27'' ViewSonic LCD Does Full HD, 1ms Response

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]lauxenburg[/nom]1080p on a 27-inch monitor looks like crap. 2560x1600 is more like it. I hate how all of the monitors these days are like "Full 1080p!!!", and the manufacturers have got people to think that 1080p is the limit....I guess it has something to do that 90% of the world runs on cheap Intel graphics that would commit suicide if hit had to pump out 4mp screens.[/citation]

That's not it at all. It's more for Blu-ray. When you have a higher resolution screen than the source material, you have two choices. Either you play it per-pixel in a tiny box in the middle of the screen, or you attempt to stretch it. Per-pixel will look correct, but you sacrifice size. Stretching regains the size, but sacrifices quality... which is counterintuitive if you bought it with the intentions of watching blu-ray.

On the other hand, if you have a nice TV for that sort of thing, have at it. Just don't condemn something before you do your homework.

 

[pocketdrummer]

I'm curious as to when they'll attempt to build a fast, accurate monitor. Right now, it's either a fast crappy monitor, or a painfully slow nice one. Where's the fun in that?

 

[Cons29]

response time and dynamic contrast ratio is more of a marketing to me. i need to read an actual good review before i believe them. and check out the item myself once it's available.

we all know how they measure response time.

i dont mind 1080p, anything higher and i will have to upgrade my pc again

 

[Chipi]

What about input lag?

 

[Syndil]

Bring back CRT technology! Stuck here with my Trinitron G200 because I refuse to deal with the vast deficiencies in LCD technology. I've got a contrast ratio that can't be touched (non-dynamic, thank you), superior black levels, better than 1ms response time, I don't have to worry about "non-native" resolutions, and refresh rates up to 120Hz. So it takes up a lot of room on my desk. What would I do with a bunch of free space behind my monitor anyway?

 

[dragunover]

"That's not it at all. It's more for Blu-ray. When you have a higher resolution screen than the source material, you have two choices. Either you play it per-pixel in a tiny box in the middle of the screen, or you attempt to stretch it. Per-pixel will look correct, but you sacrifice size. Stretching regains the size, but sacrifices quality... which is counterintuitive if you bought it with the intentions of watching blu-ray."
You sir, have no idea how to handle HD videos on your computer, you need to realize the results would be the same aslong as it's at or above the resolution @ 16.9... just having more pixels would NOT make it look worse in any way...

 

[Warsaw]

[citation][nom]LordConrad[/nom]As someone who wears glasses, I like the idea of a 27" monitor running at 1080p. I have my 24" monitor running at 1680x1050 instead of it's native 1920x1200.[/citation]
.....what? You might have gotten your glasses from doing that sort of thing! Just terrible to do to oneself. Please fix asap, just not for me, but for all of us.

 

[Guest]

Why would a 27 monitor look crap, when you have 40, 46, 50-inch HC TVs being bought left, right and centre? Maybe you should tell all the purchasers that they're wasting their money. I reckon a 27-inch Full HD would look super sharp.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]touchdowntexas13[/nom]I doubt it looks like "crap". I think the monitor is meant to be viewed from a bit farther away than your typical desk monitor. If it had the higher resolution than yeah I could definitely see it being a desk monitor with a LOT of real estate.I don't know much about the 2560X1600 resolution, but I do know it's relatively expensive. At least when looking at the Dell monitors you are talking about $1000 and up.In any case, the specs and price seem pretty good, but I am not crazy about the size. I would like to see some cheaper versions in the 23-24 inch range.[/citation]

This appears to be a 16:9 monitor. If so, 2560 X 1600 wouldn't be right. 2560 X 1440 would be the correct high end resolution.

 

[baracubra]

I have the old ViewSonic 27.5" screen that was 1920x1200, and it is gorgeous! you don't need a higher res at this size! 2560x1600 becomes relevant above 29"...Whats more, the vertical height of my 27" is almost exactly the same as a 4:3 19", so I'm gonna get 2 of those and rock a 3screen set soon. Its a pitty this new ViewSonic isn't 3D ready 120Hz though, that would make it the biggest desktop 3D display

 

[insider3]

Do you guys know anything about LCD Size to Resolution Ratio?? I'm sorry but even UXGA looks way better on a smaller monitor. Only thing they barely got right was the price of this monitor. I still wouldn't pay the introductory price. Especially when you can get the same exact resolution on a smaller monitor and pay less. I can see if you are using your PC for Media purposes and want the biggger screen. But as a gamer, I want more Pixels per inch.

 

[ksampanna]

Doesn't make any mention of the panel type ...

 

[WyomingKnott]

Has anyone here seen it yet? Can't tell that much from specs alone (unless they stink)

 

[HavoCnMe]

Not bad for a 27". Personally don't care for monitors w/speakers, because that little extra could of been put to the video circuitry.

 

[2zao]

[citation][nom]Syndil[/nom]Bring back CRT technology! Stuck here with my Trinitron G200 because I refuse to deal with the vast deficiencies in LCD technology. I've got a contrast ratio that can't be touched (non-dynamic, thank you), superior black levels, better than 1ms response time, I don't have to worry about "non-native" resolutions, and refresh rates up to 120Hz. So it takes up a lot of room on my desk. What would I do with a bunch of free space behind my monitor anyway?[/citation]


CRT is superior in those areas.... but just way too heavy and bulky... not to mention they are more expensive due to lower demand by consumers but higher demand in only a few niches

and a correction for you.... it wouldn't be space behind your monitor.... you would push the monitor back and it would be space in front of it...

 

[pharge]

From Amazon: "This new aspect ratio not only natively supports Full HD 1080p content, but displays Full HD without distortion. For example, a 1920x1200 resolution monitor will also support Full HD 1080p but it will either stretch to fit into a full screen or would show blank side bars to avoid distortion. With a 16:9 aspect ratio panel, you will get the most out of your HD content since it is natively designed in this format."

lol.... They are really good in making a 1900X1080 monitor sounds better than a 1900x1200 one... nice marketing... though I still prefer my 1900x1200 monitor since watching Blu-ray is not the only thing I do on my computer.

But to be honest, for a 27" monitor.... isn't 1900x1080 a little low? Since I do not operate my computer 10 feet away from the monitor... 1900x1080 on a 27" monitor is kind of low for me... and.. why I didn't hear the word.. "LED"?.... how disappointing... Guess for $350 I really can not ask too much...>_< ...

 

[Morgan3rd]

... I want... my 21.6" 2ms Asus developed a flickering bright green pixel that doesn't like to be kneaded out...

*sobs*

 

[titdoctor]

Ill stick with my 24" crt trinitron until they can make a monitor that can touch it.

 

[micky_lund]

[citation][nom]Syndil[/nom]Bring back CRT technology! ..... So it takes up a lot of room on my desk. What would I do with a bunch of free space behind my monitor anyway?[/citation]
my desk is only like 750mm in depth, and with the keyboad taking up 240mm, the monitor taking up the same, theres not much space..
but if u have the room, CRTs are win

 

[UmeNNis]

Uhm... if this isn't 120hz, it's not worth the price.

I paid less for my Samsung 120hz monitor... not looking back.