Thursday, October 14th 2010

ASUS Intros Trio of 27-inch Full-HD Monitors

ASUS announced a trio of full-HD (1920 x 1080 resolution) 27-inch monitors. The VK278Q and VE278Q have LED-backlit illumination with dynamic contrast ratio (DCR) of 10,000,000:1, and the third model, VE276Q, with common CCFL illumination with 100,000 DCR. The VK278Q features a 2 megapixel webcam. All three models give you 2 ms response time GTG, 3W stereo speakers. The VK278Q and VE278Q, and VE276Q are priced at €359, €339, and €329, respectively.

Source: TechConnect Magazine
Add your own comment

18 Comments on ASUS Intros Trio of 27-inch Full-HD Monitors

#1
naram-sin
Jeez, this is infuriating. Another new screen, 27" at that, and only 1080p vertically. Nice design, hate piano black, but not for me. I need at least 1200p vertically. If only just to have 'standard' 16:10 AR on my monitor. These blow at most.
Posted on Reply
#2
inferKNOX
by: naram-sin
Jeez, this is infuriating. Another new screen, 27" at that, and only 1080p vertically. Nice design, hate piano black, but not for me. I need at least 1200p vertically. If only just to have 'standard' 16:10 AR on my monitor. These blow at most.
+1
The thought of buying a 1080p instead of a 1200p makes me want to spit!:wtf:
Even Samsung has stopped production of all 1200p monitors but the 2433BW.:shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#3
human_error
that size and resolution!?! dear lord are the pixels this big: [ ]
Posted on Reply
#4
KaelMaelstrom
The resolution is not suitable for that kind of a big monitor as far as i can tell, they should have put it 2560x1600. 1080 on that big guy is like something's missing and that is the resolution.
Posted on Reply
#5
mcloughj
1080 vertical on a 27inch screen is retarded in the extreme. It would be infuriating to own one of these.
Posted on Reply
#6
jasper1605
by: mcloughj
It would be infuriating to own one of these.
but it haz a webcamz! lol, I wish 1200 vertical would come back to us so the price premmy would go down again...
Posted on Reply
#7
wahdangun
by: naram-sin
Jeez, this is infuriating. Another new screen, 27" at that, and only 1080p vertically. Nice design, hate piano black, but not for me. I need at least 1200p vertically. If only just to have 'standard' 16:10 AR on my monitor. These blow at most.
+1, this is because the fullHD crap, i don't mind price premium over it
Posted on Reply
#8
Wile E
Power User
I'd rather buy a 32" 1080p TV. It would at least have a decent panel, not this Tn-film garbage.
Posted on Reply
#9
n-ster
you guys do understand many ppl have 1080p on 60+" TVs and 720p on 50" plasma is not rare... hell, they make 50" 720P 3D TVs lol
Posted on Reply
#10
Wile E
Power User
by: n-ster
you guys do understand many ppl have 1080p on 60+" TVs and 720p on 50" plasma is not rare... hell, they make 50" 3D TVs lol
You generally sit further away from a TV (across the room) than you do a computer monitor (2 feet in front of you).

And TVs have much better panels than these crappy things.
Posted on Reply
#11
jasper1605
by: n-ster
hell, they make 50" 3D TVs lol
and 46" ones too. I have one :) It's beauuuuutiful :)
Posted on Reply
#12
TIGR
16:9 has unfortunately pretty much won over 16:10. For a given diagonal size, 16:10 offers more screen area than 16:9. I have actually just switched back to 4:3 CRTs and am very pleased.

I have a 27" 1920x1200 Samsung 275T and don't find the pixels to be too big, nor do I think they would be [for my taste] at 1920x1080. The popularity of monitors with extreme pixel density confuses me from a practical standpoint: I have better than 20/20 vision but find that packing too many pixels into a small area results in a hard time seeing what I need to see (e.g. text). Right now I have TPU zoomed in two notches in Firefox, on my 21" CRT at 1600x1200.
Posted on Reply
#13
a_ump
by: TIGR
16:9 has unfortunately pretty much won over 16:10. For a given diagonal size, 16:10 offers more screen area than 16:9. I have actually just switched back to 4:3 CRTs and am very pleased.

I have a 27" 1920x1200 Samsung 275T and don't find the pixels to be too big, nor do I think they would be [for my taste] at 1920x1080. The popularity of monitors with extreme pixel density confuses me from a practical standpoint: I have better than 20/20 vision but find that packing too many pixels into a small area results in a hard time seeing what I need to see (e.g. text). Right now I have TPU zoomed in two notches in Firefox, on my 21" CRT at 1600x1200.
what a crazy man! lol jk. Though i will say i've never heard anyone else say or do that after having a flatscreen monitor.

OT:
I use a 32" TV at 1920x1080(~2.5ft from me) and don't think the screen is too big for that res, my brother has a 28" also at 1920x1080 and it looks fine on his as well. Haven't had a side-by-side comparison yet tho.

Also, does the use of HDMI cable over DVI improve the quality of what's displayed? always wondered this
Posted on Reply
#14
n-ster
by: jasper1605
and 46" ones too. I have one :) It's beauuuuutiful :)
I meant 50" 720P 3D TVs lol
Posted on Reply
#15
DBH
I'm running 1080p on my 37" Panasonic telly as my primary monitor it's not that bad! but yep for a monitor you'd expect a higher res.
Posted on Reply
#16
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
asus make OK monitors but id rather spend that kind of money on a samsung.
Posted on Reply
#17
Wile E
Power User
by: a_ump
what a crazy man! lol jk. Though i will say i've never heard anyone else say or do that after having a flatscreen monitor.

OT:
I use a 32" TV at 1920x1080(~2.5ft from me) and don't think the screen is too big for that res, my brother has a 28" also at 1920x1080 and it looks fine on his as well. Haven't had a side-by-side comparison yet tho.

Also, does the use of HDMI cable over DVI improve the quality of what's displayed? always wondered this
No. The display signal is 100% identical. The only differences are the connector, and HDMI can carry audio as well.
Posted on Reply
#18
n-ster
As Wile E said, 100% identical as both are digital signals
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment