kompulsive
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2008
- Messages
- 355
Ok, I'm officially sold.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
None that I've seen as long as you're running the native resolution and using high quality media. I do see a little bit watching some low-def streams like Hulu but then again you see those on a CRT also... But so far, movies rock on this, generally speaking. Especially with it's native 16:9 format.
movies rock on this, generally speaking. Especially with it's native 16:9 format
Nice brief overview.
Possibly it will grow into a review in the future.
Several comments to dilute this sweet story before it crystallizes into hard stone sugar...
1. There may be no review without measurements (min/max brightness of black and white, color accuracy, contrast ratio, contrast ratio change, etc.). No measurements = no review.
2. There may be no review of the monitor called "True HD" without video support test.
3. If you take a monitor for a test, you have to actually test it. But you have provided your subjective observations instead, plus several pictures to show that BL is uniform.
4. If you think that input lag measurement is enough for a monitor "test", my friend, you are in the wrong way.
5. You don't have to thank BenQ. This is BenQ who has to thank you for participating in their promotion campaign.
6. IMHO - Although I have posted hundreds of monitor pics, I would never put my logo across the whole image as if it is a copyright protected masterpiece.
7. There is no monitor without a basic scalar: 1:1, Aspect, Full. Otherwise it's an "under"monitor or "pre"monitor, etc. Scalar is within the first things to report as soon as you test a monitor.
Look at this:
This is how a typical HD widescreen movie frame looks at a conventional 1920x1200 monitor vs so-called "True HD" with the same diagonal.
As you see, the difference is miserable.
Literally, there is nothing to talk about.
BTW! If you like splitting hair, the vertical size of 1920x1080 image is actually bigger, so opposite to your apologetical thesis, vertical colorshift on "True HD" will be more significant !! .
"True HD" is just another marketing grimace to heat the public interest to their product, to keep it boiling and smelling.
To cut a 1920x1080 piece of a TN sheet is too little to make HD true.
Better try would be a monitor with 24/50/60Hz support, correct colors without colorshift and dithering, absolute viewing angles, calibratability to HD specs, advanced scalar to manage HD formats, etc.
"True HD" in the form of slightly stretched TN is just more pasta hanging on ears of naive housewives.
Nothing personal. Other than these comments - good job.
Thank you for your input.
difference between 1080 and 1200 vertical resolution
I have no idea what your image there is trying to show.. If it's trying to show the difference from 1920x1080 (16:9) to 1920x1200 (16:10), it's not even close to accurate...
Not so easy. Really true HD is 1920x1080 filled with quality.Quite easy to get 'True HD'
Of course, it's up to you.When someone offers me to test something for free, and then offers to let me keep the item at a significant discount if I so choose, personally, I think that deserves a very large thank you.
Of course, 1920x1080 downgrades monitor value in general.
Of course, garbage 1920x1200 monitors with poor scaling are numerous. But making a garbage monitor better is a poor excuse for cutting off a part of it. Same as if a surgeon helps a patient with one leg shorter than another by cutting the healthy leg to make them even - so the problem is gone.
Remember that 1920x1080 native resolution itself does NOT guarantee proper 1080p reproduction. A monitor can suffer from overscan. In this case there will be no 1080p on 1080p monitor.
Finally, the result depends on how video support is implemented in terms of monitor electronics.
So we returned to the beginning - to get a good picture you'll need a monitor with electronics regardless 1920x1200 or 1920x1080.
But with 1920x1080 you'll stay with a part of a panel cut off.
Add neglegible difference in really visible movie frame.
Pasta on ears.
As mentioned, it shows a typical widescreen movie frame which is 2.4:1. This is not the whole screen, this is the movie frame itself. Obviously the difference in size is negligible.
Not so easy. Really true HD is 1920x1080 filled with quality.
Of course, it's up to you.
I would say "No, thank you."
Have a look at their website.
But I still absolutely do not understand what you're trying to state with that image. It is still inaccurate from anything I can think of for a pixel scale cause they are not the same width.
And what praytell would I be looking for? Their website is very pretty. Lot of pretty colors. Ohh and my review is linked there. Sweet! I need to thank them again. ... it's because even though basically I am advertising for them, they in-turn are advertising for me.
Be more attentive.
You have to understand that if you want to be a competent reviewer, not just manufacturer's ads reteller.
So if I used one of these on my 360, 1920x1080 would fill the screen without black bars right? Nicely? I'm using the VGA cable, which says it supports up to 1920x1080.
Yes, it will work properly just as any 1080 HD TV would.
So if I used one of these on my 360, 1920x1080 would fill the screen without black bars right? Nicely? I'm using the VGA cable, which says it supports up to 1920x1080.
Does anyone have one of these and an Xbox 360? How is it?
Of course, 1920x1080 downgrades monitor value in general.
Of course, garbage 1920x1200 monitors with poor scaling are numerous. But making a garbage monitor better is a poor excuse for cutting off a part of it. Same as if a surgeon helps a patient with one leg shorter than another by cutting the healthy leg to make them even - so the problem is gone.
Remember that 1920x1080 native resolution itself does NOT guarantee proper 1080p reproduction. A monitor can suffer from overscan. In this case there will be no 1080p on 1080p monitor
Finally, the result depends on how video support is implemented in terms of monitor electronics.
So we returned to the beginning - to get a good picture you'll need a monitor with electronics regardless 1920x1200 or 1920x1080.
But with 1920x1080 you'll stay with a part of a panel cut off.
Add neglegible difference in really visible movie frame.
Pasta on ears.
Huh?
Exactly, dont listen to albovin. Just another panel nazi spreading more anti-TN propaganda and upset 16:9 has hit his precious IPS panels yetisn't it up to them to decide if that's worth it?
I'm not sure why overscan continues to be mentioned, because it can affect a monitor of either ratio.
isn't it up to them to decide if that's worth it?
EDIT: Scaling options seem to be very limited, as I haven't found any options for it on the monitor. It's not an issue for me because I play everything at 1920*1080 and whatever consoles I get later will be running at 720P.
Having had this monitor for a couple of weeks now I'm still very happy with it. The srgb color preset gives me very good color balance in all apps and movies and I can't speak for the VGA input, but if I play at 1280*720 via DVI there's no apparent overscanning or anything like it going on. I changed my desktop to it and maximized a windows and all edges looked just like at 1980*1080. As far as budget monitors go I think this is by far the best I have used, because the issues with TN are less apparent because it isn't as tall as my old Hp w2408h 16:10 TN monitor. During the next few weeks a friend might be bringing over his ps3, so I can report back on using that via hdmi, but don't expect that anytime soon.
EDIT: Scaling options seem to be very limited, as I haven't found any options for it on the monitor. It's not an issue for me because I play everything at 1920*1080 and whatever consoles I get later will be running at 720P.
Of course, 1920x1080 downgrades monitor value in general.
FitzRoy said:Huh?
Get acquainted with monitors.
Overscan is a feature for TVs and desease for monitors.
Don't mix up TVs and monitors.
albovin said:Comparison pictures (above in this thread) show clearly that with 16:9 you get zero to nothing more in size but lose a lot in flexibility and functionality.
albovin said:If your concern is about proper scaling, buy good monitors, not trash. By the way, all 16:9 so far are cr@ppy TNs.
With 16:9 you just have a part of your screen cut off.
Try to understand that picture quality depends on monitor electronics and panel technology, not the format.
You're looking at it ass-backwards. With 16:10 you just have an arbitrary addition of pixels that guarantees black borders on 16:9 standard material. Why is that good? Why would I want that? That incurred cost is far greater than the real estate benefit because 1080p is PLENTY of vertical resolution. Ask anyone using a 1680x1050 monitor.
And why aren't you criticizing 16:10 for being a cut-down version of 16:11? Because 16:11 was never chosen to be manufactured? Immaterial to your logic that any cut is a loss and therefore unacceptable.
Duh, but there's this thing called modern entertainment formats and they are designed for a 16:9 frame. Anything else and there WILL be black borders on at least one side in order to retain the original proportions of the art or film being displayed. Or worse, the firmware will have been rushed or neglected and you'll get a distorted stretch. How many poor suckers have been the victim of this for a piss-ant increase in real estate? Enough.
Duh, but there's this thing called modern entertainment formats and they are designed for a 16:9 frame.