kompulsive
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2008
- Messages
- 355
Ok, I'm officially sold.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
BenQ E2400HD Review
- Thread starter SirGCal
- Start date
Santa Claus
n00b
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 40
Could someone please check ingame how good the image is when gaming at a much lower resolution than native?
So, this doesn't have 1:1 pixel mapping? From what I can (attempt to) read in the German version of the manual, it doesn't have it. I'm still trying to decide between this and the G2400WD.
I'm really torn on the aspect ratio issue. On one hand, I will be using a PS3 and watching some movies on it. On the other hand, I think 16:10 would be better for normal computer use (web browsing, mostly). I'm leaning towards 16:10, but if this newer E2400HD is technically a better monitor than the G2400WD, I might get this one.
BTW, what is with BenQ's manuals not being available online? I had to go to their Europe site to see manuals for the V2400W and this one. At least the V2400W manual is available in English. I can't find the G2400WD manual anywhere, but I guess it doesn't matter if it's the same panel as the V2400W. I really like to check out the manual before a big purchase like this.
I'm really torn on the aspect ratio issue. On one hand, I will be using a PS3 and watching some movies on it. On the other hand, I think 16:10 would be better for normal computer use (web browsing, mostly). I'm leaning towards 16:10, but if this newer E2400HD is technically a better monitor than the G2400WD, I might get this one.
BTW, what is with BenQ's manuals not being available online? I had to go to their Europe site to see manuals for the V2400W and this one. At least the V2400W manual is available in English. I can't find the G2400WD manual anywhere, but I guess it doesn't matter if it's the same panel as the V2400W. I really like to check out the manual before a big purchase like this.
kompulsive
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2008
- Messages
- 355
Eh, I'm pretty sure it does have 1:1 pixel mapping.
Well, Anandtech's review doesn't list 1:1 either. There's a picture of the scaling options here: http://www.anandtech.com/GalleryImage.aspx?id=4430
Note that 1920x1080 material should be 1:1 anyway with overscan disabled.
Note that 1920x1080 material should be 1:1 anyway with overscan disabled.
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.
albovin, you are confusing the hell out of people. The only difference between 1080 and 1200 vertical resolution is 120px more unoccupied space. Since games and tv use 1080p, specifically, you want a 1080p native. A 1200p native will require special scaling support that most monitors fuck up in some form or another. I've seen monitors of that res vertically stretch 1080p and 720p 16:9 material to its oddball 16:10 resolution because its internal scalar is too stupid to retain the aspect, distorting and blurring the image. 1080p eliminates that possibility completely and its about damn time 5:4 and 16:10 monitors bit the dust. They were BS deviations that invited all kinds of scaling trouble from 4:3 and 16:9 standards. That people actually whine about the change on this forum as though they're losing something or it's just a marketing trick unworthy of their attention makes me want to go postal.
1) If you want a professional review with color accuracy,lab result black levels and such, go to a professional site like Anandtech. They have that information. This is not a tech review, this is an end-user review. Completely different. But for your information, I did do a color gambit test, black levels, pixel check, etc. The camera I have is crap and can't show it all. So there are no pictures for a lot of those tests but I did post the links to very useful images to use to do those tests yourself if you choose. I just typed up the results from the end-user's standpoint.
2) Well for the record for those wondering, I've been watching a lot of movies on it lately and it performs beautifully. Honestly, it would be hard to find a 1080p TV this size, this price that would do this nice of a job. Ohh wait, this basically is.. Again, pictures from me wouldn't do it justice cause of the crappy camera.
3) OK, I guess I somehow photo shopped the Display lag tests, tested games, applications, movies, and other real-world stuff real people do in my mind, etc. OK.. Thanks for clearing that up for me...
4) Well obviously you're the uber-professional. I'm just a nobody... Perhaps you should work for Anandtech or Toms Hardware...
