BenQ Intros Two LED-Backlit HD Displays

[Mussels]

oh right, you're talking about how games made for 16:9 aspect ratios crop the sides off the 16:9 image to render the 16:10


Yeah i tell people that all the time, that due to all the console ports this is standard behaviour - but i always get told i'm wrong

its horizontal minus, not vertical plus when they convert between the aspect ratios

[EastCoasthandle]

In situations like that is why we have WSF and programs like WideScreen Fixer. Examples like that only shows how the game was developed not the capability of the monitor's true aspect ratio.

Oh and use the TV Calculator. Take note of the pixel density, etc. Don't be so easily fooled by gamer programing gimmicks! Compound that by a purchase which is similarly priced for a true 24" 1920x1200 (image that, I have to use the term True 24") monitor and you now see why I think it's a rip off. Regardless of it's features, there is less real estate! In any case this will force people "in the know" to get a 26" - 28" instead. If that's not available they would probably save up for a true 30".

Oh, and I wanted to also point out that 1080 resolution panels are usually on the low end of the quality scale. That's why this one is advertised using a TN panel.

[morphy]

Originally Posted by TAViX

Check the screens here, and why an 1920x1080 is better than a 1920x1200 monitor.

1920x1080 :
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2989/1920x1080.jpg

1920x1200 :
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/1621/1920x1200a.jpg

So this is what I meant when said "extra viewing space"...

All this is 'proofing' is that the game forces a smaller FOV for 16:10 ratio..and does not indicate a limitation of the monitor itself. It's really a lazy way of programming for support of different aspect ratios. It just shows that the dev originally coded for consoles (see Mussels post) and instead of doing a proper aspect ratio conversion for the PC monitor ratios they decided to crop thus losing detail in the process. If they had started with 16:10 ratios originally then went down to 16:9, it's the same amt of work and looks better for 16:10.
Regardless, when the fov is the same, there is no advantage in using 16:9 screens over 16:10.

Well, to be honest, I will always prefer a 23.6" 1920x1080 over an 22" 1920x1200! They have roughly the same vertical size, but the 1080 one it's a little bit longer(horizontally i mean). ...

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by TAViX

Well, to be honest, I will always prefer a 23.6" 1920x1080 over an 22" 1920x1200! They have roughly the same vertical size, but the 1080 one it's a little bit longer(horizontally i mean). ...

And still shows less pixels.

[pr0n Inspector]

Originally Posted by TAViX

Well, to be honest, I will always prefer a 23.6" 1920x1080 over an 22" 1920x1200! They have roughly the same vertical size, but the 1080 one it's a little bit longer(horizontally i mean). ...

Lower PPI = better?!


Also, Wile E your avatar is fraking awsome.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by pr0n Inspector

Lower PPI = better?!


Also, Wile E your avatar is fraking awsome.

since the size decreases at the same time, how can it be lower PPI?

[morphy]

Originally Posted by TAViX

Well, to be honest, I will always prefer a 23.6" 1920x1080 over an 22" 1920x1200! They have roughly the same vertical size, but the 1080 one it's a little bit longer(horizontally i mean). ...

um yeah the 1080 on the 23.6 is always going to be wider than any 22" ...That's like sayin I prefer a 30" over a 19" because the 30" is wider..well duh. There's one 22" 1920x1200 (Lenovo) that I'm aware of, most are 1680x1050. For the price of a 22" 1920x1200, I can get a decent 24" and if wide is what you want, it'll be negligible compared to a 23.6:
23.6" viewing size = 20.57W x 11.57H
24" viewing size = 20.35W x 12.72H
In real world, I doubt many will notice the .2" difference before the 1+" difference in height.

Originally Posted by Mussels

since the size decreases at the same time, how can it be lower PPI?

Guess it depends on how small the pixels are...but they shouldn't go down in size that much on a 22", any smaller we'll be talking hires laptop lcds.

Originally Posted by Wile E

And still shows less pixels.

You guys are obsessed with the pixels. Then with your logic it's better to buy a 4:3 display with 1920x1400....because it has more pixels! lol!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by morphy

um yeah the 1080 on the 23.6 is always going to be wider than any 22" ...That's like sayin I prefer a 30" over a 19" because the 30" is wider..well duh. There's one 22" 1920x1200 (Lenovo) that I'm aware of, most are 1680x1050. For the price of a 22" 1920x1200, I can get a decent 24" and if wide is what you want, it'll be negligible compared to a 23.6:
23.6" viewing size = 20.57W x 11.57H
24" viewing size = 20.35W x 12.72H
In real world, I doubt many will notice the .2" difference before the 1+" difference in height.

Dude you understood nothing from what I've posted. It wasn't about the screen size, it was about the games, for example, that you gain extra details with a 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200....
And btw, if you think that the difference between 23.6" ultra wide and 22" wide is the same as 30" vs 19", well, no furher comments.

EDIT: Ok, so what I wanted to say in previews posts is that if I have 2 monitors, one wide, one ultra-wide, with the same vertical dimension, I would choose the ultra-wide one because of obvious advantages.

That's why, if you guys noticed, recently almost all the manufacturers started to release monitors only with 16:9 aspect ratio.

[morphy]

Originally Posted by TAViX

Dude you understood nothing from what I've posted. It wasn't about the screen size, it was about the games, for example, that you gain extra details with a 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200....

If it's about the games like you said, what's stopping someone with a 1920x1200 monitor from switching the aspect ratio to 16:9 and res to 1920x1080 and not lose any detail?? Who is not understanding what here? Sure there'll be black bars but if the point is not to lose any details it then becomes a moot point. I can get the best of both worlds with games that do 1920x1200 properly, whereas with 1920x1080 I'm stuck at that.

Originally Posted by TAViX

And btw, if you think that the difference between 23.6" ultra wide and 22" wide is the same as 30" vs 19", well, no furher comments.

I'm not refering to qualitative comparisons rather the flawed logic - the same flawed logic in 30"vs 19" applies to 23.6"vs 22".

Originally Posted by TAViX

EDIT: Ok, so what I wanted to say in previews posts is that if I have 2 monitors, one wide, one ultra-wide, with the same vertical dimension, I would choose the ultra-wide one because of obvious advantages.

That's an easy choice to make ...if there were no 24" monitors. So if there's another monitor offering more vertical dimension with negligible difference in horizontal, you'd still pick the lesser vertical one? There are other factors involved ofc but since you're going by vertical dimensions I'm sticking to that.

Which goes back to your quote " if you think that the difference between 23.6" ultra wide and 22" wide is the same as 30" vs 19", well, no furher comments." OK so what about 23.6" vs 24" because obviously the difference now isn't as big as 23.6 vs 22".

[pentastar111]

Originally Posted by TAViX

Check the screens here, and why an 1920x1080 is better than a 1920x1200 monitor.

1920x1080 :
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2989/1920x1080.jpg

1920x1200 :
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/1621/1920x1200a.jpg

So this is what I meant when said "extra viewing space"...

That is very "eye" opening...

@morphy

LOL, you're helpless! haha. It reminds me of my great-grandma' at 90, you couldn't reason with her in any way, even if you have the proof right in front of her, hahaha!
Anyways, Merry Christmas everybody, what did "Santa" bring you???

[Mussels]

keep the thread on topic tavix. theres other threads for christmas stuff.

[EnergyFX]

What is so friggin impossible to understand that 1920x1200 is MORE resolution than 1920x1080.

1920 = 1920 in width
1200 > 1080 in height

1920x1200 = 2,304,000 total pixels
1920x1080 = 2,073,600 total pixels (10% less total pixels)

The simple solution to this stupid debate is mathematical. 1920x1200 provides higher resolution... PERIOD. You can't change that fact with any sort of "logic", interpenetration, or magic. Higher resolution is higher resolution... period. Screen dimension in inches is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what size screen you want to try to make your argument with. However, if you do choose to try to argue screen sizes then you MUST compare a 1080 screen against its closest sized 1200 competitor.

Don't upsize the 1080 to try to win the debate. Whatever "upsized" dimension you try to argue with... the 1200 is better in equal upsize.

Game resolution doesn't win or lose this argument. You can do shit-tons more on a computer than just game. Higher resolution trumps absolutely any argument you try to make.

FACT:
1920x1200 > 1920x1080

And guess what... ANY 1200 screen can also push 1080 resolution. WHOA! Can you make a 1080 push 1200? Nope.

J-F-C!!!

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by TAViX

You guys are obsessed with the pixels. Then with your logic it's better to buy a 4:3 display with 1920x1400....because it has more pixels! lol!!!!!!!

I most certainly would buy a 1920x1440 monitor over either 1080 or 1200, as long as the price is right. Problem is, 4:3 displays command a premium over widescreen panels. As such, 16:10 offers me more for my money. There is no downside to adding vertical resolution if the horizontal stays the same.

[FordGT90Concept]

The red is what is missing from 1920x1080 compared to 1920x1200:


I look it at it quite simple according to aspect ratios:
Monitors: 4:3, 5:4, 16:10 (8:5)
TVs: 4:3, 16:9

The reason why the monitors are a little bit taller is for the menus. You can have a 1080p film displaying and still have some workspace.


Physical dimensions of a screen also doesn't limit resolution, the DPI does. For example, my monitor Samsung T240 (20.375" x 12.75"):
pixels per inch = pixels / width
x: 94.23 pixels per inch = 1920 / 20.375"
y: 94.12 pixels per inch = 1200 / 12.75"

There's monitors out there that are close to double that figure. Even though they are only 23/24" monitors, they feature resolutions of 3840x2160. Small screens with large resolutions have better picture clarity than large screens with small resolutions (e.g. a 24" with 1920x1200 has higher DPI and therefore clarity than a 24" with 1920x1080 resolution).

[Mussels]

some of you only see resolution. that is ALL you see, and all you care about.


SEe the game examples above: regardless of you having more pixels, you get LESS of a game to see. you get black bars in other cases.

Why would a gamer want a screen that takes more to render (lower FPS) but shows less game?

Why would a HTPC/movie watcher choose a screen that gives him black bars?


There are two arguments here - 1920x1200 gives you more pixels, but if they arent USED by anything other than 2D applications, its useless to most people.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by Mussels

some of you only see resolution. that is ALL you see, and all you care about.


SEe the game examples above: regardless of you having more pixels, you get LESS of a game to see. you get black bars in other cases.

Why would a gamer want a screen that takes more to render (lower FPS) but shows less game?

Why would a HTPC/movie watcher choose a screen that gives him black bars?


There are two arguments here - 1920x1200 gives you more pixels, but if they arent USED by anything other than 2D applications, its useless to most people.

The black bars do not harm the content of the movie in any way. It still displays the full image, completely unchanged and unharmed. That's no argument at all. It's completely superficial.

And despite all of this, the only argument might be video games, but almost all gaming machines are still used most of the time for 2D applications, where more resolution=more workspace, period. And besides that, Just set the resolution to 1920x1200, and TA-DA, you have you field of view back.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by Mussels

There are two arguments here - 1920x1200 gives you more pixels, but if they arent USED by anything other than 2D applications, its useless to most people.

They are used more often than not. The only thing I ever seen with the black strips are 1080i/1080p films in order to maintain their 16:9 ratio. Almost all 3D applications are capable of using 16:10 if they can do 16:9. I'm playing GTA IV right now, for example, and it has no black bars. Dragon Age: Origins has no black bars. Tropico 3 has no black bars. Borderlands has no black bars. Only old games might but that is most likely because they are incapable of anything except 4:3 making the whole point of 16:9 vs 16:10 irrelevant.

If you run a 1080p film windowed on a 1920x1200 monitor, you can see the film and also have access to your Start menu/taskbar. On a 1920x1080 monitor, the taskbar would have to cover up some of the film or shrink the film down to less than 1080p.

[OnBoard]

Originally Posted by Mussels

some of you only see resolution. that is ALL you see, and all you care about.

Why would a HTPC/movie watcher choose a screen that gives him black bars?

Hardly any good movie is in 1.78:1, they are 2.40:1. You always get black bars on top & bottom

This is what you'd want as a movie screen, but not a monitor anymore
http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/ne...ma-TV-In-UK/p1

Anyone know if those LED backlit monitors/TVs have adjustable backlight? My few years old has CCFL backlight from 0-10 (one of the reasons I bought it). Have it on 3 to get deeper blacks and no backlight leaking. Don't know if LED backlit ones still suffer from that, but I doubt they are perfect.

[morphy]

Originally Posted by Mussels

There are two arguments here - 1920x1200 gives you more pixels, but if they arent USED by anything other than 2D applications, its useless to most people.

If they aren't being used by anything other than 2D apps? So OS tasks, web browsing etc are useless to them like you say, why are they even on a computer? If someone comes to you for a recommendation on a screen for watching movies, are you going to recommend they buy a PC?

Again I got nothing against 16:9 ratios on the PC...if that's what some ppl want all the power to them but leave my 16:10 alone..give me the option as a consumer for 16:10 products and not just 16:9.

and tavix keep patting yourself on your back on your 'proof' when I can see the same stuff you see on my 1920x1200 and have more desktop workspace to boot.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

They are used more often than not. The only thing I ever seen with the black strips are 1080i/1080p films in order to maintain their 16:9 ratio. Almost all 3D applications are capable of using 16:10 if they can do 16:9. I'm playing GTA IV right now, for example, and it has no black bars. Dragon Age: Origins has no black bars. Tropico 3 has no black bars. Borderlands has no black bars. Only old games might but that is most likely because they are incapable of anything except 4:3 making the whole point of 16:9 vs 16:10 irrelevant.

If you run a 1080p film windowed on a 1920x1200 monitor, you can see the film and also have access to your Start menu/taskbar. On a 1920x1080 monitor, the taskbar would have to cover up some of the film or shrink the film down to less than 1080p.

i take it you missed the example earlier, where dragon age was shown cropping a 16:9 image to make the 16:10 - you got less image, not more.

and why would i run movies windowed? if i'm opposed to black bars, i'm sure as hell going to be opposed to a start menu.

Originally Posted by EnergyFX

What is so friggin impossible to understand that 1920x1200 is MORE resolution than 1920x1080.

What is so friggin impossible to understand that I DON'T CARE!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by EnergyFX

Don't upsize the 1080 to try to win the debate. Whatever "upsized" dimension you try to argue with... the 1200 is better in equal upsize.
Game resolution doesn't win or lose this argument.

Realy? How about this:

Both are the same vertical resolution of 1920

x1200:



x1080



I don't know, but I kinda like to see the the the whole mirror or at least some more....

Originally Posted by EnergyFX

You can do shit-tons more on a computer than just game. Higher resolution trumps absolutely any argument you try to make.

FACT:
1920x1200 > 1920x1080

And guess what... ANY 1200 screen can also push 1080 resolution. WHOA! Can you make a 1080 push 1200? Nope.

J-F-C!!!

Wha! You're so smart! Any 1200 screen can push 1080!! No $hit! How??? By stretching the image or by putting black bars. Either case is useless. Sure I can do "shit-tons more on a computer", for me the most important ones are also to watch movies (here the 1080 screen wins always), edit documents (the 1080 screen is also a winner since I can have 3 A4 docs on the same time on the screen), 3D modeling (I find an 1080 screen much better since I can have the part one half of the screen and the draft on the other part), etc, etc.

Like I've said, you guys are OBSESSED with pixels, resolution, etc, and don't see the real advantages of ultra-wide screens.
And this is coming from a guy(..me) who has a 27" 1920x1200 monitor back home. But to be honest, I would have wish to have an ultra-wide one...

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by Mussels

i take it you missed the example earlier, where dragon age was shown cropping a 16:9 image to make the 16:10 - you got less image, not more.

and why would i run movies windowed? if i'm opposed to black bars, i'm sure as hell going to be opposed to a start menu.

You got just over an inch of extra verticle space. How is it cropped? DX9/OGL naturally does not crop. The perspective, ratio, and resolution all effect what is drawn and what isn't drawn.


To clarify, the video is overlayed on black so the black you do see is simply what is not overwritten. OSD menus and the like overlay the black and the video. Depending on your codec, you can manipulate the film without the OSD ever coverying the actual film. Having that extra 120 pixels is never a disadvantage.

[EastCoasthandle]

Again, in game aspect ratios mean nothing. You simply have to look for a modding tool to fix it or, gasp, you can change the resolution on a true 24" monitor . I know, it's shocking. But if you want a game that truely supports 24" monitor they are out there. For example Boaderlands:


16:10



16:9

Honestly, you really don't need 16:10 inside the cockpit of a car (per say). However, other games do support 16:10:

16:10



16:9

As you can see, games can support it. But the problem is that game developers have the tendency to alter the native aspect ratio. That's why places like WSF was created and moded programs made available. Heck, the last time I recall a real aspect ratio controversy was Bioshock. In which the developers themselves admitted fault and fixed the issue and even gave the creator of the wide screen mod program a video card (or something or another). In any case, it should be common knowledge by now that some game developers have a tendency to treat a PC monitor's aspect ratio as the red-headed stepchild.