Wednesday, December 23rd 2009

BenQ Intros Two LED-Backlit HD Displays

BenQ will release two new full-HD LCD monitors to the market, the 21.5 inch G2222HDL and 24-inch G2420HDBL. The two are characterized by LED backlit illumination, and share nearly identical specifications which include glossy black frames, native resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixel TN panels, 5 ms response time, 1,000:1 contrast ratio with 5,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio, brightness of 250 cd/m², and connectivity which includes DVI and D-Sub. The G2222HDL and G2420HDBL are expected to be priced at £149 and £169, respectively, available from this week.

Source: TechConnect Magazine
Add your own comment

114 Comments on BenQ Intros Two LED-Backlit HD Displays

#1
Mussels
Moderprator
wow... so many people didnt bother looking at the screenshots throughout the thread.


FordGT90's post, top is 1080 bottom is 1200




Notice how the 1080 shows MORE?

in MANY games going to a 1200 screen does *not* give you more on the top and bottm, it crops and gives you LESS on the sides instead. you're getting a zoomed in image with the sides missing.

Please try and understand THAT is what our argument is, and stop talking about a freaking 2D desktop.
Posted on Reply
#2
Unregistered
Wile E said:
It working or not has nothing to do with the screen, it has to do with the game dev. The screen is innocent of any of this.

Besides, once again, I point out that 1920x1200 displays 1080p 100% flawless and accurate. 1200p can do 1080p, but 1080p can't do 1200p. It's pretty simple logic, tbh.
Talking about logic, than a 1400p monitor, can do both 1200p and 1080p. Please, be my guest, go and buy a giant box just to have more desktop space, lol! Than enjoy almost half of the screen wasted when watching movies or HD TV.;)
Posted on Edit | Reply
#3
Wile E
Power User
LAN_deRf_HA said:
1080p is simply better for the real world. Gaming and movies. I hate black bars, on 360 or pc games. They actually decrease the size of the image you view. I could just pick a 16:10 res for the pc games at least right? Not really, since most games are bad console ports this crops the image. Either way you cut it 1200 is worse for all but a few games. As for movies, despite a number of newer films now being shot in 21:9 most videos, tv, and less recent films stick to 16:9.

So what is the only draw back of a 1080p monitor? Vertical desktop space for web browsing, which I compensate for by moving my taskbar to the side of the screen. Something all widescreen users should be doing.
No, a 1200p monitor does not decrease the size of a 1080p image AT ALL. It is 100% identically rendered on either a 1080p or 1200p monitor. This is what I can't seem to make people understand. The only thing a 1080p screen might have as a benefit, is less black bars, but guess what, even 1080p displays black bars in most movies, as movies aren't generally encoded in 16:9 to begin with. Not to mention, those black bars do absolutely nothing to hurt image quality. It's completely superficial.
Posted on Reply
#4
Wile E
Power User
TAViX said:
Talking about logic, than a 1400p monitor, can do both 1200p and 1080p. Please, be my guest, go and buy a giant box just to have more desktop space, lol! Than enjoy almost half of the screen wasted when watching movies or HD TV.;)
Who cares if the space is not used? The image is exactly the same, in exactly the same quality.

If they made 1920x1440 monitors at around the same price, I would most certainly have one. It can do everything a 1080p monitor can do, plus more. A 1080p monitor sure as hell can't use 1920x1440 resolution.

Mussels said:
wow... so many people didnt bother looking at the screenshots throughout the thread.


FordGT90's post, top is 1080 bottom is 1200

http://img.techpowerup.org/091228/Capture336.jpg


Notice how the 1080 shows MORE?

in MANY games going to a 1200 screen does *not* give you more on the top and bottm, it crops and gives you LESS on the sides instead. you're getting a zoomed in image with the sides missing.

Please try and understand THAT is what our argument is, and stop talking about a freaking 2D desktop.
Then set the damn monitor to 1080p, problem solved. You are missing the point, not them. A 1200p monitor can do 1080p, but a 1080p cannot do 1200p for those times that 1200 is better.
Posted on Reply
#5
Mussels
Moderprator
Wile E said:
Who cares if the space is not used? The image is exactly the same, in exactly the same quality.

If they made 1920x1440 monitors at around the same price, I would most certainly have one. It can do everything a 1080p monitor can do, plus more. A 1080p monitor sure as hell can't use 1920x1440 resolution.



Then set the damn monitor to 1080p, problem solved. You are missing the point, not them. A 1200p monitor can do 1080p, but a 1080p cannot do 1200p for those times that 1200 is better.
fair point, except that on ATI graphics cards scaling is broken so you'd end up with a stretched image vertically, instead of a cropped image horizontally. hardly a win there.

and even if it did work, you'd end up with black bars... which is something i'm opposed to as well.


I'm just getting pissed that you people are all "OMG MORE RES IS BEST EVERYONE MUST AGREE" just STFU and realise different people want different things. we're stating our case (that WE personally dont like it, and showing people the flaws of 1200P screens) and we're getting F'ing hammered for it.
Posted on Reply
#6
Unregistered
Wile E said:
Who cares if the space is not used? The image is exactly the same, in exactly the same quality.
I DO care. I found extremely annoying those black bars for once. Secondly I like the games to display a little more detail on left/right verticals.

Wile E said:
If they made 1920x1440 monitors at around the same price, I would most certainly have one. It can do everything a 1080p monitor can do, plus more. A 1080p monitor sure as hell can't use 1920x1440 resolution.
By all means, be my guest. Than maybe you'll prefer a perfect square monitor with 1920x1920 pixels!!! (Oau!!! Look at that uber high resolution!!!!!) And definitely, DEFINITELY, it will be capable of displaying 1080p, 1200p, even 1400p! :rockout::pimp:;)
Posted on Edit | Reply
#7
Wile E
Power User
Mussels said:
fair point, except that on ATI graphics cards scaling is broken so you'd end up with a stretched image vertically, instead of a cropped image horizontally. hardly a win there.

and even if it did work, you'd end up with black bars... which is something i'm opposed to as well.


I'm just getting pissed that you people are all "OMG MORE RES IS BEST EVERYONE MUST AGREE" just STFU and realise different people want different things. we're stating our case (that WE personally dont like it, and showing people the flaws of 1200P screens) and we're getting F'ing hammered for it.
No, it doesn't stretch. Every single 1200p monitor I have ever used displays 1080p without stretching, as long as you set the monitor's in-built scaling options properly.

There is a difference between preferring 1080p and 1200p being flawed. You are free to prefer 1080p screens, that does not make them better. 1200p is technically superior in every way, except when you consider vanity.
Posted on Reply
#8
Wile E
Power User
TAViX said:
I DO care. I found extremely annoying those black bars for once. Secondly I like the games to display a little more detail on left/right verticals.



By all means, be my guest. Than maybe you'll prefer a perfect square monitor with 1920x1920 pixels!!! (Oau!!! Look at that uber high resolution!!!!!) And definitely, DEFINITELY, it will be capable of displaying 1080p, 1200p, even 1400p! :rockout::pimp:;)
Then you obviously don't watch bluray movies on your screen, as even 1080p screens have black bars showing with them.

And yeah, 1920x1920 would be even better. Sorry, your sarcasm fails.
Posted on Reply
#9
Mussels
Moderprator
Wile E said:
No, it doesn't stretch. Every single 1200p monitor I have ever used displays 1080p without stretching, as long as you set the monitor's in-built scaling options properly.

There is a difference between preferring 1080p and 1200p being flawed. You are free to prefer 1080p screens, that does not make them better. 1200p is technically superior in every way, except when you consider vanity.
i have never owned a single screen with built in scaling options. its always handled by the video card drivers.


Wile E: i watch many blu ray movies. i prefer having that inch or so less black bar. if it MUST be there, i want it as small as possible.


why the hell cant you people just understand that some of us disagree with your views? you arent going to convert us, and we arent trying to convert you. we're just stating our side of the case so that other people dont see ONLY your views.
Posted on Reply
#10
Wile E
Power User
Mussels said:
i have never owned a single screen with built in scaling options. its always handled by the video card drivers.


Wile E: i watch many blu ray movies. i prefer having that inch or so less black bar. if it MUST be there, i want it as small as possible.


why the hell cant you people just understand that some of us disagree with your views? you arent going to convert us, and we arent trying to convert you. we're just stating our side of the case so that other people dont see ONLY your views.
But some are trying to convert us by claiming 1200p is inferior. It is not. It is not the preference of those, yourself included, and that's fine, but it is not in any way inferior. The only argument you guys come up with is black bars, but that doesn't make 1200p inferior at all.

As far as the screens, you didn't look at the right settings. They all have them. Maybe some of the oldest 1200p screens might not, but all relatively modern ones do.
Posted on Reply
#11
Unregistered
Mussels said:
i have never owned a single screen with built in scaling options. its always handled by the video card drivers.
My Dell has a build in scaling option without the need of video card scaling. Has 3 options: 1:1 , Aspect, Fill. And with my old nvidia card i used to have 2 options in drivers control panel also: Hardware Scaling and Driver Scaling.
#12
Mussels
Moderprator
Wile E said:
But some are trying to convert us by claiming 1200p is inferior. It is not. It is not the preference of those, yourself included, and that's fine, but it is not in any way inferior. The only argument you guys come up with is black bars, but that doesn't make 1200p inferior at all.

As far as the screens, you didn't look at the right settings. They all have them. Maybe some of the oldest 1200p screens might not, but all relatively modern ones do.
no. i've only ever seen it on high end dells. i've never seen it on any screens for sale here in AU apart from them. its always been done via the video card driver.

TAViX said:
My Dell has a build in scaling option without the need of video card scaling. Has 3 options: 1:1 , Aspect, Fill. And with my old nvidia card i used to have 2 options in drivers control panel also: Hardware Scaling and Driver Scaling.
You mention dell as well. Nv's driver is about the same as ATI's, except that ATI's is broken in win 7.


Wile E: you say we're trying to convert you by saying 1200p is inferior. we're saying its inferior TO US. this is just another fanboi thread, Nvidia vs ATI or AMD vs intel.

One party says "OMG DONT BUY X, Y IS BETTER" and the people who prefer X are going to step up to the plate to defend their choices.


To be honest, i no longer care. i'm just sick of having "MORE PIXELS IS ALWAYS BETTER" crammed down my throat at every turn.
I'm not saying 1080p is always better. i'm giving two specific examples, with proof, of when it IS better, for ME. the argument that comes back is "1200p is ALWAYS better" "more pixels is ALWAYS" better "heres a workaround" etc - people ARE trying to tell me i made the wrong choice, and backing the wrong side.
Posted on Reply
#13
Unregistered
Mussels said:

You mention dell as well. Nv's driver is about the same as ATI's, except that ATI's is broken in Win 7.
Yeah, I've kinda noticed that with ATI CCP there is no way to choose that...hmm

Mussels said:
To be honest, i no longer care. i'm just sick of having "MORE PIXELS IS ALWAYS BETTER" crammed down my throat at every turn.
Haha, I know what you mean. But people should understand that the wide-screen monitors were created to GAIN more vertical space, NOT to cut from the horizontal space. This is what people fail to understand.
#14
Wile E
Power User
Mussels said:
no. i've only ever seen it on high end dells. i've never seen it on any screens for sale here in AU apart from them. its always been done via the video card driver.



You mention dell as well. Nv's driver is about the same as ATI's, except that ATI's is broken in win 7.


Wile E: you say we're trying to convert you by saying 1200p is inferior. we're saying its inferior TO US. this is just another fanboi thread, Nvidia vs ATI or AMD vs intel.

One party says "OMG DONT BUY X, Y IS BETTER" and the people who prefer X are going to step up to the plate to defend their choices.


To be honest, i no longer care. i'm just sick of having "MORE PIXELS IS ALWAYS BETTER" crammed down my throat at every turn.
I'm not saying 1080p is always better. i'm giving two specific examples, with proof, of when it IS better, for ME. the argument that comes back is "1200p is ALWAYS better" "more pixels is ALWAYS" better "heres a workaround" etc - people ARE trying to tell me i made the wrong choice, and backing the wrong side.
No, you are simply mistaken about the monitors and scaling, Mussels. Almost all do 1080p without scaling. The ones that don't are in a vast minority.
Posted on Reply
#15
Wile E
Power User
TAViX said:
Yeah, I've kinda noticed that with ATI CCP there is no way to choose that...hmm



Haha, I know what you mean. But people should understand that the wide-screen monitors were created to GAIN more vertical space, NOT to cut from the horizontal space. This is what people fail to understand.
You menat to say horizontal space. Horizontal is side to side. Vertical is top to bottom.

And what you fail to acknowledge is that some games show more with 1200 vs 1080. They show the same fov as 1080p from side to side, but add more top to bottom on 1200p. A properly coded game increases fov with resolution, regardless of aspect ratio. If horizontal res increases, so does horizontal fov, if vertical res increases, so does vertical fov. 1920x1080 is supposed to display more than 1280x720, despite the same aspect ratio. More res has traditionally meant more rendered in the pc world, aspect ratio notwithstanding. Only recently have devs gotten lazy and started cropping the image instead of rendering more.

Eastcoast has already shown you examples of this, but you chose to ignore them.

Your preference is clear, but the "proof" of why your preference is better is flawed. Not all games render different resolutions the same, so 1080p is not always better than 1200p in horizontal fov, just like 1200p is not always better at rendering vertical fov.
Posted on Reply
#16
Mussels
Moderprator
Wile E said:
No, you are simply mistaken about the monitors and scaling, Mussels. Almost all do 1080p without scaling. The ones that don't are in a vast minority.
i'm sorry, but you're wrong. i can name every widescreen LCD i've ever owned, and none have had that feature

Chimei 221D
AOC 210V
samsung 226BW
samsung 2494HS - i take this one back, this monitor DOES have a feature to do this. However it only works if the aspect ratio doesnt change. (and doesnt work on 1280x720, for some rason)

So thats one screen with this "feature" albeit, rather broken.

even my samsung 40" HDTV doesnt support it, its got 4:3, "just scan" (which stretches/shrinks to fit) and zoom modes.

just because all the ones YOU have owned, in america have had it - doesnt mean shit for another country where i've owned more LCD's than you.


for proof my screen doesnt support this:
(sorry for shitty cam, it doesnt like taking images of LCD's)


video card scaling options are proven to be DISABLED/turned off.
aspect ratio in monitors OSD is on "auto" and not "wide" (stretch)
1680x1050 is barely readable, apply button is greyed out proving its selected
no black bars visible, stretched to fit


am i being a little harsh here? yeah. you just told me my hardware can do something it cant, and you're insinuating i'm a liar for saying otherwise. that does anger me.
Posted on Reply
#17
Wile E
Power User
Mussels said:
i'm sorry, but you're wrong. i can name every widescreen LCD i've ever owned, and none have had that feature

Chimei 221D
AOC 210V
samsung 226BW
samsung 2494HS - i take this one back, this monitor DOES have a feature to do this. However it only works if the aspect ratio doesnt change. (and doesnt work on 1280x720, for some rason)

So thats one screen with this "feature" albeit, rather broken.

even my samsung 40" HDTV doesnt support it, its got 4:3, "just scan" (which stretches/shrinks to fit) and zoom modes.

just because all the ones YOU have owned, in america have had it - doesnt mean shit for another country where i've owned more LCD's than you.
226BW does have it. I know it for 100% fact, as it's the monitor my father has. Chimei and AOC I can't comment on, they are rather low-level brands over here, and I wouldn't even consider buying them over here.

And you may have owned more LCDs than me, but I seriously doubt you have as much experience with LCDs as me. I build quite a few computers, and have literally messed with 100's of LCDs. ;)

You aren't looking at the right settings, apparently, or you aussies get fuxored firmwares for no good reason.

And I never said 1:1 for all resolutions. I said almost all 1200p monitors do 1080p 1:1.
Posted on Reply
#18
Mussels
Moderprator
i edited my post above to prove to you that it doesnt have it/doesnt work. photo evidence.

fair enough that you claim 1200p monitors can do 1080. i find that easier to beleive (especially over HDMI)
Posted on Reply
#19
Wile E
Power User
Mussels said:
i edited my post above to prove to you that it doesnt have it/doesnt work. photo evidence.

fair enough that you claim 1200p monitors can do 1080. i find that easier to beleive (especially over HDMI)
I misread your post, I thought you your talking about the 26" Samsung 1200p monitor. That's what my dad has.

And the 1200p does 1080p 1:1 was my argument from the beginning. I never insinuated otherwise.
Posted on Reply
#20
Mussels
Moderprator
Wile E said:
I misread your post, I thought you your talking about the 26" Samsung 1200p monitor. That's what my dad has.

And the 1200p does 1080p 1:1 was my argument from the beginning. I never insinuated otherwise.
No, you are simply mistaken about the monitors and scaling, Mussels. Almost all do 1080p without scaling. The ones that don't are in a vast minority.
it was hardly specific, but i can see what you mean. i was mistaken in my interpretation.


my point still stands tho: game devs have ALWAYS been lazy with aspect ratios. even going as far back as company of heroes, 16:9 was natively supported and 16:10 wasnt (the 2D hud elements stretch - the mini map radar goes from a circle to an egg, for example)

It is my choice if i would prefer no black bars, and less issues with the games i play. I am not telling people 16:9 is superior for everyone, i'm saying its superior for what I do. What i'm getting pissy about is people in this thread telling me 16:10 IS superior for EVERYTHING, and ignoring me and other people when we say we cant stand black bars.

If you can, good for you - but we cant, so stop Fcking telling us what we do and dont like.
Posted on Reply
#21
Wile E
Power User
Mussels said:
it was hardly specific, but i can see what you mean. i was mistaken in my interpretation.


my point still stands tho: game devs have ALWAYS been lazy with aspect ratios. even going as far back as company of heroes, 16:9 was natively supported and 16:10 wasnt (the 2D hud elements stretch - the mini map radar goes from a circle to an egg, for example)

It is my choice if i would prefer no black bars, and less issues with the games i play. I am not telling people 16:9 is superior for everyone, i'm saying its superior for what I do. What i'm getting pissy about is people in this thread telling me 16:10 IS superior for EVERYTHING, and ignoring me and other people when we say we cant stand black bars.

If you can, good for you - but we cant, so stop Fcking telling us what we do and dont like.
Yeah, but what confuses me about the black bars thing is, even 1080p has black bars with movies, so why would it bother you to have black bars doing a 1080p game on a 1200p monitor. The black bars caused by that would actually be smaller than the black bars in an HD movie on a 1080p monitor. If that explanation make sense. I honestly don't get it.

But I do get that it's your preference, for whatever reason. What gets me arguing, is when poeple state that black bars are bad as a point of fact. It's hardly a reason for 1200p to be inferior, but that's what some others try to claim as fact. (Or at least that's the way they come across.)
Posted on Reply
#22
Mussels
Moderprator
most movies i watch do not. none of my TV shows do.

half to 2/3 of the blu ray movies i watch have teh black bars - but at least on 16:9 i get them on LESS of what i watch.

As for those bluray movies... if i could buy a screen with that aspect ratio, i would.
Posted on Reply
#23
Unregistered
Wile E said:

And what you fail to acknowledge is that some games show more with 1200 vs 1080. They show the same fov as 1080p from side to side, but add more top to bottom on 1200p. A properly coded game increases fov with resolution, regardless of aspect ratio. If horizontal res increases, so does horizontal fov, if vertical res increases, so does vertical fov. 1920x1080 is supposed to display more than 1280x720, despite the same aspect ratio. More res has traditionally meant more rendered in the pc world, aspect ratio notwithstanding. Only recently have devs gotten lazy and started cropping the image instead of rendering more.

Eastcoast has already shown you examples of this, but you chose to ignore them.

Your preference is clear, but the "proof" of why your preference is better is flawed. Not all games render different resolutions the same, so 1080p is not always better than 1200p in horizontal fov, just like 1200p is not always better at rendering vertical fov.
What YOU fail to understand is that those games have BAD wide-screen implementation. That's why there are those 3rd party programs that correct that. That's why on my 1920x1200 monitor I have to(had to) use those programs in games like Bioshock or Far Cry 2!!!

"Only recently have devs gotten lazy and started cropping the image instead of rendering more" - Indid. They crop the image in games in the way, for example, you see half of your gun/hand, etc... That's why the good games like Dragon Age, NFS-Shift or even GTA instead of cropping the image, they RENDER EXTRA details for 16:9 monitor. I've uploaded screenshots for nothing it seems....:banghead::shadedshu
#24
Wile E
Power User
TAViX said:
What YOU fail to understand is that those games have BAD wide-screen implementation. That's why there are those 3rd party programs that correct that. That's why on my 1920x1200 monitor I have to(had to) use those programs in games like Bioshock or Far Cry 2!!!