5) Uhhh.. OK... If you say so.. but I am not a rude person by nature. 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. I am not someone who would 'expect' a company to do that for a 'general person'. I would expect Anand, Toms, etc. to get hardware to test like clockwork and they probably don't have to thank them. But I do, I did, and I will again if the opportunity presents itself. And [H]Forum also deserves the thank you for being the place that organized the event. Without either one of them, I wouldn't have been given this wonderful opportunity. But if you still don't think that deserves a thank you... Well, then I guess when you get your chance, don't thank em. I'm not like that.
6) Great.. Good for you.. Happy for ya... Why should I care? For me, I have a tiny little program that resizes, silkscreens, etc. all of my images on the fly for my reviews. I do silkscreen my technical images because I've already had a few thousand pirated from older various projects. If you don't like it... Sorry. Don't look at em.
7) Again, obviously your the pro... Yes sir... Thank you sir! (Did I mention already that all of that very technical stuff was already covered across multiple tech reviews? Just making sure...
)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.
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... And as you said, nothing personal...
The two formats are exactly the same width in pixel size... 16:10 has 120 more pixels on the height axis. I guess from a point of view, making it less of a widescreen than the 16:9.. Those aspects stand for units wide to units high (16 units wide by 9 or 10 units high with 120 pixels being one unit). Obviously the 1920x1200 is the physically larger monitor even from the simple standpoint that those represent the actual pixels the screen handles. And last time I checked, 1920 = 1920 and 1200 > 1080. So, if you're assuming as you said that they were theoretically cut from the same TN panel then the 16:9 would indeed be smaller in height than the 16:10.
And as for cutting the panel, if a standard TN panel is truly 1920x1200 pixels, then cutting 120 pixels off the height give you 1080 pixels... So ya... Quite easy to get 'True HD'.
You are welcome for my input though. It is a user-level review basically explaining my experience and some basic tests I did to confirm somethings I wanted to do. I also do not have a high quality enough camera to show snapshot images of MANY of the other tests I've done. Sorry but my $150 Canon just doesn't cut it when taking pictures of an LCD. The CCD in it makes them look so much worse than they really are. Basically, there are plenty of places out there doing full tech reviews on them that just another one isn't necessary or helpful. User reviews however often fill in where the tech reviews leave off giving real-world use opinions and issues a place to be heard. Items like the Customer Service section in my report. You don't very often see something like that from the big tech reviews, and if you did, you'd probably think "sure they got good service, they are (put your review site here) and they are reviewing it. (manufacturer) obviously wants a good customer service review so ya they jumped all over it".
Thanks for the comments!.
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.
By no means I want to discourage you. Keep going.
Downgrade? you have a very opinionated view of what 'should' be. It is not a downgrade what so ever. There were enough people out there barking for a proper aspect wide screen for general use that companies retooled to make the 16:9 format. And you keep referring to it's shorter size like it's a penalty.. honestly, in my opinioin, it's how they should have been done from the beginning. I think the 16:10 monitors are bloated pigs. I use a few at work but not on my primary home gaming/work/HTPC system. They are good for computer monitors, that's really about it. 16:9 monitors have so much more potential to use it all without stretching images or what not. And if you think those 120 pixels are not noticable when stretching, you must be blind. 16:10 is 111% the height of 16:9. It would also be accurate to say that 16:9 is 90% the height of 16:10. Either way, that's a pretty huge difference.
And there's nothing garbage about this monitor (ok, the speakers)... Your reference is in poor taste and inaccurate. No this is not a high-dollar IPS panel. However, for an inexpensive TN panel, it is extremely good and of high quality. Your first mistake is to assume that all TN panels are the same. Your second mistake is to assume that all TN panels are garbage. TN panels have come far since their introduction and they do have an edge over the more expensive panels in at least one area (lag). And, I'd rather spend a few hundred on a very good, no lag TN panel than near a grand for an IPS panel with lag just for perfect colors. Sorry, but especially in today's economy, I go for the best bank for my dollar. And that's not the high prices of IPSs today. Once they mature more and their price and lag come down, then perhaps.
2.4:1 is just one of the anamorphic formats. There are a ton of actual real values from 2.33:1, 2:35:1, etc. And many movies are still made with lesser formats. That's all chosen by the director/producer and what he's looking for in his movie. 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.
This image shows the real difference in pixel space (or the extra that a 16:10 format includes) for the two formats. To see what an anamorphic movie would look like different between the two, insert the proper sized box for your ratio into the green box, that's how it would look on any 16:9 viewing system with what ever extra height as bars top and bottom. The 16:10 will have larger bars (by 120 pixels total).
So stop watching junk on it, watch something with quality...
So you don't like it. That's entirely your choice. I specifically wanted a 16:9 so I was waiting for them. I do not like the stupid 'have to be different' 16:10 format computers started using years ago. That is your prerogative. I prefer the wider screen and the convention now used by home theater systems and entertainment consoles.
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. (and if you even have to ask 'why would you thank them again'... it's because even though basically I am advertising for them, they in-turn are advertising for me. And since between BenQ and me, I am absolutely the very little guy, in many respects, they are doing me the favor of having my site linked on theirs.) And while I'm used to seeing my name in corporate stuff (especially at work) it's nice when it's not a company I work for.
I don't see the point in arguing about this. It all comes down to personal preference. Anyone who does a modicum of research should be able to see that the 16:9 monitor has less vertical resolution. However, I can see the perceived benefit to having a monitor that shows no black bars in console games and reduces the black bars in movies. This is a subjective impression; it doesn't matter whether the image area is any bigger or smaller. To some people, it just looks better if there are no black bars or they are at least smaller.
My justification for 16:10 was that by the time the taskbar, title bar, and toolbars/browser tabs are taken into account, I end up with about a 16:9 area anyway. On a 16:9 monitor, what I would be left with would just be too wide, especially since many websites don't expand to widescreen properly and leave lots of dead space on the sides. That's where the extra vertical resolution comes in handy.
On the other hand, if I was to buy a monitor exclusively for games and movies, I would definitely choose 16:9. To each his own.
My justification for 16:10 was that by the time the taskbar, title bar, and toolbars/browser tabs are taken into account, I end up with about a 16:9 area anyway. On a 16:9 monitor, what I would be left with would just be too wide, especially since many websites don't expand to widescreen properly and leave lots of dead space on the sides. That's where the extra vertical resolution comes in handy.
On the other hand, if I was to buy a monitor exclusively for games and movies, I would definitely choose 16:9. To each his own.
Be more attentive.
You have to understand that if you want to be a competent reviewer, not just manufacturer's ads reteller.
Your review is linked! Wow!
Anything else?
Don't you see simple geometry manipulation?
To impress housewives they don't hesitate to compare 24" 16:9 with an image which is actually equal to 22" 16:10 !!
Even more. They use cropped image to ullustrate 16:10 screen.
Even more. Their animation crops "16:10 image" further.
I find this sort of ads inappropriate.
That's why I wouldn't participate in that.
Below:
I added the correct 16:10 image with the same diagonal for comparison (Left):
This is how a typical widescreen movie looks in comparison:
Best monitors can give you a choice of scaling blu-ray (and everything else) to your taste.
Some movies benefit from panoramic view, so you keep them panoramic.
Dramas benefit from closer view, so you can enlarge the picture (eliminating black bars completely or partially - your choice) to focus on central part, still well wide screen (1.6:1).
xellos2099alpha
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,733
If I am going to choose a monitor for pc game, movie and maybe future 360, should I choose E2200hd, E2400HD or LG L227WTG-PF?
I plan to get a 22 inch one but 24 inch is not that much more on ebay, like 60 more with the cashback.
I plan to get a 22 inch one but 24 inch is not that much more on ebay, like 60 more with the cashback.
davismatson10
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 115
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.
Look who's talking about who isn't listening... But you're just trolling and being extremely disrespectful and condescending as well as inaccurate so I'm done with you...
Yes, it will work properly just as any 1080 HD TV would.
False statement.
Don't mix up TVs and monitors.
It may or may not work properly on 1920x1080 or 1920x1200monitor depending on how well video support is implemented on a particular model.
You cannot say yes or no without a test.
Anything regarding images/video from external devices can be said ONLY after proper testing.
1920x1080 resolution itself guarantee nothing.
A monitor may or may not suffer from overscan/cropping/distortion regardless it's native resolution.
The quality of video support depends on electronics quality, not on resolution.
Basing on BenQ models prehistory, most likely this model supports video. But you cannot be 100% sure without the test.
davismatson10
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 115
Does anyone have one of these and an Xbox 360? How is it?
I'll be able to tell you in about 3 hours. I just got my second E2400HD today. Hopefully this one will work unlike the first one I had to send back.
Huh?
That would be the proper procedure. What is your infatuation with 16:10 anyway? Do you support 2050 or 1920 horizontal resolution? You can deviate from standards all day on either side, it's of no benefit because there is no tv program or game that uses 16:10 or 5:4 ratios. All it does is increase desktop space in exchange for scaling issues and gauranteed black bars anytime you want to display 16:9 material. You want a monitor like that? Fine, buy one, they're still out there. Go picket manufacturers to make a 1994x1500 monitor for all I care, but the fact remains that this is the first time those aforementioned issues have been defeatable.
I disagree with this misinformation, please provide links with detail analysis on any modern computer monitor to substantiate claims of overscan. Overscan is generally applied by default on lcd TELEVISIONS, not computer monitors. Furthermore, any quality television set will have an option to disable this if you want 1:1 mapping for television of games. The reason it's employed at all is to hide carrier information lines that look like distortion, so if you disable it, you may see them.
Right, shit happens everywhere, including on your precious 16:10 monitors. The difference is, it's a lot more likely to happen on those because the monitor has to be smart enough to deal with non-native ratios gracefully, and since 16:10 is a standard for nothing, EVERYTHING you display on it will need it to be. You want to be an aspect deviant and risk those possibilities and scour forums for an arbitrary real estate difference, be my guest.
Huh.
Get acquainted with monitors.
Overscan is a feature for TVs and desease for monitors.
Don't mix up TVs and monitors.
Overscan and distortion is a norm for analog videoinputs (Component, Composite, S-Video).
There may be overscan on HDMI too. But it's not a problem for a monitor like the Dell 2408 as it has plenty of DVIs with no overscan.
As far as you don't know, BenQ had to release firmware update for it's popular 241W specifically to threat overscan issue.
Examples are many. Study professional reviews. Some of them are not lazy and can give you full info.
The worst case is a monitor with a single digital input in the form of HDMI. If it happens to have an issue with external video support - there will be no cure: Hanns-G 281D distorts HD.
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.
If your concern is about proper scaling, buy good monitors, not trash. By the way, all 16:9 so far are cr@ppy TNs.
Of course, 16:9 TN will get a good part of the market as LLL-monitors.
I'm not sure why overscan continues to be mentioned, because it can affect a monitor of either ratio. My Samsung 226BW overscans and stretches 720p. How about that and all the other 16:10 monitors that don't do aspect scaling? Heck, if resolution is so important, I guess any monitor that's 22 inches or smaller must be trash too.
Although I prefer 16:10 for computer use, I just don't see what's so evil about 16:9. Again, it's not just about the size of the 16:9 image. It's about the perception of the image. Even if it's the same size, some people just want a monitor that allows them to watch movies and play console games in full screen, or closer to it than a 16:10 monitor, even if it means giving up some vertical resolution for computer use. Even if the monitor isn't any cheaper, isn't it up to them to decide if that's worth it?
Although I prefer 16:10 for computer use, I just don't see what's so evil about 16:9. Again, it's not just about the size of the 16:9 image. It's about the perception of the image. Even if it's the same size, some people just want a monitor that allows them to watch movies and play console games in full screen, or closer to it than a 16:10 monitor, even if it means giving up some vertical resolution for computer use. Even if the monitor isn't any cheaper, isn't it up to them to decide if that's worth it?
Saviorself
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 9
Exactly, dont listen to albovin. Just another panel nazi spreading more anti-TN propaganda and upset 16:9 has hit his precious IPS panels yet
This is what I am saying.
It may or may not happen to any poorly equipped monitor including 16:9.
Absolutely.
And they should decide.
But they need objective info for the decision.
Ads screaming about "revolutionary" which is LOL, "true HD" which is not more HD than "True 16:10", "no black bars" which is not for wide screen movies, "no distortion" which is up to electronics (not the resolution) and shameless tricks with the use of a smaller size screen for comparison - this marketing foam must be balanced with objective info.
This is what this discussion is about - making informative choice, that simple.
The real facts about cons and pros of 16:9 are already presented in this thread.
davismatson10
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 115
So Mopower? How does it look?
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.
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.
You seem to have missed it.
Look at Display Mode. There must be options for Overscan, Full, 16:9 and 4:3. That sounds promising.
There are only two options for scaling> aspect and full. No 1:1 option is explicitly in this monitor or the E2200HD. 1:1 is enabled when a PC with a video card outputting "centred timings" is used through DVI, so you haven't missed anything. Going from memory it's in the "Picture - advanced" menu. 1:1 is basically useless for consoles as it is, especially a PS3, as most games are 720p.
Overscan control is there when HDMI is selected so either you get 0% overscan or 1% per side (ie. top, bottom, left right) due to slight image zooming. The overscan is useful for cable boxes or broadcast HDTV to remove edge noise from subchannel data...
It's fine with PS3 and HDMI. No overscan, proper aspect ratio at all resolutions (480p, 720p, 1080p) and quite good with 1080i. That part is still pretty good.
Enjoy.
Overscan control is there when HDMI is selected so either you get 0% overscan or 1% per side (ie. top, bottom, left right) due to slight image zooming. The overscan is useful for cable boxes or broadcast HDTV to remove edge noise from subchannel data...
It's fine with PS3 and HDMI. No overscan, proper aspect ratio at all resolutions (480p, 720p, 1080p) and quite good with 1080i. That part is still pretty good.
Enjoy.
TheGooch69
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 633
I'll always stick with BenQ monitors for their incredibly low input lag. The one I have in my sig has been nothing short of phenomenal.
Great review. Thanks for it!
Great review. Thanks for it!
This was a response to your assertion that 1080p monitors lower the monitor's value. Why are you responding with overscan gibberish that is a moot point in the argument since it could afflict either ratio equally?
albovin said:
What flexibility and functionality? You mean guaranteed black bars or vertical distortion when displaying 16:9 content? Oh, gee, wow, where do I sign up, albovin? I'll take seven.
albovin said:
That's an absurdly incorrect presumption. Haven't you read these forums? Some of the most expensive PVA and IPS monitors have 1:1 scaling issues and horrific input lag. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why, they're marketed to people who do photo-work. Yet you assume that because of their price and increased color quality, they automatically must be better for 16:9 movies, tv, and games. Dee dee dee, correlation failure.
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.
You are discussing same thing over and over with yourself.
Pictures provided.
Nothing to talk about.
If you like 16:9 - good for you.
If you don't understand the benefit of larger screen with higher resolution - it's your own problem.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about "modern entertainment". I too many times had to mess around with games that offered no widescreen support much less proper widescreen support and I don't need your pansy 16:9 format to give me yet more headaches. So the industry can take 16:9 and shove it where the Sun does not shine.
What, you think they are switching to 16:9 to please you? Pah, stop fooling yourself. It's cheaper, no more, no less. Smaller panels = $$ profit.
If 16:9 is so perfect then why did widescreen PC monitors / laptops began as 16:10?
TheBlueChanell
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 4,658
16:9 is a more natural aspect ratio.
16:10 has been the norm but now with HD TV's being 1080p, I for one would prefer to have a monitor/TV that is 16:9.
When 17/19" LCD's came around they used a 4:5 aspect ratio which was extremely awkward.
I can't believe all of you people who are complaining and saying that 16:9 is "cheap" because they use less screen.
