V7 kicks out budget 22-inch R22W02 LCD monitor
By Darren Murph 
posted December 20th 2006 11:18PM
posted December 20th 2006 11:18PM
Just in case the world didn't have quite enough low-end, questionably built LCD monitors, we've got one more comin' down the pike, as V7 -- formerly "known" as Videoseven -- unveils its R22W02 monitor. This 22-inch LCD has a "focus on value," which presumably means it takes a hit in the quality department, but regardless, it sports a 16:9 aspect ratio, on-screen controls, 700:1 contrast ratio, 300 cd/m2 brightness, 1,650 x 1,050 resolution, 5-millisecond response time, VGA / DVI input, and a less-than-attractive black / silver color scheme. No, you won't soon be boasting about this thing to your pals, nor will find anything above marginal specs, but you will get a (relatively) large widescreen panel for "under $349."
1,650 x 1,050 resolution is 16:10 not 16:9 aspect ratio.
Acer AL2223Wd is cheaper and probably better. ($325 at Newegg)
the pixels don't necessarily have to have a 1:1 aspect ratio. they could have some other rectangular shape to make 1650x1050 be 16:9
...and what are you smoking?
Correct me if I'm wrong (Which is highly possible), but I believe NTSC standard in fact uses slightly rectangular pixels - So It's probably not that far-fetched.
NTSC [and PAL] doesn't use square pixels (hence why NTSC DV is 720x480, but 4:3 at 480 lines is 640x480). Computer monitors, as well as ATSC HD I believe, use 1:1 square pixels; I've never seen a widescreen computer monitor that is truly 16:9 with square pixels. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they are all 16:10 (seen in 1280x800 laptop screens, 1680x1050 monitors, 1920x1200, etc)
http://larscapes.com/photo/skyline_at_night_frankfurt
Prior to this being posted, I was considering this monitor anyway as the specs seemed pretty good to me and the price is very good comparitively speaking - $370 in Canada (http://www.handheldcanada.com/netCoreWebRequest/handheld/UserShowProductDetail?productId=165139). The post in usual Engadget, sarcastic style throws me off a bit - are the specs that bad? Resolution seems good, 5ms seems very good and 300cd brightness should be fine for most environments - no?
16:10...16:10...16:10...
Seriously you guys need to do some math.
The display's aspect ratio and the pixel aspect ratio are two different things. Especially when dealing with LCDs, the pixels are usually about 5:4 ratio, since they are made up of 3 sub-pixels (R,G,B). That's also partly why TV-output is a little fuzzy, since the image must be scaled proportionally to fit the TV screen, so pixels no longer have a 1:1 ratio.
All this to say, if they say it's a 16:9 panel, then it's a 16:9 panel no matter what the resolution is. You could build a 16:9 panel that runs in 320x200, you'd just have really wide pixels.