![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
BenQ E2400HD Review
- Thread starter SirGCal
- Start date
It has black bars because that's the ratio the games were designed for. Unless they just chop off the sides, it may not be easy to reformat the games to 16:10, especially if the games are not programmed to support that in the first place. Computer games may be different in this regard, since they're designed to be played on a wide variety of hardware, using different resolutions.
BTW, chopping off the sides is exactly what my 226BW does for 720p (it also stretches a little).
yeah, I'm interested in this too... can anybody confirm this, who actually tested it live?
I can confirm this. 360 with VGA cable at 1920x1080 has no black bars top and bottom. Neither does 1280x720.
Any scaling that changes the aspect ratio is custom, as opposed to just zooming.
So 16:9 ratio on a 16:10 monitor seems to involve more than just zooming/expanding the image by 1.5 times on each axis. The Samsung 2x93HM monitors did this, they cut off the sides and expanded to full vertical resolution with 1080p/720p content.
With computer resolutions the vid card does all the work, but with HD resolutions, the monitor has to do it all, and it seems this is a problem to get right. Based on the earlier BenQ FP241W firmware upgrades, it can also require more RAM/NVRAM and this is why people had to send in their units to get upgraded daughterboards installed.
This is the only way that I can see cost cutting is the impetus on these new 1080p monitors. Samsung's new 23" panel with 2048x1152 resolution actually has MORE pixels by half a million than the typical 1920x1200, and the dot pitch is smaller, requiring tighter tolerances, which costs more to manufacture.
The only other impetus is that it's marketing at its best. My personal belief is that a good 16:10 monitor gives the best of both worlds, but if people like their 16:9s, that's good too.
So 16:9 ratio on a 16:10 monitor seems to involve more than just zooming/expanding the image by 1.5 times on each axis. The Samsung 2x93HM monitors did this, they cut off the sides and expanded to full vertical resolution with 1080p/720p content.
With computer resolutions the vid card does all the work, but with HD resolutions, the monitor has to do it all, and it seems this is a problem to get right. Based on the earlier BenQ FP241W firmware upgrades, it can also require more RAM/NVRAM and this is why people had to send in their units to get upgraded daughterboards installed.
This is the only way that I can see cost cutting is the impetus on these new 1080p monitors. Samsung's new 23" panel with 2048x1152 resolution actually has MORE pixels by half a million than the typical 1920x1200, and the dot pitch is smaller, requiring tighter tolerances, which costs more to manufacture.
The only other impetus is that it's marketing at its best. My personal belief is that a good 16:10 monitor gives the best of both worlds, but if people like their 16:9s, that's good too.
None at all. Both were perfect in regards to scaling with no cropping. I'll post pictures soon 
kompulsive
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2008
- Messages
- 355
Wow. Check it out guys. NewEgg has the monitor for $299. WOW!
kompulsive
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2008
- Messages
- 355
Both monitors have the same response time. What makes you think that the input lag on the G2400 is lower?
The original G2400W was the fastest in terms of input lag. I don't remember it being more than a frame behind a CRT. But that was special in terms of lag.
The V2400W and G2400WD came later and on average were only a few ms higher, but could swing up on rare occasion to two frames. Never more though.
To be honest, I could never notice any input lag on any of those screens, nor can I on the E2200HD or M2400HD, which are in terms of input lag slightly lower than the V2400W on average. This is in clone mode against a CRT. I usually can spot 2 frames quite quickly if it's consistent.
I can't guarantee it will be fast enough for you, but I think it should be.
Here are the lag numbers I got from it. The last number is the average of each column and the top/bottom headers indicate I used two "input lag" timers. Hope that helps.
The V2400W and G2400WD came later and on average were only a few ms higher, but could swing up on rare occasion to two frames. Never more though.
To be honest, I could never notice any input lag on any of those screens, nor can I on the E2200HD or M2400HD, which are in terms of input lag slightly lower than the V2400W on average. This is in clone mode against a CRT. I usually can spot 2 frames quite quickly if it's consistent.
I can't guarantee it will be fast enough for you, but I think it should be.
Here are the lag numbers I got from it. The last number is the average of each column and the top/bottom headers indicate I used two "input lag" timers. Hope that helps.
You prefer this answer, 10e?
That makes things clear.
Looks like you have no answer.
Why do you post misleading statements you cannot confirm?
10e: "...cost cutting by the panel/monitor manufacturers as this allows them to sell monitors with less logic built in for custom scaling."
Oh, sorry! You don't see any rules stating you have to answer this question either...
It would be interesting to know how those monitors perform.
I think the answer is simple:
Times are tough, and 16:9 monitors are cheaper than 16:10 at same size. When times are tough, sales mentality kicks in. Sales mentality is "price sells".
Take a look anywhere on line. The pricing of 24" 16:9 monitors is cheaper than 24" 16:10. I don't think the manufacturers are willing to take less profit, so they must be cheaper to produce.
Let me ask you this: Do you have an opinion are why they are cheaper?
You need to start contributing to this thread in a positive way. I'm not saying I always do, but damn, I am sure I piss a lot fewer people off around here than you do.
Let's turn this back into a review thread, and not an argument thread.
Times are tough, and 16:9 monitors are cheaper than 16:10 at same size. When times are tough, sales mentality kicks in. Sales mentality is "price sells".
Take a look anywhere on line. The pricing of 24" 16:9 monitors is cheaper than 24" 16:10. I don't think the manufacturers are willing to take less profit, so they must be cheaper to produce.
Let me ask you this: Do you have an opinion are why they are cheaper?
You need to start contributing to this thread in a positive way. I'm not saying I always do, but damn, I am sure I piss a lot fewer people off around here than you do.
Let's turn this back into a review thread, and not an argument thread.
I would think that even with HDMI to DVI, you will be limited to at most, the same resolutions. DVI only exposes one resolution not available on HDMI with 360 and that's 640x480.
I would think that the 360 is limited to 16:9 only images, but the other resolutions it can do over VGA and DVI like 1360x768 and 1280x768 are not 16:9 and don't have black bars.
I would think that the 360 is limited to 16:9 only images, but the other resolutions it can do over VGA and DVI like 1360x768 and 1280x768 are not 16:9 and don't have black bars.
10e, you state regarding 16:9 : "allows them to sell monitors with less logic built in for custom scaling".
I asked you to give a fact to support your statement. to mention any monitor of this kind.
Your answer:
"Times are tough, and 16:9 monitors are cheaper than 16:10 at same size. When times are tough, sales mentality kicks in. Sales mentality is "price sells".
Take a look anywhere on line. The pricing of 24" 16:9 monitors is cheaper than 24" 16:10. I don't think the manufacturers are willing to take less profit, so they must be cheaper to produce."
This is called "like a grass snake on a hot pan" - when a person caught on misinformation tries to mask it with more logorrhea instead of admitting mistake.
Tell it yourself first.
You know my principles: facts, links, own experience, illustrations. No demagogy, no logorrhea. This is what positive contribution is.
Why do I pay attention to your reckless assumption presented as a fact in this thread?
Because many inexperienced users are in their pinkish hope that 16:9 resolution makes scaling not necessary. And they even try to list it as an advantage of this in fact lower grade monitors.
Your posts flicker so frequently in this forum that some people might accept your groundless statements as a given fact.
That's why your misinformation may be especially harmful.
This is a sample of negative contribution.
Try to be more positive.
At the same time how scalarless 16:9 monitors would behave in reality - is a really interesting question. This is why I ask you to give an example from what you state to have a closer look at it. This simple question leaves you prostrated.
Find strength to take your words back when necessary.
No, I have no facts on that so far.
The logically obvious reason I can see is that you get physically less monitor with 16:9 than you do with 16:10 (same diagonal). We can only speculate about other factors that might contribute in production cost reduction such as different panel shape or general manufacturing progress implemented in newer production lines.
albovin stop the offtopic for f*cks sake!... the last 3 pages are filled with your stupid argueing, which nobody really cares about. This topic is about the E2400HD, and nothing else, if you want to have an argue about... whatever, make a different thread for it do it in private! Thanks!
Oh, and just for the record: yes, it's cheaper to produce 16:9 monitors then 16:10 ones.Google it!
Oh, and just for the record: yes, it's cheaper to produce 16:9 monitors then 16:10 ones.Google it!
Saviorself
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 9
Ok everyone, albovin winz teh intrenetz! Let him bask in all his glory and move on.
Thanks to SirGCal and everyone else that contributed to this thread, I just ordered from newegg as I couldnt resist it at $299.
BTW, anyway to block albovin's posts so I dont see them?
Thanks to SirGCal and everyone else that contributed to this thread, I just ordered from newegg as I couldnt resist it at $299.
BTW, anyway to block albovin's posts so I dont see them?
vortex07,
The monitor is workable. A good choice for this particular sort of monitors.
The review is positive, I agree.
Wrong conclusions and false assumptions explained.
No more posts here.
There is a separate thread about 16:9/16:10.
Saviorself,
Nobody wants to block your posts?
Nobody asks you questions?
May be you need to write something at least?
Sorry about that.
The monitor is workable. A good choice for this particular sort of monitors.
The review is positive, I agree.
Wrong conclusions and false assumptions explained.
No more posts here.
There is a separate thread about 16:9/16:10.
Saviorself,
Nobody wants to block your posts?
Nobody asks you questions?
May be you need to write something at least?
Sorry about that.
Add him to your ignore list. To do this simply go into the 'User CP' and click on the link on the bottom left 'Buddy / Ignore Lists' and then add the user to the buddy or ignore list and then make sure the name is checked.
All trolls get hit with my ignore stick. They aren't worth my time, especially when they think they are deific. Makes me laugh though when they are so wrong or comparing Ferraris to Pintos. Anything to make them feel better about themselves or attempt to belittle others... Trolls. Don't feed em... But you can report troll activity using the ! button at each post.
Mr. Bluntman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,101
Why are 16:9 panels cheaper than their 16:10 equivalents? It's the same reason why 16:10 panels are cheaper than 5:4 panels at the same diagonal. You get more panels per substrate. More panels per substrate = lower BOM (bill of materials) = lower MSRP. Not neccesarily because you get less overall screen area.
I don't have proof, but if I were to build a scaler to handle 16:9 content, a 16:10 monitor would have more logic.
Scaler for 1920x1080 monitor to full size 16:9 picture preserving aspect ratio
Code:
display = picture.resize(1920, 1080)Scaler for 1920x1200 monitor to full size 16:9 picture preserving aspect ratio, if the user tells the scaler to assume the picture is 16:9
Code:
display = black
display (1,60) ~ (1920,1140) = picture.resize(1920, 1080)Scaler for 1920x1200 monitor to full size arbitrary picture preserving aspect ratio
Code:
ratio = picture.width / picture.height
if (ratio < 1.77778)
{
new_width = 1200 * ratio
new_height = 1200
}
else
{
new_width = 1920
new_height = 1920 / ratio
}
start_x = (1920 - new_width) / 2
end_x = 1920 - start_x
start_y = (1200 - new_height) / 2
end_y = 1200 - start_y
display = black
display (start_x, start_y) ~ (end_x, end_y) = picture.resize(new_width, new_height)
Mine had a bright top and bottom when new but that went away after adjusting and a few weeks of usage.
Shrimpanzee
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 244
Yes, without a problem.
banksy1988
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2008
- Messages
- 12
Thanks for your comments on this forum, it was as informative as it was entertaining.
I've bought both the E2200HD and the E2400HD and they will arrive tomorrow.
I'd quite like to keep the E2400HD for myself and wall mount it, it does look rather handsome and 1080p will be nice for Blu Rays on my PS3 (hope the games don't stretch though, heard of some problems on Anandtech with 720p)
My brother has a smaller work area and is replacing his current 22" (LG Flatron L227WT) with the E2200HD. I think he wants to hook up an Xbox 360.
I'll post some pictures of how it goes with a proper camera so you can see the profile shape etc.
Anyone know how much the E2400HD weighs without that cheap looking stand? It's probably not that important anyway since it's not like it's going to be moved around at all.
Much love xx
I've bought both the E2200HD and the E2400HD and they will arrive tomorrow.
I'd quite like to keep the E2400HD for myself and wall mount it, it does look rather handsome and 1080p will be nice for Blu Rays on my PS3 (hope the games don't stretch though, heard of some problems on Anandtech with 720p)
My brother has a smaller work area and is replacing his current 22" (LG Flatron L227WT) with the E2200HD. I think he wants to hook up an Xbox 360.
