1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

LG Rolls Out New HD Monitors

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Feb 28, 2009.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,428 (11.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,618
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    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.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Source: VR-Zone
  2. shiny_red_cobra

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    77 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Is the 16:10 format of LCD monitors slowly being abandoned?
  3. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,247 (2.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    963
    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 ?
  4. paulrules New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    27 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    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.
  5. iamverysmart New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    74 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Lower costs because it's 16:9 as to 16:10?
    The prices haven't been announced yet.
  6. to6ko91

    to6ko91

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Messages:
    335 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Location:
    Ireland
    lower because its 16:9 ;)
  7. mrhuggles

    mrhuggles

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,540 (0.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    174
    is it wrong for me to prefer 16:9? :(

    heh yay 1360x768
    Kei says thanks.
  8. to6ko91

    to6ko91

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Messages:
    335 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Location:
    Ireland
    no its not :) Especially if you watch more movies than do other stuff ;)
  9. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,142 (11.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,471
    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.
    Kei says thanks.
  10. Hayder_Master

    Hayder_Master

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,173 (2.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    638
    Location:
    IRAQ-Baghdad
    how much speed for this monitor , 5 NS or less
  11. to6ko91

    to6ko91

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Messages:
    335 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Location:
    Ireland
    NS ??? Wow what are you a high speed camera :laugh:
  12. RadeonX2

    RadeonX2 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,197 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    180
    Location:
    Asia, PH
    it's 2ms :toast:
  13. Jizzler

    Jizzler

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,410 (1.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    636
    Location:
    Geneva, FL, USA
    19:6 has it's place, it's just not on my desk :D
  14. OnBoard

    OnBoard New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,044 (1.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    379
    Location:
    Finland
    http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12236&Itemid=1

    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.
  15. ZoneDymo

    ZoneDymo

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    373 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    57
    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.
  16. TheLostSwede

    TheLostSwede

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    929 (0.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    163
    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.
  17. Fleck New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    308 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Location:
    FL
    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!
  18. pr0n Inspector

    pr0n Inspector

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,334 (0.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    164
    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.
  19. steelkane

    steelkane New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,370 (0.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    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.
  20. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,247 (2.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    963
    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:
  21. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,142 (11.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,471
    its not unusual. its just big. gaming would be slow, unless you have dual cards (or better)
  22. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    I still prefer 16x10 for everything but movies. 1920x1200 is better than 1080p, in everything except movies, no matter how you look at it.
  23. Hayder_Master

    Hayder_Master

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,173 (2.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    638
    Location:
    IRAQ-Baghdad
    is this first time you hear about LCD speed


    thanx , this is fast and cool for games
  24. ZoneDymo

    ZoneDymo

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    373 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    57

    yeah and 1920x1440 is better than 1920x1200
  25. pr0n Inspector

    pr0n Inspector

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,334 (0.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    164
    1 ms = 1,000,000 ns

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page