IT'S A NATURAL FUCKING ASPECT RATIO.
If you don't like it don't use it. I for one never had an issue with 16:10 until I got my PS3 but I now I'm kind of looking into 16:9. To each his own, some people still hate widescreen. Get the fuck over it.
Thanks for you review bro good work.
16:10 has been the norm but now with HD TV's being 1080p, I for one would prefer to have a monitor/TV that is 16:9.
When 17/19" LCD's came around they used a 4:5 aspect ratio which was extremely awkward.
I can't believe all of you people who are complaining and saying that 16:9 is "cheap" because they use less screen.
IT'S A NATURAL FUCKING ASPECT RATIO.
If you don't like it don't use it. I for one never had an issue with 16:10 until I got my PS3 but I now I'm kind of looking into 16:9. To each his own, some people still hate widescreen. Get the fuck over it.
Thanks for you review bro good work.
SirGCal, nice job on the review so far and with your follow-ups.
Priorities are important in choosing a monitor. If you are only using it for PC viewing 16:10 is better. It gives more vertical resolution, and for the past 4+ years that's what has been sold to us. Normal or not, it's what has been out there since (from what I remember) LG put out the first 20" 1680x1050 panels. Rumor at the time was that 16:10 allowed DVDs to be viewed at 16:9 with the playback controls not needing to be tucked away. I'm going from memory here, but that's what I remember reading about the hows and whys back then. Funny that, as many movies are 2.4:1 ratio which doesn't require 16:10.
Alternatively, if someone is also going to use the monitor a fair bit for 16:9 viewing, presumably for a console like the 360 or PS3 (or successors) the 16:9 format makes sense. Part (or most) of this initiative is cost cutting by the panel/monitor manufacturers as this allows them to sell monitors with less logic built in for custom scaling. Do we really think this was done for our own good?
What's funny is that now the 360 has 1680x1050 built into it giving 16:10 monitor users a usable mode over (at least) VGA. I've tested it, and it works. No stretching, but funny enough it gives black bars top and bottom. For those interested in the E2200HD/E2400HD, HDMI works perfectly from PS3 and 360 in all modes (480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p) with a properly displayed aspect ratio.
Ultimately, choice is good. Whether 16:9 or 16:10 everyone's choice is to vote with their wallets
Priorities are important in choosing a monitor. If you are only using it for PC viewing 16:10 is better. It gives more vertical resolution, and for the past 4+ years that's what has been sold to us. Normal or not, it's what has been out there since (from what I remember) LG put out the first 20" 1680x1050 panels. Rumor at the time was that 16:10 allowed DVDs to be viewed at 16:9 with the playback controls not needing to be tucked away. I'm going from memory here, but that's what I remember reading about the hows and whys back then. Funny that, as many movies are 2.4:1 ratio which doesn't require 16:10.
Alternatively, if someone is also going to use the monitor a fair bit for 16:9 viewing, presumably for a console like the 360 or PS3 (or successors) the 16:9 format makes sense. Part (or most) of this initiative is cost cutting by the panel/monitor manufacturers as this allows them to sell monitors with less logic built in for custom scaling. Do we really think this was done for our own good?
What's funny is that now the 360 has 1680x1050 built into it giving 16:10 monitor users a usable mode over (at least) VGA. I've tested it, and it works. No stretching, but funny enough it gives black bars top and bottom. For those interested in the E2200HD/E2400HD, HDMI works perfectly from PS3 and 360 in all modes (480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p) with a properly displayed aspect ratio.
Ultimately, choice is good. Whether 16:9 or 16:10 everyone's choice is to vote with their wallets
davismatson10
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 115
That's my main problem 10e. I have a 360 and VGA cable on my Samsung 226bw, I was excited for the new resolutions to come out and now have stupid black bars when it's set to my NATIVE resolution. Doesn't make sense to me. Sorry to go off topic, but is it safe to assume if i were to use HDMI from the console to DVI on the monitor, it would still have the black bars? Or would it change and really fill up the screen to 1680 x 1050?