Saturday, February 28th 2009

LG Rolls Out New HD Monitors

LG announced a new fleet of full-HD capable LCD monitors today. The lineup consists of three models of different screen-sizes under the Wxx53V-PF naming scheme: the 22 inch W2253V-PF, 24 inch W2453V-PF and 27 inch W2753V-PF. LG seems to have emphasized on both form and function with these ones. Sporting a piano-black shell with a dash of clear acrylic, the monitors pack LCD panels with 2 ms response time. All models have native resolutions of 1920 x 1080 pixels (1080p HD), and are HDCP-capable.

Additionally, they feature intelligent Auto Bright, Live Sensor, and Cinema mode proprietary features. The monitor detects the intensity of light in the environment it's working in, and accordingly adjusts brightness and contrast levels. All models support offer DVI-D, D-SUB, and HDMI port as input connectivity options. LG is yet to release or price these monitors outside the Japanese market as of now.

Source: VR-Zone
Add your own comment

33 Comments on LG Rolls Out New HD Monitors

#1
shiny_red_cobra
Is the 16:10 format of LCD monitors slowly being abandoned?
Posted on Reply
#2
lemonadesoda
24" screens used to be 1920x1200. Now, for your money, you get 1920x1080 (10% less screen real estate). Funny how HD "1080" format is allowing TFT manufacturers to sneak in lower pixel count screens onto the market. Oh, the retail consumer!

Where is my *updated version of the* ViewSonic VP2290b ?
Posted on Reply
#3
paulrules
Well it's logical for manufacturers. Lower costs and same MSRP with 16:10 monitors. PLUS they still get to slap on the old "FULL HD" logo on it.

To the average comsumer this is "AWESOME!" To us it's probably going to be a ripoff.
Posted on Reply
#4
iamverysmart
Lower costs because it's 16:9 as to 16:10?
The prices haven't been announced yet.
Posted on Reply
#5
to6ko91
by: iamverysmart
Lower costs because it's 16:9 as to 16:10?
The prices haven't been announced yet.
lower because its 16:9 ;)
Posted on Reply
#6
mrhuggles
is it wrong for me to prefer 16:9? :(

heh yay 1360x768
Posted on Reply
#7
to6ko91
by: mrhuggles
is it wrong for me to prefer 16:9? :(

heh yay 1360x768
no its not :) Especially if you watch more movies than do other stuff ;)
Posted on Reply
#8
Mussels
Moderprator
a 1080p screen works better for movies, console games, and also works fine for PC gaming. i'd rather a 16:9 over a 16:10 anyday. with HDMI being 'universal' PC screens are no longer just for PC's. get a HDMI switcher, and this thing can run your consoles and blu ray player as well.

the 10% more screen you get on your 16:10 screens is used for black bars. woo. exciting.
Posted on Reply
#9
Hayder_Master
how much speed for this monitor , 5 NS or less
Posted on Reply
#10
to6ko91
by: hayder.master
how much speed for this monitor , 5 NS or less
NS ??? Wow what are you a high speed camera :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#11
RadeonX2
by: hayder.master
how much speed for this monitor , 5 NS or less
the monitors pack LCD panels with 2 ms response time.
it's 2ms :toast:
Posted on Reply
#12
Jizzler
19:6 has it's place, it's just not on my desk :D
Posted on Reply
#13
OnBoard
by: shiny_red_cobra
Is the 16:10 format of LCD monitors slowly being abandoned?
by: iamverysmart
Lower costs because it's 16:9 as to 16:10?
The prices haven't been announced yet.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12236&Itemid=1

by: Mussels
a 1080p screen works better for movies, console games, and also works fine for PC gaming. i'd rather a 16:9 over a 16:10 anyday.

the 10% more screen you get on your 16:10 screens is used for black bars. woo. exciting.
I like 16:10 for my computer and 16:9 for my TV (that's connected to the computer for movies and stuff). For the black bars, you'll still get the even with 16:9, most good stuff is wider :)

We have enough room sideways, it's the up and down room that we run out on web pages, like TPU. Sure as long as you go to a higher resolution 16:9 still has more room vertical. I just wouldn't like a 22" 1680x945 16:9 screen.

Single screen for everything, then yeah 1080p screen would be nice, as long as you got the hardware for (gaming) the resolution.
Posted on Reply
#14
ZoneDymo
lemonadesoda

I have been saying the same thing of going from 4:3 (16:12) CRT to 16:10 LCD.
I can do 2048x1536 on a 20 inch viewable screen.

LCD's do 1680x1050 on a 22 inch screen or 1920x1200 on a 24 inch screen.

16:9 could be awesome, if they drop in some higher resolutions.
Posted on Reply
#15
TheLostSwede
Indeed, 16:9 "could be awesome" but we're going backwards.
We're getting lower and lower resolutions again, at least in most cases.
Many new 18.5in panels are 1366x768 compared to 1440x900 for 19in models.
Most new 21.5-24in panels are all 1920x1080, although it seems like 1600x900 will be a new standard this year... again lower than 1680x1050 (both ways in this case).
Only Samsung and Dell have a viable options with their 23in 2048x1536 models and it's the only 16:9 resolution I'd get.
Even worse, it seems like netbooks will go 1024x576 which is just plain silly.
The way our operating systems an applications work, 16:9 is a shitty aspect ratio.
Posted on Reply
#16
Fleck
Yah, I can't wait to get a 16:9 monitor. I don't like having to zoom in on video to make the black bars go away, while losing the bits off the sides too. Go 16:9 go!
Posted on Reply
#17
pr0n Inspector
good, one less aspect ratio to worry about. 16:10 was a retarded aspect ratio to begin with, I don't see why we should stick to it.
Posted on Reply
#18
steelkane
2048x1152 is the next LCD I'm getting,, ether a samsung 2343BWX or Acer B273HU bmidhz, I would like to try both. 1680x1050 on my 22" samy, makes everything to big. lots of wasted space. I'm not blind yet.
Posted on Reply
#19
lemonadesoda
Steel... please report back on the Samsung 2343. MAKE SURE you get the DVI version NOT the VGA only.

I'm interested to know compatibility with this unusual resolution... esp. desktop and gaming. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#20
Mussels
Moderprator
its not unusual. its just big. gaming would be slow, unless you have dual cards (or better)
Posted on Reply
#21
Wile E
Power User
I still prefer 16x10 for everything but movies. 1920x1200 is better than 1080p, in everything except movies, no matter how you look at it.
Posted on Reply
#22
Hayder_Master
by: to6ko91
NS ??? Wow what are you a high speed camera :laugh:
is this first time you hear about LCD speed

by: RadeonX2
it's 2ms :toast:
thanx , this is fast and cool for games
Posted on Reply
#23
ZoneDymo
by: Wile E
I still prefer 16x10 for everything but movies. 1920x1200 is better than 1080p, in everything except movies, no matter how you look at it.
yeah and 1920x1440 is better than 1920x1200
Posted on Reply
#24
pr0n Inspector
by: hayder.master
is this first time you hear about LCD speed




thanx , this is fast and cool for games
1 ms = 1,000,000 ns
Posted on Reply
#25
Mussels
Moderprator
by: ZoneDymo
yeah and 1920x1440 is better than 1920x1200
as far as most games are concerned, it doesnt matter - you're getting the same image as on a 16:9 screen, only with only with a bit of stretching.

Sometimes i think you guys dont realise in games you ARENT getting more view area - you're getting a distorted, stretched 16:9 image - DVD movies and then consoles have made 16:9 the default aspect ratio
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment