Saturday, November 22nd 2008

Samsung Readies the 23.6-inch SyncMaster 2494HS full-HD Display

Samsung has come up with a new 23.6-inch, slick and stylish widescreen LCD monitor, the SyncMaster 2494HS. This one takes a step forward in overall look and feel, going away from the rather plain Samsung glassy design. The SyncMaster 2494HS features a modern 1920x1080 16:9 wide resolution, appropriate for movie lovers, an exceptionally high 50,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio, 300cd/m2 brightness and a 5ms response time. Vertical viewing angles for this screen reach 160-degrees and horizontal angles 170-degrees. There are also two 3W stereo speakers built-in. Inputs include HDCP-compatible HDMI, DVI-D, and single analog RGB. The Samsung SyncMaster will go on sale in mid-December in Japan for around 40,000 yen ($423).

Source: Samsung
Add your own comment

17 Comments on Samsung Readies the 23.6-inch SyncMaster 2494HS full-HD Display

#1
zithe
Nice. I see they're trying to compete with that acer g24. =P
Posted on Reply
#2
panchoman
Sold my stars!
23.6 inchs? why?
Posted on Reply
#3
Weer
by: panchoman
23.6 inchs? why?
And then why call it 2494?

Don't question monitor manufacturers.. it's pointless.
Posted on Reply
#4
mullered07
by: panchoman
23.6 inchs? why?
probably due to the fact its 1920x1080 and not 1920x1200 like other 24" monitors.
Posted on Reply
#5
lemonadesoda
1920x1200 is MUCH PREFERRED in my opinion. Why? Well you can get the same letterbox 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 screen PLUS when you are at the desktop there is more screen real estate, esp. for taskbar, menu bars etc.
Posted on Reply
#6
IcrushitI
by: lemonadesoda
1920x1200 is MUCH PREFERRED in my opinion. Why? Well you can get the same letterbox 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 screen PLUS when you are at the desktop there is more screen real estate, esp. for taskbar, menu bars etc.
Couldn't have said it any better, especially the real estate.
Posted on Reply
#7
Mussels
Moderprator
i disagree with you guys. many games cap out at 1920x1080, therefore they stretch to fit, and i certainly wouldnt want to watch movies with black bars.
Posted on Reply
#8
Weer
by: Mussels
i disagree with you guys. many games cap out at 1920x1080, therefore they stretch to fit, and i certainly wouldnt want to watch movies with black bars.
I'm sorry for disagreeing with you, Mussels, but that is truly ridiculous.

Games do not cap out at 1920x1080 on PC games. The internal resolution can be set to anything one wants, unless you're playing console games, and then you should play on your TV, not a comparatively small monitor. And in course with my second point, stretching to fit is actually a good thing. Why have 1080 pixels when you can have 1200, even if it actually is - stretched. I prefer my movies stretched up vertically, and most movies actually need it because they're not 1080 pixels vertically, they're 800, so in any case you'll still have black bars. There is simply no down side and in turn you gain a LOT of real-estate for anything else, and in my experience it really does matter.
Posted on Reply
#9
Mussels
Moderprator
by: Weer
I'm sorry for disagreeing with you, Mussels, but that is truly ridiculous.

Games do not cap out at 1920x1080 on PC games.
yeah, lots do. specifically console ports. games like assasins creed were missing lots of 16:10 resolutions and only contained 16:9 - black bars were present for 16:10 users.

I wouldnt be saying this if i didnt have both screen types, and experience with both.
Posted on Reply
#10
vagxtr
by: Weer
I'm sorry for disagreeing with you, Mussels, but that is truly ridiculous.

Games do not cap out at 1920x1080 on PC games. The internal resolution can be set to anything one wants, unless you're playing console games, and then you should play on your TV, not a comparatively small monitor. And in course with my second point, stretching to fit is actually a good thing. Why have 1080 pixels when you can have 1200, even if it actually is - stretched. I prefer my movies stretched up vertically, and most movies actually need it because they're not 1080 pixels vertically, they're 800, so in any case you'll still have black bars. There is simply no down side and in turn you gain a LOT of real-estate for anything else, and in my experience it really does matter.
How people can become nasty little brats ;) ... You complaining to "the gamer" while you like your movie streched .... well in fact most series that plays on 16:9 format in HD are actually shot in much wider formats and you still don complain about cutoffs on the sides , just like we didnt complain about side cuts when we were looking on plain old 4/3 format.

I still think that's another way to rip off stupid customers case they want that "uncertified" games dont have any black bars woow. Panel producers like Samsung and CMo simply calculated out that they could produce a panel or two more from that monolith silicon sheet if they shrink the screen. So it's not care about customers but a simple economy.

Monitors ae for working people at least they wer for that, and Mussels if you wanna be ultimate gamer you must buy yourself 42" FullHD TV set not a monitor ... especially not a TN panel monitor :D
Posted on Reply
#11
Mussels
Moderprator
by: vagxtr
Mussels if you wanna be ultimate gamer you must buy yourself 42" FullHD TV set not a monitor ... especially not a TN panel monitor :D
i have a 40" HDTV with a PVA panel. good work sherlock.
Posted on Reply
#12
rizla1
1360 x 768, on a 40 inch!!!! my 19 inch hd tv,s better 1440 x900 your games must look crap on that . you should get a 30 inch dell monitor 2600 x1600 i think.
Posted on Reply
#13
DanTheBanjoman
SeƱor Moderator
by: rizla1
1360 x 768, on a 40 inch!!!! my 19 inch hd tv,s better 1440 x900 your games must look crap on that . you should get a 30 inch dell monitor 2600 x1600 i think.
We have two 40" screens with 13x7 resolutions. They look fine. A 40" screen isn't meant to sit close to. In fact, lower resolutions can still look fine when watching movies and the likes.
Posted on Reply
#14
a_ump
i hooked my pc up to a 42 in once, only went up to either 1280x1024 or 1024x800, wanna say the first but i can't remember. yea i was like wtf low res, but once i sat on my couch it looked fine, and in games with 8xaa 16xaf it looked fine, though i do prefer my monitor.
Posted on Reply
#15
Mussels
Moderprator
by: rizla1
1360 x 768, on a 40 inch!!!! my 19 inch hd tv,s better 1440 x900 your games must look crap on that . you should get a 30 inch dell monitor 2600 x1600 i think.
well, i suggest you go find one and look yourself. you've obviously never gamed on one - its still higher than 720P, so i dont mind at all. your tiny 19" screen must be terrible to have to squint and look at.
Posted on Reply
#16
zithe
I have a 42" at 800x480. It looks just fine. (plasma)
Posted on Reply
#17
pentastar111
It's all fine and dandy...I'll stick with with the traditional 22" and I'm going with a regular 24" on my next build...All I do is play games...If I wanna watch a movie, I use my tv.:)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment