Wednesday, August 11th 2010

I-O Data Intros 27-inch Full HD Monitor for Gaming and Entertainment

I-O Data expanded its display lineup further with a new 27-inch full HD monitor that's best suited for gaming and entertainment. The I-O Data LCD-MF271XBR has a detachable stand that uses standard VESA mounts to hold the display, it lets you adjust the display's height, tilt and swivel. Being a full HD display it has a native resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels, other display specs include response time of 2 ms, 1,000:1 contrast ratio (30,000:1 dynamic), and a maximum brightness of 330 cd/m². Display inputs include DVI, D-Sub and HDMI, while other features include 1.5W stereo speakers, and a 3.5 mm audio jack to connect your headset (relays input from your sound card). The new display will reach stores in Japan later this month.
Source: Akihabara News
Add your own comment

11 Comments on I-O Data Intros 27-inch Full HD Monitor for Gaming and Entertainment

#1
TIGR
To LCD makers:

Please, less HD 1080 (1920x1080) monitors and more WUXGA (1920x1200) ones for all-around computer use (more area per diagonally-measured screen size). Yes, there are some who argue for 1920x1080 and I have heard all of the arguments. Overall, I still prefer 1920x1200 beyond a doubt.

And, at the 27" range, WQXGA (2560x1600) please!
Posted on Reply
#2
Animalpak
i prefer the samsung 2770H same specs but better exterior looks.
Posted on Reply
#3
Meizuman
by: TIGR
To LCD makers:

Please, less HD 1080 (1920x1080) monitors and more WUXGA (1920x1200) ones for all-around computer use (more area per diagonally-measured screen size). Yes, there are some who argue for 1920x1080 and I have heard all of the arguments. Overall, I still prefer 1920x1200 beyond a doubt.

And, at the 27" range, WQXGA (2560x1600) please!
I have used an 21,5" iMac and its 1080. I really dont like it, feels like I cant squeeze anything there.
Posted on Reply
#4
a_ump
is there any specific reason only 30" monitors are 2560x1600? i mean why not some 28" or 26"?

I mean 1920x1080 dominates from 20"-29", dunno why 2560x1600 can't start at 26" or 27"
Posted on Reply
#5
OSWiz
by: a_ump
is there any specific reason only 30" monitors are 2560x1600? i mean why not some 28" or 26"?

I mean 1920x1080 dominates from 20"-29", dunno why 2560x1600 can't start at 26" or 27"
Well, I have the Dell U2711 2560x1440 27" and I love the real estate, but text becomes rather small. 2560x1600 on a 27" would be near unreadable, for me anyway.
Posted on Reply
#6
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
I love my 1920x1080p 21.5" monitor but Id love something with even more res if I moved up to say 24 - 26"
Posted on Reply
#7

by: TIGR
To LCD makers:

Please, less HD 1080 (1920x1080) monitors and more WUXGA (1920x1200) ones for all-around computer use (more area per diagonally-measured screen size). Yes, there are some who argue for 1920x1080 and I have heard all of the arguments. Overall, I still prefer 1920x1200 beyond a doubt.

And, at the 27" range, WQXGA (2560x1600) please!
You're screaming and crying like a little baby for nothing. In case you didn't know the WUXGA resolution was dumped by producers and it's currently used only for very expensive professional monitors. They dumped that format because they agreed that there were to many formats available and in the near future you will only find 16:9 monitors/tv. 4:3 is dead, 16:10 is in clinical dead, get over with. :shadedshu

p.s.

Besides, 16:9 has it's advantages, like in movies (no black bars), and especialy games when you have extra space sideways. Biggest example is in Starcraft II:
:rockout:

Regarding the resolution, you guys probably never used a 27" incher with 1920x1200(1080) resolution. I have one, and even if the screen is big, the text is VERY SMALL for my taste. And the image is crystal sharp. So there is absolutely no need for a bigger res. Trust me. Better for games also.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#8
TIGR
by: TAViX
You're screaming and crying like a little baby....
How do you figure?

by: TAViX
Regarding the resolution, you guys probably never used a 27" incher with 1920x1200(1080) resolution.
My primary monitor is a Samsung 275T. 27", 1920x1200.
Posted on Reply
#9
Yukikaze
by: TAViX

Regarding the resolution, you guys probably never used a 27" incher with 1920x1200(1080) resolution. I have one, and even if the screen is big, the text is VERY SMALL for my taste. And the image is crystal sharp. So there is absolutely no need for a bigger res. Trust me. Better for games also.
Hmmm. Make your font settings larger?

What I really want, though, is a QSXGA (2560x2048) monitor....
Posted on Reply
#10

by: Yukikaze
Hmmm. Make your font settings larger?
You cannot make your fonts larger if some pages are written with flash, java, etc...that's the problem.:mad:
Posted on Edit | Reply
#11
Lipton
by: TAViX
You're screaming and crying like a little baby for nothing. In case you didn't know the WUXGA resolution was dumped by producers and it's currently used only for very expensive professional monitors. They dumped that format because they agreed that there were to many formats available and in the near future you will only find 16:9 monitors/tv. 4:3 is dead, 16:10 is in clinical dead, get over with. :shadedshu

p.s.

Besides, 16:9 has it's advantages, like in movies (no black bars), and especialy games when you have extra space sideways. Biggest example is in Starcraft II: http://www.sc2blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/StarCraftRatios.gif
:rockout:.
Wow, I feel sad for everyone who has more pixels but gets to see less of the game. That's a twisted way of saying 16:9 has an advantage, silly developers. :banghead:


Edit: Sorry, didn't see this was a few days old. Let's blame my vacation. :)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment