ViewSonic Focuses on the Pros with New IPS LCD Displays

[Meizuman]

120Hz IPS... that's what I need.

 

[Hayder_Master]

- Real movies aren't 16:9.

- Color gamut is determined by backlight. Wide gamut is a fking PITA to deal with.

really? you must watch some odd movies. i've got hundreds here, thousands with my housemates collection that would say otherwise.

sure, blu-ray doesnt follow it... but BR doesnt follow ANY aspect ratio standards.

16:10 is better than 16:9. How is 1920x1080 better in any way to 1920x1200?

Who the hell is telling Viewsonic and other manufacturers that 16:9 is the "perfect solution for designers, manufacturers, medical applications and movie production"? You'd better show yourself now or I'z slap you one good!

Anyhoo... not so bad otherwise. Wish they had DisplayPort.

guys now i confused , im think about gaming monitor so what should i take 16:9 or 16:10 , for me i see 16:10 is beeter cuz im play on my 19' squire monitor 1280x1024 and my friend have 19' wide screen play it at 1440x960 , i see games at my monitor look cool sure not the movies but i care only for games maybe i wrong so what you thing guys

 

[Mussels]

you'll get half saying 16:9 and half saying 16:10


as an RTS gamer, 16:9 is the obvious choice for me - RTS games always have a HUD/GUI made for 16:9 these days, and it stretches to fit on 16:10 and looks crap

basically all it comes down to, is do you want more resolution, or better quality (no chance for black bars or stretching)

 

[Hayder_Master]

you'll get half saying 16:9 and half saying 16:10


as an RTS gamer, 16:9 is the obvious choice for me - RTS games always have a HUD/GUI made for 16:9 these days, and it stretches to fit on 16:10 and looks crap

basically all it comes down to, is do you want more resolution, or better quality (no chance for black bars or stretching)

thanx dude , sure better quality but did that mean 16:10 have lower quality than 16:9

 

[Mussels]

thanx dude , sure better quality but did that mean 16:10 have lower quality than 16:9

it means that you have a chance of games to stretch some elements, and black bars in movies can appear (or be larger, if the movie wasnt 16:9 to begin with)


I hate stretching, black bars, or anything that mars the image. i'm a perfectionist with audio and video quality, so 16:10 is just nasty by my standards.

 

[lemonadesoda]

If you dont like black bars, use white bars. Or the same colour as the paint on the wall. Or use a pattern, if you have patterned wall paper. Or fill the black bars with a stock-quote ticker. Or the taskbar stripper. LOL

 

[Mussels]

If you dont like black bars, use white bars. Or the same colour as the paint on the wall. Or use a pattern, if you have patterned wall paper. Or fill the black bars with a stock-quote ticker. Or the taskbar stripper. LOL

 

[raptori]

it means that you have a chance of games to stretch some elements, and black bars in movies can appear (or be larger, if the movie wasnt 16:9 to begin with)


I hate stretching, black bars, or anything that mars the image. i'm a perfectionist with audio and video quality, so 16:10 is just nasty by my standards.

does that mean 16:10 is not standard according to resolution .... is there no more 1680x1050 in games graphic setting cause i think if someone can play on his monitor native's resolution then there will be no loss in quality ..... and if there are black bars then you'll have no distort (I think black bars exist to prevent distort) ...... I don't know whether should I take:
16:9 and suffer from overkill resolution that will eat my card for breakfast or take 16:10 with 1680x1050 native that seems its not gonna be standard resolution for games ..... correct me if I'm wrong .....

I'm consider 22" or 23" as options.

 

[Wile E]

you'll get half saying 16:9 and half saying 16:10


as an RTS gamer, 16:9 is the obvious choice for me - RTS games always have a HUD/GUI made for 16:9 these days, and it stretches to fit on 16:10 and looks crap

basically all it comes down to, is do you want more resolution, or better quality (no chance for black bars or stretching)

I don't buy that for a minute. 16:10 is still standard, and modern games are all still set up to use 16:10 properly when they have widescreen support. If they don't, the devs are shit.

And stop boohooing over black bars. It doesn't take away from picture quality, AT ALL. I'm just as much as an audio and videophile as you, if not more so, and the effects on picture quality from letterboxing are nill. Not to mention, most BD's are already letterboxed anyway. Before you had an HDTV, did you buy fullscreen DVDs instead of widescreen?

The black bars are a personal issue for you. It's essentially an OCD thing. Actual image quality is unaffected.

does that mean 16:10 is not standard according to resolution .... is there no more 1680x1050 in games graphic setting cause i think if someone can play on his monitor native's resolution then there will be no loss in quality ..... and if there are black bars then you'll have no distort (I think black bars exist to prevent distort) ...... I don't know whether should I take:
16:9 and suffer from overkill resolution that will eat my card for breakfast or take 16:10 with 1680x1050 native that seems its not gonna be standard resolution for games ..... correct me if I'm wrong .....

I'm consider 22" or 23" as options.

Pick purely based on resolution. the higher the better. 1920x1080 is better then 1680x1050. 1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080.

 

[raptori]

Pick purely based on resolution. the higher the better. 1920x1080 is better then 1680x1050. 1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080.

well thanks ..... but does playing @1680x1050 on monitor with(native 1920x1080 or 1920x1200) is close to the quality of playing on (native 1680x1050) cause you know native resolution is more sharp and clear.

 

[Wile E]

well thanks ..... but does playing @1680x1050 on monitor with(native 1920x1080 or 1920x1200) is close to the quality of playing on (native 1680x1050) cause you know native resolution is more sharp and clear.

Why would you play at 1650x1050 on a 1920x1080 monitor? Just play the game at 1920x1080.

 

[raptori]

Hardware limitation ..... I don't want my GTX to crawl with 1920X....

 

[Wile E]

Hardware limitation ..... I don't want my GTX to crawl with 1920X....

It shouldn't crawl at 1080p. And even if it did, a few settings adjustments is all that you need to do.

 

[raptori]

what about reading text or internet ...... with my 17" I have to switch to native (1280x1024) although the text is smaller (which I can't up size it) in programs especially ...... and its better than big blurry text or image @1024X768 ...... is it the same with new monitors ..... did you notice that little blurry display if u switch to lower resolution.

 

[Wile E]

what about reading text or internet ...... with my 17" I have to switch to native (1280x1024) although the text is smaller (which I can't up size it) in programs especially ...... and its better than big blurry text or image @1024X768 ...... is it the same with new monitors ..... did you notice that little blurry display if u switch to lower resolution.

Yes, if you do not use native, it gets blurry.

And yes you can make the text bigger, tho it works the best in Windows 7.

 

[Mussels]

does that mean 16:10 is not standard according to resolution .... is there no more 1680x1050 in games graphic setting cause i think if someone can play on his monitor native's resolution then there will be no loss in quality ..... and if there are black bars then you'll have no distort (I think black bars exist to prevent distort) ...... I don't know whether should I take:
16:9 and suffer from overkill resolution that will eat my card for breakfast or take 16:10 with 1680x1050 native that seems its not gonna be standard resolution for games ..... correct me if I'm wrong .....

I'm consider 22" or 23" as options.

as an example, company of heroes has two UI's - one 4:3 and one 16:9

If you run on a 16:10 resolution, the in game 3D stuff (units and such) all look fine, while the pre-rendered "2D" elements like the UI, are stretched - the mini map goes from a circle to a slight egg shape, for example.

Black bars are a personal issue. The stretching is not. its a loss of quality. I dont care if others are too blind to see it, but i see it so i care.


So many games are console ports these days, and consoles are made for 16:9.

 

[Hayder_Master]

Yes, if you do not use native, it gets blurry.

And yes you can make the text bigger, tho it works the best in Windows 7.

as an example, company of heroes has two UI's - one 4:3 and one 16:9

If you run on a 16:10 resolution, the in game 3D stuff (units and such) all look fine, while the pre-rendered "2D" elements like the UI, are stretched - the mini map goes from a circle to a slight egg shape, for example.

Black bars are a personal issue. The stretching is not. its a loss of quality. I dont care if others are too blind to see it, but i see it so i care.



So many games are console ports these days, and consoles are made for 16:9.

16:9 looks some kind win here so i want to ask why technology going for more wide resolutions i see 16:10 looks well (for me) i don't know if i see it from different eyes.

so what's next 16:7

 

[Completely Bonkers]

21:9 is next up in your living room. 21:9 is "real cinema" format. 16:9 is completely a bogus consumer format. No hollywood films or movies are recorded in that aspect. The only devices that record in 16:9 "HD" format are consumer videocams and some TV cameras designed specifically for 16:9 broadcast. But films. No.

 

[Mussels]

21:9 is next up in your living room. 21:9 is "real cinema" format. 16:9 is completely a bogus consumer format. No hollywood films or movies are recorded in that aspect. The only devices that record in 16:9 "HD" format are consumer videocams and some TV cameras designed specifically for 16:9 broadcast. But films. No.

films were.

its only since bluray, that they moved to the wide aspect ratio (and every movie seems to have a different ratio, with maybe 1 in 5 being back in 16:9)

 

[pr0n Inspector]

films were.

its only since bluray, that they moved to the wide aspect ratio (and every movie seems to have a different ratio, with maybe 1 in 5 being back in 16:9)

Are you serious?

 

[Mussels]

sorry, should have said wideR


I'm yet to see a DVD thats not either really old and 4:3, or 16:9

 

[Hayder_Master]

i see games not look well with much wide , anyway im think gonna use other device maybe for gaming not a screen , i always see in news some kind of device wear in head like helmet for real gaming but i don't know how much cost i think it is too much expensive maybe more than 42' LCD price

 

[pr0n Inspector]

sorry, should have said wideR


I'm yet to see a DVD thats not either really old and 4:3, or 16:9

Big budget movie DVDs are often in 2.35:1 anamorphic long before Blu-ray. Either R4 DVDs are really behind the times or you just weren't interested in movies that have 2.35:1 DVDs.

 

[Mussels]

you just weren't interested in movies that have 2.35:1 DVDs.

That is quite possible.

 

[Wile E]

films were.

its only since bluray, that they moved to the wide aspect ratio (and every movie seems to have a different ratio, with maybe 1 in 5 being back in 16:9)

No, you are wrong. Film cameras have recorded in wider than 16:9 from day one. Everything not in the wider aspect has been pan and scanned or shot on a lower quality 16:9 digital camera, or been cgi.