I'll post some pictures of how it goes with a proper camera so you can see the profile shape etc.
Anyone know how much the E2400HD weighs without that cheap looking stand? It's probably not that important anyway since it's not like it's going to be moved around at all.
Much love xx
You should be able to force the PS3 to output only 1080 format (upconvert lower formats) so the screen wouldn't matter. I know the XBOX does anyhow. I unfortunately don't have my PS3 yet... /sigh...
banksy1988
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2008
- Messages
- 12
I'm not sure you can do this with PS3. The console is a work of art, but I just find it lacking when I look past its obvious beauty. It looks like it should be a lot better than it is, and that's mostly because of little things like this. And most annoyingly the fact that it doesn't have volume control off the official remote.
K i'm going off topic.
Would there be any way to up the firmware for this monitor to fix minor bugs if BenQ wanted to add functionality or remove problems?
I'm not sure how that would work though to be honest.
Yeah you can "force" the PS3 to output 1080p, but seriously why would you do that? That would only mean more work for the monitor and it could make a 720p only game (most are anyways) look worse than if it was displayed at its native resolution. From what I've read, you can play any console (PS3, 360, Wii) on this monitor and it should output accordingly right? No black bars or distortion. Movies seem to be great on this set also from what I've read. (like Blu Rays) Going to decide between this and the V2400W! Thanks for the review.
banksy1988
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2008
- Messages
- 12
I got the E2400HD today
It looks excellent with the PS3 - or at least it would, mine came with a pierced panel and a patch of dead pixels. Will get a replacement for it tomorrow. Wasn't happy at all about that, but what can you do!?
I didn't notice any backlight bleed on this, seemed to have been a decent panel.
The speakers on it aren't half bad, but for some reason they turn themselves off after a while and then take about 3 seconds to "warm up" again. This must be some sort of power saving feature.
I'm definitely going to wall mount this, it's the perfect size for my workspace.
I was a bit disappointed with the overall quality of the casing, the buttons are unresponsive and so unfortunately cheap. I dislike that the power button has a green LED.
Also I found the location of the power + inputs a bit weird, they're spaced out so wide that if you're using HDMI and DVI there will be three really thick wires spaced out underneath that aren't that easy to couple together to reduce clutter. Probably not that much of an issue but I think it's worth mentioning.
Very stingy that they only included VGA cable. I mean I've got all the cables I'd need but it would've been nice to get at DVI <i>adapter<i/> at the very least.
The menus are simple and work fine. Colours are a bit off, but that doesn't matter so much considering the price/panel and most people won't even notice/care.
I'm itching for the replacement to get here so I can mount it. I guess I quite like it then.
It looks excellent with the PS3 - or at least it would, mine came with a pierced panel and a patch of dead pixels. Will get a replacement for it tomorrow. Wasn't happy at all about that, but what can you do!?
I didn't notice any backlight bleed on this, seemed to have been a decent panel.
The speakers on it aren't half bad, but for some reason they turn themselves off after a while and then take about 3 seconds to "warm up" again. This must be some sort of power saving feature.
I'm definitely going to wall mount this, it's the perfect size for my workspace.
I was a bit disappointed with the overall quality of the casing, the buttons are unresponsive and so unfortunately cheap. I dislike that the power button has a green LED.
Also I found the location of the power + inputs a bit weird, they're spaced out so wide that if you're using HDMI and DVI there will be three really thick wires spaced out underneath that aren't that easy to couple together to reduce clutter. Probably not that much of an issue but I think it's worth mentioning.
Very stingy that they only included VGA cable. I mean I've got all the cables I'd need but it would've been nice to get at DVI <i>adapter<i/> at the very least.
The menus are simple and work fine. Colours are a bit off, but that doesn't matter so much considering the price/panel and most people won't even notice/care.
I'm itching for the replacement to get here so I can mount it. I guess I quite like it then.
banksy1988
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2008
- Messages
- 12
I'm in the UK so this (E2400HD) cost me £224 which is an absolute STEAL considering that only six months ago I picked up a 22" Samsung with lower res. for the same price.
banksy1988
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2008
- Messages
- 12
I tried one Blu Ray with this before I packaged it up again, Training Day.
It looked nice, but it still had black bars. I don't have my speakers hooked up yet, but the monitors integrated ones seem okay for casual use.