BenQ Intros Two LED-Backlit HD Displays

[crazyeyesreaper]

not sure if anyone noticed but tiger direct has been using an HD plus moniker for awhile now lol seems they had the same idea

 

[Wile E]

What is so friggin impossible to understand that I DON'T CARE!!!!!!!!!



Realy? How about this:

Both are the same vertical resolution of 1920

x1200:

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4486/nfs1920x1200.jpg

x1080

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4523/nfs1920x1080.jpg

I don't know, but I kinda like to see the the the whole mirror or at least some more....



Wha! You're so smart! Any 1200 screen can push 1080!! No $hit! How??? By stretching the image or by putting black bars. Either case is useless. Sure I can do "shit-tons more on a computer", for me the most important ones are also to watch movies (here the 1080 screen wins always), edit documents (the 1080 screen is also a winner since I can have 3 A4 docs on the same time on the screen), 3D modeling (I find an 1080 screen much better since I can have the part one half of the screen and the draft on the other part), etc, etc.

Like I've said, you guys are OBSESSED with pixels, resolution, etc, and don't see the real advantages of ultra-wide screens.
And this is coming from a guy(..me) who has a 27" 1920x1200 monitor back home. But to be honest, I would have wish to have an ultra-wide one...

Setting the screen to 1080 gives black bars. So what? You still see the same thing. It hurts the image in no way, shape or form. A 1200 screen can do 1080 with no losses, plus it can still do more. It's better in every way.

 

[TAViX]

Again, in game aspect ratios mean nothing. You simply have to look for a modding tool to fix it or, gasp, you can change the resolution on a true 24" monitor . I know, it's shocking. But if you want a game that truely supports 24" monitor they are out there. For example Boaderlands:

[url]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/HD/th_Borderlands_16_10.jpg[/URL]
16:10


[url]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/HD/th__16_9.jpg[/URL]
16:9

Honestly, you really don't need 16:10 inside the cockpit of a car (per say). However, other games do support 16:10:
[url]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/HD/th_dirt2_16_10_19x20_pt2.jpg[/URL]
16:10


[url]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/HD/th_dirt2_16_9_19x80_pt2.jpg[/URL]
16:9

As you can see, games can support it. But the problem is that game developers have the tendency to alter the native aspect ratio. That's why places like WSF was created and moded programs made available. Heck, the last time I recall a real aspect ratio controversy was Bioshock. In which the developers themselves admitted fault and fixed the issue and even gave the creator of the wide screen mod program a video card (or something or another). In any case, it should be common knowledge by now that some game developers have a tendency to treat a PC monitor's aspect ratio as the red-headed stepchild.

LOL. You're screenshots just show the basic example of the worst possible game implementation. If you think this is right, think of what would happen if you want to play one of those games in a 2 or 3 monitor setup; I mean if they crop the game horizontally....LOL! How can you even say that aberration that those games support wide-screen format???? Actually they don't support it well at all!!!!!!! Or you think cropping horizontally is the right way to do it?!?!

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!

http://imk.cx/pc/widescreenfixer/

Setting the screen to 1080 gives black bars. So what? You still see the same thing. It hurts the image in no way, shape or form. A 1200 screen can do 1080 with no losses, plus it can still do more. It's better in every way.

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?

 

[Wile E]

LOL. You're screenshots just show the basic example of the worst possible game implementation. If you think this is right, think of what would happen if you want to play one of those games in a 2 or 3 monitor setup; I mean if they crop the game horizontally....LOL! How can you even say that aberration that those games support wide-screen format???? Actually they don't support it well at all!!!!!!! Or you think cropping horizontally is the right way to do it?!?!





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?

Like I said, I would buy a 1440 display if they made them, and they were as affordable as 16:10 monitors. So what if there are black bars? That doesn't matter. All that matters is that it displays everything that a 1080p monitor does when you set it to 1080p. You lose nothing, but gain a couple of black bars. The black bars don't alter the image quality, so your argument is 100% moot. Then , when you are done with the game, you switch back to 1200 or 1440, and enjoy a hell of a lot more real estate. best of both worlds, wider 1080p viewing angles, but more screen space when you need it.

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.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

LOL. You're screenshots just show the basic example of the worst possible game implementation.

No, it shows both sides of your one sided opinion. Clearly, 16:10 is the better option.

If you think this is right, think of what would happen if you want to play one of those games in a 2 or 3 monitor setup; I mean if they crop the game horizontally....LOL!

I do think it's fine.

How can you even say that aberration that those games support wide-screen format???? Actually they don't support it well at all!!!!!!! Or you think cropping horizontally is the right way to do it?!?!

So, when the situation is reversed your opinion completely changes. Typical yet I don't believe you release that I caused you to do it. This is one way to get you to understand and unwilling admit something that I've said throughout this thread. In game aspect ratios mean nothing. It all depends on the developer not the actual implementation of the monitor. Now that you see it for yourself and are forced to admit it now debunks your theory. Now lets not get it twisted, if you prefer 16:9 that's your thing. But it certainly has it limitations. One in particular is clearly seen if a developer decides to support 16:10.

 

[TAViX]

No, it shows both sides of your one sided opinion. Clearly, 16:10 is the better option.


I do think it's fine.


So, when the situation is reversed your opinion completely changes. Typical yet I don't believe you release that I caused you to do it. This is one way to get you to understand and unwilling admit something that I've said throughout this thread. In game aspect ratios mean nothing. It all depends on the developer not the actual implementation of the monitor. Now that you see it for yourself and are forced to admit it now debunks your theory. Now lets not get it twisted, if you prefer 16:9 that's your thing. But it certainly has it limitations. One in particular is clearly seen if a developer decides to support 16:10.

Bro, for once stop being a fanboy, and use your brain!!!!!! In your screenshots when using a 16:9 aspect ratio the vertical view is cropped, while in screens I provided, with proper implementation in those games, nothing is cropped, but ADDED!!! What's so hard to understand?????? This is what widescreenfix program is doing for those bad games.......dah!

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Bro, for once stop being a fanboy, and use your brain!!!!!! In your screenshots when using a 16:9 aspect ratio the vertical view is cropped, while in screens I provided, with proper implementation in those games, nothing is cropped, but ADDED!!! What's so hard to understand?????? This is what widescreenfix program is doing for those bad games.......dah!

All this shows is that when you are confronted with solid facts you get upset and resort to ad hominem. No matter, I believe I've made my point albeit I don't believe you fully understood my post(s).

 

[Mussels]

East at least understands the issue.

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.

 

[TAViX]

All this shows is that when you are confronted with solid facts you get upset and resort to ad hominem. No matter, I believe I've made my point albeit I don't believe you fully understood my post(s).

Heh. I wasn't getting upset, haha! I was...intrigued by your "solid facts" that are actually not solid at all. But never-mind, everybody is free to believe whatever he wants to believe, that's why it's a free "wire" . Enjoy.

 

[Wile E]

Heh. I wasn't getting upset, haha! I was...intrigued by your "solid facts" that are actually not solid at all. But never-mind, everybody is free to believe whatever he wants to believe, that's why it's a free "wire" . Enjoy.

P.S.

Here, check this out:
http://www.newegg.com/product/CategoryIntelligenceArticle.aspx?articleId=54

What exactly does any of that prove? Absolutely nothing.

 

[pr0n Inspector]

Heh. I wasn't getting upset, haha! I was...intrigued by your "solid facts" that are actually not solid at all. But never-mind, everybody is free to believe whatever he wants to believe, that's why it's a free "wire" . Enjoy.

P.S.

Here, check this out:
http://www.newegg.com/product/CategoryIntelligenceArticle.aspx?articleId=54

Poor little boy got his mind raped by the marketing people.

 

[TAViX]

Poor little boy got his mind raped by the marketing people.

Little boy? hmm. I bet that you don't have years of life as many as I have of school. Anyways, I won't continue arguing with narrow minded people, believe what you want, I don't care...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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?

Compare these two pics of pics of GTA IV. Note that GTAIV looks perfectly fine at 1080 and 1200 if the aspect ratio value is set correctly. Then note how 1080 image on a 1200 resolution takes up more of the screen while maintaining aspect ratio. A 1200 image on a 1200 screen causes the image to be scaled down in order to maintain the aspect ratio.

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.

 

[Mussels]

even your screenshots are showing that the 1080 resolution image has a wider viewing angle - look at the X on the wall in the poster - and on the opposite side, we can even see the beginnings over another window.

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.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

That's just how the developers programmed it. With an increase of resolution, they should pull the viewpoint farther away from the character increasing the field of view.

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.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

East at least understands the issue.

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.

I have not used 3rd party programs in those pics

 

[Mussels]

I have not used 3rd party programs in those pics

i said WILLING to - you made the argument that you can always use a fix program on the games that dont follow the aspect ratio rules. i refuse to put up with that, and would rather buy a screen that works in the first place.

 

[pr0n Inspector]

Little boy? hmm. I bet that you don't have years of life as many as I have of school. Anyways, I won't continue arguing with narrow minded people, believe what you want, I don't care...

Anyone who screams constantly is a little boy.

 

[Mussels]

and anyone who calls people names gets in trouble.

we can have heated discussions, but name calling is a nono.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Even if you prefer the lower resolution one can do just that as others have mentioned with a true 24" monitor. Besides, developers have screwed up 16:9 as well. So there is really no escaping it by going to a lower resolution just to game on. You can either:
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

 

[EnergyFX]

I don't get TAViX' use of the term "ultra-widescreen" to describe 1080.

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.

... Any 1200 screen can push 1080!! No $hit! How??? By stretching the image or by putting black bars. Either case is useless. Sure I can do "shit-tons more on a computer", for me the most important ones are also to watch movies (here the 1080 screen wins always), edit documents (the 1080 screen is also a winner since I can have 3 A4 docs on the same time on the screen), 3D modeling (I find an 1080 screen much better since I can have the part one half of the screen and the draft on the other part), etc, etc.

Like I've said, you guys are OBSESSED with pixels, resolution, etc, and don't see the real advantages of ultra-wide screens.
And this is coming from a guy(..me) who has a 27" 1920x1200 monitor back home. But to be honest, I would have wish to have an ultra-wide one...

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.

 

[DaveK]

There is black bars at the top and bottom of 1080p movies on a 1920x1200 screen, therefore 1920x1200 = more.

What's the problem?

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

1080p is simply better for the real world. Gaming and movies. I hate black bars, on 360 or pc games. They actually decrease the size of the image you view. I could just pick a 16:10 res for the pc games at least right? Not really, since most games are bad console ports this crops the image. Either way you cut it 1200 is worse for all but a few games. As for movies, despite a number of newer films now being shot in 21:9 most videos, tv, and less recent films stick to 16:9.

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.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Some of this is down right laughable, lol. Anyway let me break it down for you. The reason why you are seeing 16:9 on cheap panels is because it's a huge cost savings. Like someone else pointed out it's a bean counting thing. Now in order for some to understand this you have to understand how they are made. Manufacturers create large glass substrate sheets onto which LCD components can be layered.

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!!!!

 

[TAViX]

There is black bars at the top and bottom of 1080p movies on a 1920x1200 screen, therefore 1920x1200 = more.

What's the problem?

Wasted space, and annoying black bars??

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.

No brother, YOU didn't understand anything. Like I've said before, you're obsessed with pixels, resolution & stuff, you're blinded by those number and cannot see the true advantages of a 16:9 monitor over a 16:10 one or 4:3. You and the other guys refuse to understand or to comprehend that the wider the screen is the more advantages you have. That's the reason they invented the wide screen, that's the reason the invented now HD TV, that's the reason all the movies are shot in wide screen. If you prefer having a box on you desk, "just because it has more pixels or more horizontal resolution", it's your problem.
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.