V7 kicks out budget 22-inch R22W02 LCD monitor
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."
Filed under: Displays
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
dirty @ Dec 20th 2006 11:28PM
1,650 x 1,050 resolution is 16:10 not 16:9 aspect ratio.
brewin @ Dec 21st 2006 12:14AM
Acer AL2223Wd is cheaper and probably better. ($325 at Newegg)
joe @ Dec 21st 2006 1:33AM
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
Michael @ Dec 21st 2006 1:48AM
...and what are you smoking?
Deluxe @ Dec 21st 2006 3:14AM
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.
Jacques67 @ Dec 21st 2006 3:29AM
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)
derek @ Dec 21st 2006 3:12PM
http://larscapes.com/photo/skyline_at_night_frankfurt
O Taylor @ Dec 21st 2006 5:26PM
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?
tekdemon @ Dec 21st 2006 5:28PM
16:10...16:10...16:10...
Seriously you guys need to do some math.
Billco @ Jan 27th 2007 1:02AM
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.