"Only recently have devs gotten lazy and started cropping the image instead of rendering more" - Indid. They crop the image in games in the way, for example, you see half of your gun/hand, etc... That's why the good games like Dragon Age, NFS-Shift or even GTA instead of cropping the image, they RENDER EXTRA details for 16:9 monitor. I've uploaded screenshots for nothing it seems....:banghead::shadedshu
You have it backwards. Properly coded games render the same amount side to side on both 1920x1080 and 1920x1200, but they render more up and down on the 1920x1200 monitor. What they render depends strictly on the resolution, not the aspect ratio. 1920 pixels across should be rendered the same on every display, the up and down resolution should not matter. That's the way it always was, since the dawn of computer games. The consoles changed it to what you are talking about.

So you can bang your head all you want, but the examples you gave are not properly coded games.
Posted on Reply
#25
morphy
Wile is right in this case. This is almost like 1st year logic where the proof is given and even fine but the wrong conclusions were derived.
Here's an easy exercise:
You have 2 different ratio sized cutouts. In each case, one can be trimmed, stretched/shrinked while the other is completely fixed.

Case 1:
Take a 16"x9" cutout and a 16"x10" cutout. The 16x10 is the fixed one and can't be changed. Lay the 16x9 over the 16x10 centered. You'll find the top and bottom on the 16x10 showing. You can still see the entirety of the 16x9 cutout without altering both. If you have to alter the 16x9 in order to show it on the fixed 16x10 you're doing it wrong because it's completely unnecessary. Unnecessary because the alterations done to the 16x9 cutout will involve trimming and/or stretching resulting in lost pieces and/or a warped cutout. This wrong way of doing it is the example in Tavix's ss.

Case 2:
Now do the opposite and lay the 16x10 over 16x9, the 16x9 being fixed. It covers it entirely. The only way to fit it is with cropping or stretching which either way results in lost pieces or warped result. There is no right way of fitting the entire 16x10 within a 16x9 space without trimming or warping the 16:10 aspect. This is illustrated by East's ss. Ideally you want the 16x10 cutout to maintain the same aspect but that is physically impossible here. There is no wrong way because there is no right way of doing it.

Now I haven't brought up widescreenfixer for good reason. It can only fix something if it was broken in the first place and by broken I mean the cropping/zooming. In case 1 (with the fixed 16x10) it can certainly help because it merely undo what the dev's did. It doesn't change the fact that it was mucked up by the devs in the first place. But how can widescreenfixer help in case 2? To put it succinctly, nothing really. It may help in cases were there's over cropping or over warping but there'll still be lost detail or wrong aspect as a result.

On the issue of black bars I can understand Mussel's position in wanting as few black bars as possible. He at least realizes that no matter what you're going to have black bars. A 2:35:1 movie on a 1:78 screen will have very pronounced black bars, more-so with 2:35:1 on 1:6 screens but the point is it's still bad on both cases. Even if one gets one of those super wide TVs to watch blurays, there'll still be black bars on the side when watching 1:85 movies, sports or cable TV. Watching Entourage or Dexter with thick black bars on either side? no thanks. Or invest in a hi-end projection system.

My attitude towards black bars has always been such that if I'm going to be bothered by black bars I certainly am going to be bothered enough to want to watch it on my 52" in a comfy chair and not on my desk on the piddly 24" monitor before I get bothered by some black bars.

But there are those who are vehemently opposed to black bars whatsoever. I even know people I've met that will zoom and stretch their TVs in order to eliminate the black bar monster. The fact that they're actually seeing less matters not to them as long as they can feel like they are watching more. I feel somehow game makers are catering to this crowd. Economics are involved too. So they'll crop, zoom, anything to beat back those dreaded black bars. Even cable networks are doing it by taking an OAR (original aspect ratio) movie in 2:35:1 or 2:40:1 and showing it in non-OAR or people will complain about the black bars. "There's black bars on my brand new 52" widescreen tv..wtf!!". Unfortunate really.

edit: I wanted to edit my post to include a link to Newegg that explains about why widescreen is better than non widecreen!!!! That should sway the masses!! :rolleyes: But I can't seem to find it anymore. :cry:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment