors as the prevalent standard for PC monitors then we would probably see better coding in games to support it.
My comment earlier about being able to do more on a PC than just game was intended to illustrate that for a PC a 1200 monitor is always better than a 1080 because a 1200 monitor can do everything a 1080 can but also have the extra resolution for other times, like side by side surfing, document viewing, presentations, multiple windows open, etc etc etc.This right here PROVES that you do not understand the real difference between 1080 and 1200. You have not gained ANYTHING in a 1080 screen over a 1200. You have LOST usable viewing space on the top and bottom. 1920x1080 is NOT wider... rather it is simply not as tall as 1920x1200. "Ultra-wide" is either something you have made up or you have fallen prey to marketing gimmicks.
What's the problem?
So what is the only draw back of a 1080p monitor? Vertical desktop space for web browsing, which I compensate for by moving my taskbar to the side of the screen. Something all widescreen users should be doing.
Now it's easy to figure out that if you cut these substrates into reduce sizes (16:9 instead of 16:10) you can use more substrate then you normally would which in turn creates a sizable profit even if the actual LCD costs consumers little less then a 16:10 LCD. It's the typical:
1. Reduce the cutting size of the substrates
2. Use 16:9 instead of 16:10
3. ???
4. PROFIT!!!!
So far I've ask for 1 single advantage of the 16:10 / 4:3 hi res monitors over 16:9 ones and nobody managed to give it to me.
Peace.
Besides, once again, I point out that 1920x1200 displays 1080p 100% flawless and accurate. 1200p can do 1080p, but 1080p can't do 1200p. It's pretty simple logic, tbh.