BenQ intros new 16:9 LCD monitors
BenQ introduced four new 16:9 'Full HD' LCD monitors yesterday in London and also made some interesting predictions for the monitor market.
The company introduced two 22-inch and two 24-inch monitors, the E2200HD, E2400HD, M2200HD and M2400HD. All of the displays feature 1,920 x 1,080 native resolutions, 10,000:1 dynamic contrast ratios (that might actually work) and super-fast 2ms grey-to-grey response times.
Brightness is rated at 300cd/m² on all four, while viewing angles are a respectable 170° horizontal and 160° vertical, which indicates that these are TN+Film based screens.
All four also come with HDMI 1.3, DVI and D-sub inputs, and pack in a pair of 1W integrated speakers that may save some desk for some. The M2200HD and M2400HD also include a two megapixel webcam and USB ports as well – they're aimed more at the multimedia enthusiasts out there.
Interestingly though, BenQ said that it believes 16:9 displays will account for up to 30 percent of the LCD panel market (for PCs) in 2009 and expects that share to grow to over 50 percent the following year. The company's representatives said that the cost advantage of creating 16:9 panels is significant because all TV panels are manufactured with the same aspect ratio.
BenQ's E2400HD
Pricing hasn't been fully confirmed, but we're hearing that the 22in models will retail for around £150, while the 24in models are likely to sell for around £220 including VAT. All of the displays come with BenQ's three year on-site warranty – another point that BenQ's reps were keen to highlight on more than one occasion.
BenQ's M2400HD
Do you think there's scope for another aspect ratio revolution on the PC? Tell us your thoughts in the forums.
Previous Article
34 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyI smell a change of monitors.
First refusal on one of the G2400W's then?
:D
If they perform as well as my current benq 24" then they'll be worth buying...
Out of interest why do pc's use 16:10? Its a bloody pain in several cases.
yeah seriously....
they're just trying to push 16:9 so the panels are the same ratio for TVs and monitors
do not want
edit: and at that price they're bound to be TN and so worthless anyway, meh
I believe you mean inputs. :P
Sure, if everything you watch is widescreen, or you only watch recent stuff filmed in wide only then 16:9 is OK.
Also, 1920x1200 allows you to play older games at 1600x1200 last I checked, there's no native 4:3 aspect for 1080 vertical pixels, so it's black bars or dodgy scaling all round for 4:3 footage...
That'd be the one! Oh dear.
Word, Spread Sheets, Photoshop, the internet etc etc, just will be that little bit more difficult.
But hey, bottom line, it's not too bad if you only use one monitor and prices fall through the floor... If you're a triple head person though you'll need binoculars just to see the screen at the far end!
Get one with a stand that you can rotate the monitor and they become better.
How do you work that one out? When a monitor has to be much better quality than a tv? Surely it would be the other way round.
Hardly - very few sub-30in TVs are 1080p.
I would love a 20-22" 1600*1200 screen, but you cannot get one for any reasonable amount of money and it is far cheaper going for 1920*1200.
One of the major problems is that the internet is long and not wide. On my laptop screen (1280*800) Bit fits perfectly width ways but I am always wanting more vertical space, even with my desktop screen at 1400*1050.
Will someone please make me a nice screen?
10:16 would be better for teh intarwebs, and you could always turn it back for other normal tasks...
I agree, I really dig having at least 1200px on the vertical. I've got a 1,680 x 1,050 display at home and it's best-suited to games. I can't play 1080p without losing detail or downscaling, and there's not enough width for two windows side by side.
F*** yes! where can I buy one from?
The only reason i would get one is if i had a next gen console (still using PS2 when i can be bothered).