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

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

Discussion in 'News' started by malware, Nov 22, 2008.

  1. malware New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,476 (1.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Bulgaria
    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).

    [​IMG]

    Source: Samsung
     
  2. zithe

    zithe

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,088 (1.31/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    North Chili, NY
    Nice. I see they're trying to compete with that acer g24. =P
     
  3. panchoman

    panchoman Sold my stars!

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,595 (3.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    23.6 inchs? why?
     
  4. Weer New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,417 (0.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    94
    Location:
    New York / Israel
    And then why call it 2494?

    Don't question monitor manufacturers.. it's pointless.
     
  5. mullered07

    mullered07 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,648 (0.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Location:
    UK
    probably due to the fact its 1920x1080 and not 1920x1200 like other 24" monitors.
     
  6. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,267 (2.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    968
    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.
     
  7. IcrushitI New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    106 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Location:
    Canada
    Couldn't have said it any better, especially the real estate.
     
  8. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,490 (11.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,770
    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.
     
  9. Weer New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,417 (0.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    94
    Location:
    New York / Israel
    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.
     
  10. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,490 (11.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,770
    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.
     
  11. vagxtr

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    180 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    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
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2008
  12. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,490 (11.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,770
    i have a 40" HDTV with a PVA panel. good work sherlock.
     
  13. rizla1

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    485 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Location:
    ireland
    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.
     
  14. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    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.
     
  15. a_ump

    a_ump

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,620 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    376
    Location:
    Smithfield, WV
    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.
     
  16. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,490 (11.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,770
    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.
     
  17. zithe

    zithe

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,088 (1.31/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    North Chili, NY
    I have a 42" at 800x480. It looks just fine. (plasma)
     
  18. pentastar111

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    994 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Location:
    Los Angeles...U.S.A
    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.:)
     

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

Share This Page