Saturday, May 9th 2009

Samsung Introduces New Slim Touch of Color LCD Monitors

Samsung Electronics America, a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Corporation, the number one worldwide brand of LCD display products, today announced the release of its 70 Series Monitors: the P2070, P2370 and P2370HD. These slim LCD monitors, with screen depths of 30 mm (1.18 inches) for the P2070 and P2370 and 65.5mm (2.58 inches) for the P2370HD and Touch of Color (ToC) design, are the latest release of Samsung's high performance displays.
"The 70 Series offers our customers a sophisticated-looking LCD monitor with the performance capability of our televisions," said J.H. Kim, President of Samsung Electronics America's Information Technology Division. "The 70 Series is the new standard as more people upgrade their monitors for additional uses, like watching television programs and playing video games."

The 70 Series Monitors are ideal for office applications and entertainment with its dynamic contrast ratio (50,000:1) for deep, rich colors, while the 2ms (GTG) video response time minimizes blurring for watching sports and fast-moving gameplay. The crystal-like bezel frame with ToC reduces the reflection of light and glare. The glossy stand offers a polished design, while the clear, crystal-like acrylic neck gives the illusion the monitor is floating.

Samsung's Startlight Touch Controls integrate the On Screen Display (OSD) buttons into the bezel for a seamless look and feel, eliminating obtrusive buttons on the front or sides on the panel. Gently touching any of the buttons illuminates the controls which automatically disappear after a set period of time, minimizing distractions.

The P2370 offers full HD 1080p resolution (1920x1080) for optimized viewing of HD content. For full HDTV capability, the P2370HD builds on the 1080p capabilities of the P2370 with the addition of a HDTV tuner, integrated speakers with SRS TruSurround HD(r) and remote control. In addition, the P2370HD also has HDMI and component inputs for additional connections such as Blu-Ray, set-top boxes and game consoles providing users with a display that is ready for work and play.

"The 70 Series is a great monitor for someone looking a full range of color, sharpness and response. It also has an added benefit for those concerned about the environment. We were sensitive to the impact computers monitors have on the environment and have developed a manufacturing process for the 70 Series that would minimize this," said Tony Yu, Display Product Manager of Samsung Electronics America's Information Technology Division.

The 70 Series offers a suite of eco-conscious features including reduced energy consumption, requiring about a third less power to operate compared to typical monitors of similar size. The ToC manufacturing process eliminates harmful paints and sprays, increasing the monitors' recyclability. The slim footprint also dramatically reduces transportation costs and requirements for a smaller carbon footprint.

P2070 \ P2370 \ P2370HD LCD Monitors
  • Thin 30 mm screen depth (65.5 mm - P2370HD)
  • High contrast ratio of 50,000:1
  • Full HD 1080p (1920x1080) resolution (1600x900 - P2070)
  • Fast 2ms (GTG) video response time (5 ms - P2370HD)
  • Reduced power consumption
  • Touch of Color (ToC) technology
  • VOC-free Crystal-like bezel frame to help reduce glare
  • Starlight Touch Controls
  • Built-in 1080p digital HDTV tuner; 5 ms (GTG) video response time and HDMI input (P2370HD)
All monitors are available through Samsung resellers and distribution channels, which can be located by calling 1-800-SAMSUNG or by visiting www.samsung.com. Samsung Power Partners receive special promotions, lead referrals, training and technical support, as well as collateral and marketing materials. To find out more about becoming a Samsung Power Partner, visit www.samsungpartner.com.
Source: BusinessWire
Add your own comment

41 Comments on Samsung Introduces New Slim Touch of Color LCD Monitors

#26
a_ump
Wile EAnd just like you brush off my point about pros because they don't have a large market share, we can brush off your example of 16:9 BD's, because they are also the vast minority.

The fact of the matter is, the only thing 16:9 is better at is a select few movies. Every single other computer related task is better served by 16:10. Which puts 16:9 movies in an even bigger minority still. 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 doesn't seem like a tough choice to me, especially considering 1920x1200 DOES 1920x1080 natively.

16:9 may be all the rage right now, but it will not replace 16:10.
couldn't agree more, especially with the 1920x1200 doing 1920x1080 natively, why pick 1920x1080 when you can have both? seems pretty simple choice.
Posted on Reply
#27
h3llb3nd4
OMG:eek: that 21:9 screen looks way to awesome!!

Why did samsung make the back of the screen glossy? it's not like anyones gonna look at the rear....
but a nice design though...
Posted on Reply
#28
Mega-Japan
Wile EAnd just like you brush off my point about pros because they don't have a large market share, we can brush off your example of 16:9 BD's, because they are also the vast minority.

The fact of the matter is, the only thing 16:9 is better at is a select few movies. Every single other computer related task is better served by 16:10. Which puts 16:9 movies in an even bigger minority still. 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 doesn't seem like a tough choice to me, especially considering 1920x1200 DOES 1920x1080 natively.

16:9 may be all the rage right now, but it will not replace 16:10.
I think you're one completely missing the point here. I'll put it simple. No one can argue with you that 1920x1200 > 1920x1080, too obvious. But, a big BUT, you're comparing resolutions, not aspect ratio.

Let me try that again:

16:10 > 16:9 IF
16:10 = 1920x1080 and 16:9 = 1920x1080

But

16:9 > 16:10 IF
16:10 = 1920x1080 and 16:9 = 2048x1152

"But 1200p > 1152p" is what a noob would say.

It's simple math folks.

1920x1080 = 2073600
1920x1200 = 2304000
2048x1152 = 2359296

As you can see, a 2048x1152 (16:9) resolution has 55296 more pixels than a 1920x1200 (16:10).

"Where the heck did you pull out the '2048x1152' from?" is what another noob would say.

Clickity

Of course, if you bring a 30" Monitor with a 2560x1600 resolution, than it'd be a different story. Because a 30" Monitor with a 16:9 resolution buffed up to those lines would also kill it.

It doesn't require a genious to know this.
Posted on Reply
#29
farlex85
MusselsBlurring the line between monitor and TV, thats for sure.
I'll say, w/ a tv tuner the only real thing separating the 2 is a couple of HDMI inputs.

And as related to something else .265 isn't used in very many movies. There are 3 standard variations of widescreen, w/ most falling in between 16:9 and .265:1.
Posted on Reply
#30
Wile E
Power User
Mega-JapanI think you're one completely missing the point here. I'll put it simple. No one can argue with you that 1920x1200 > 1920x1080, too obvious. But, a big BUT, you're comparing resolutions, not aspect ratio.

Let me try that again:

16:10 > 16:9 IF
16:10 = 1920x1080 and 16:9 = 1920x1080

But

16:9 > 16:10 IF
16:10 = 1920x1080 and 16:9 = 2048x1152

"But 1200p > 1152p" is what a noob would say.

It's simple math folks.

1920x1080 = 2073600
1920x1200 = 2304000
2048x1152 = 2359296

As you can see, a 2048x1152 (16:9) resolution has 55296 more pixels than a 1920x1200 (16:10).

"Where the heck did you pull out the '2048x1152' from?" is what another noob would say.

Clickity

Of course, if you bring a 30" Monitor with a 2560x1600 resolution, than it'd be a different story. Because a 30" Monitor with a 16:9 resolution buffed up to those lines would also kill it.

It doesn't require a genious to know this.
Yeah, and if they put the 2048 monitor into a 16:10 format, it would be 2048x1280. 2048x1280 > 2048x1152.

16:10 is always > 16:9 when the horizontal resolutions are the same.

It doesn't require a genius to know this.
Posted on Reply
#31
Mega-Japan
Wile EYeah, and if they put the 2048 monitor into a 16:10 format, it would be 2048x1280. 2048x1280 > 2048x1152.

16:10 is always > 16:9 when the horizontal resolutions are the same.

It doesn't require a genius to know this.
*facepalm*

With your logic, why don't we keep using 4:3 monitors while we're at it?
Posted on Reply
#32
farlex85
Mega-Japan*facepalm*

With your logic, why don't we keep using 4:3 monitors while we're at it?
Hmm, good question. I suppose b/c of HDTV, which attempts to mimic movies, which tend to be in widescreen b/c that fits a theater style room the best. I still like 4:3 quite a bit, but it's all wide these days.
Posted on Reply
#33
Wile E
Power User
Mega-Japan*facepalm*

With your logic, why don't we keep using 4:3 monitors while we're at it?
How so? Widescreen offers numerous advantages over 4:3. 16:9 does not offer any advantages over 16:10.

And you can keep your facepalms and smart ass "genius" comments to yourself, thank you.
Posted on Reply
#34
Mega-Japan
Wile EHow so? Widescreen offers numerous advantages over 4:3. 16:9 does not offer any advantages over 16:10.

And you can keep your facepalms and smart ass "genius" comments to yourself, thank you.
I'm not trying to be a genius, however, you're just being dumb.

According to you, as long as the horizontal resolutions are the same, 16:10 > 16:9, which in reality is true, but why do you think we've been going "wide" for the past couple of decades?

2048xx1536 (4:3) > 2048x1280 (16:10) > 2048x1152 (16:9)

A 4:3 with that resolution can support 1080p videos any day of the week. The problem is how WILL the 1080p video look in there. HUGE ANNOYING black sides on top and bottom of the monitor. Bluray movies are NEVER released in a 16:10 ratio, it's either Widescreen (16:9) or Ultra-Widescreen (21:9), or 4:3 if they're from the 80's.

Put simply, 16:10 should have never existed in the first place. As someone mentioned above, only reason we even got to see them is because it was cheaper for manufacturers to make them.

Put even simpler, wider = better (for Monitors and TVs anyways).
Posted on Reply
#35
Wile E
Power User
Mega-JapanI'm not trying to be a genius, however, you're just being dumb.

According to you, as long as the horizontal resolutions are the same, 16:10 > 16:9, which in reality is true, but why do you think we've been going "wide" for the past couple of decades?

2048xx1536 (4:3) > 2048x1280 (16:10) > 2048x1152 (16:9)

A 4:3 with that resolution can support 1080p videos any day of the week. The problem is how WILL the 1080p video look in there. HUGE ANNOYING black sides on top and bottom of the monitor. Bluray movies are NEVER released in a 16:10 ratio, it's either Widescreen (16:9) or Ultra-Widescreen (21:9), or 4:3 if they're from the 80's.

Put simply, 16:10 should have never existed in the first place. As someone mentioned above, only reason we even got to see them is because it was cheaper for manufacturers to make them.

Put even simpler, wider = better (for Monitors and TVs anyways).
First off, wider only = better, when it is not at the expense of vertical resolution as well. If the vertical resolution remains the same, then yes, wider is better. But the fact is, the vertical resolution is usually sacrificed to achieve a wider angle, while keeping the same horizontal resolution. That's a loss of functionality in my book. Anybody can see that a 1920x1200 monitor is better than a 1920x1080 monitor.

And we are talking LCDs here. Show me a 4:3 LCD with those resolutions that doesn't cost 4 digits. The highest you see an LCD in 4:3 is 1600x1200.

You can bet your ass that if a 1920x1440 monitor existed around the same size and price as my current monitor, I would have it. For computer use 1920x1440 is a lot better than both 1920x1200 and 1080.

No, not so great for movies, and I agree, but guess what, computer monitors are used for much more than movies.

This is what both you and Mussels are failing to see. I understand your viewpoint perfectly, I just find it flawed. 4:3 and 16:10 are much more productive for computer uses. 16:9 is not the way to go on a computer, unless it's primary purpose is widescreen movie watching.
Posted on Reply
#36
Mega-Japan
Wile EFirst off, wider only = better, when it is not at the expense of vertical resolution as well. If the vertical resolution remains the same, then yes, wider is better. But the fact is, the vertical resolution is usually sacrificed to achieve a wider angle, while keeping the same horizontal resolution. That's a loss of functionality in my book. Anybody can see that a 1920x1200 monitor is better than a 1920x1080 monitor.

And we are talking LCDs here. Show me a 4:3 LCD with those resolutions that doesn't cost 4 digits. The highest you see an LCD in 4:3 is 1600x1200.

You can bet your ass that if a 1920x1440 monitor existed around the same size and price as my current monitor, I would have it. For computer use 1920x1440 is a lot better than both 1920x1200 and 1080.

No, not so great for movies, and I agree, but guess what, computer monitors are used for much more than movies.

This is what both you and Mussels are failing to see. I understand your viewpoint perfectly, I just find it flawed. 4:3 and 16:10 are much more productive for computer uses. 16:9 is not the way to go on a computer, unless it's primary purpose is widescreen movie watching.
Oh, now that's easy to understand. Gotcha.
But as you can probably tell from my avatar, I watch a lot of animes, as well as tons of videos and movies on my 1920x1200 monitor and I don't appreciate the black bars when watching 720p and 1080p stuff. Though now that you have explained, I understand your point and can't argue with you on that.
Posted on Reply
#37
Wile E
Power User
Mega-JapanOh, now that's easy to understand. Gotcha.
But as you can probably tell from my avatar, I watch a lot of animes, as well as tons of videos and movies on my 1920x1200 monitor and I don't appreciate the black bars when watching 720p and 1080p stuff. Though now that you have explained, I understand your point and can't argue with you on that.
I do too, as you might be able to tell from my avatar. lol. But I just learned to deal with the black bars. I was the only one in my family that would buy widescreen dvds, despite having a 4:3 TV. lol.
Posted on Reply
#38
1c3d0g
I don't get it. People go up in arms for what, a measly 120 pixels (1200 -1080 = 120)?

Gimme a break! :shadedshu There are far more important things to discuss than arguing like little brats.
Posted on Reply
#39
farlex85
1c3d0gI don't get it. People go up in arms for what, a measly 120 pixels (1200 -1080 = 120)?

Gimme a break! :shadedshu There are far more important things to discuss than arguing like little brats.
Well, technically it's more like 230,400 pixels(2,304,000 (1920x1200)-2,073,600(1920x1080)) since the product is the number of pixels, not the factor. But yes it isn't an enormous difference.
Posted on Reply
#40
DanishDevil
The thing people have trouble with is that some games don't support 1920x1080, but support 1920x1200. I had to play a game at 1280x1024 on my 1080P television, and that really pissed me off.
Posted on Reply
#41
denice25
wow! so stylish and elegant..
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 16th, 2024 14:08 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts