BenQ debuts a pair of 18.5-inch 16:9 LCDs, but not for you

We're having a hard time getting stoked about this whole 16:9 trend: the market adoption rate and consumer embrace is uncannily similar to 16:10, which makes us fear some impending heretofore unknown aspect ratio that will hit the scene in a few years and draw money directly out of our wallets for unneeded upgrades. Phew, it was good to get that off our chest. All of that naturally doesn't mean we can't be terribly jealous as Asia, Europe and Latin America get to eat up these new 18.5-inch 16:9 LCDs from BenQ, the high-end E900HD (pictured) and the simpler G900HD, while us North Americans have to sit around staring at our way-too-tall LCDs. BenQ also snubbed us on that 21.5-inch E2200HDA, so we're starting to notice a trend here. These new displays run a 1366 x 768 resolution, and feature an energy-saving backlight system, 10:000:1 dynamic ratios, 5ms response times, while the E900HD offers aesthetic improvements, speakers and a headphone jack. No price just yet, but these should be out this month.

[Via Electronista]

[mrgrim @ Aug 8th 2008 10:00AM]

Yea now i can watch all my porn on a larger screen with higher res i love big boobs in hd....Yea

[Nexx @ Aug 8th 2008 10:10AM]

higher resolution? don't think so.

This is the same thing that happened when 16:10 started getting popular. I was perfectly happy with a 19" 4:3, but to get the same height I had to get a 22".

I LIKE having vertical resolution

[dale_nx26 @ Aug 8th 2008 11:22AM]

vertical is better suited when they stand, but when lying down horizontal is the way to go.

[schmitty338 @ Aug 8th 2008 10:02AM]

That seems like a pretty low resolution for a monitor...or is this supposed to be an HDTV? Also, I hate LCD makers trying to tell us that these new aspect ratios are for our viewing pleasure when in reality they are just cheaper to manufacture...

16:10 is the perfect ratio for a computer monitor IMO. 16:9 is good for movies, but not much else.

[maveric101 @ Aug 8th 2008 10:43AM]

yeah, i don't understand this super-widescreen trend in computers. most things you do with computers are naturally vertical, like typing a paper. most web pages are designed to work with monitors 1024 pixels wide, and then stack everything vertically. Actually, if you have a monitor with at least 1024 vertical resolution (1280x1024 or 1680x1050) that can swivel, try turning your monitor vertical. it's actually very nice.

16:9 for computers is rediculous. maybe TV's should go 16:10.

[Blanka @ Aug 10th 2008 3:04AM]

16:10 is very close to the golden section, so it is perfect!
But I still wait for the day I can buy a 1600x1600 25-29 inch LCD for Mameming!

[Chain @ Aug 8th 2008 10:08AM]

Wait, so 16:9 and they can't display 1920x1080? Asia, Europe and Latin America can keep them. I can't wait for the day when I can have a 22-24" monitor that can do 1080p(native) so I can run cloned with my TV without upscale.

[jason51873 @ Aug 8th 2008 10:27AM]

Yea I have to agree, this is not impressive. Its not even HD! I mean did they forget that back in the days of the old CRT I could crank my h. lines higher then 1080??? Yea it took a 21" Trinitron and a really good video card - but man this was 8 years ago!

Sony CPD-G520P FD Trinitron 21" CRT Monitor
Supports multiple resolutions up to 2,048 x 1,536

Yea it was 78.6 pounds but look at that res! Kills most monitors out there today!

[jason51873 @ Aug 8th 2008 10:30AM]

Yea I have to agree, this is not impressive. Its not even HD! I mean did they forget that back in the days of the old CRT I could crank my h. lines higher then 1080??? Yea it took a 21" Trinitron and a really good video card - but man this was 8 years ago!

Sony CPD-G520P FD Trinitron 21" CRT Monitor
Supports multiple resolutions up to 2,048 x 1,536

Yea it was 78.6 pounds but look at that res! Kills most monitors out there today!

[Phil Perman @ Aug 8th 2008 10:37AM]

You can get 24" monitors that do 1080p natively, they pretty much all do it. in fact, I'm watching the Olympics on one right now.

and @Jason, yeah old crt's could do that, but you would sacrifice refresh rate to get those sorts of resolutions, and low refresh rates on crt's = eye strain

[Joe Templeman @ Aug 8th 2008 12:11PM]

Wow some people are stupid.

As for a 24" Panel which is 1080p? I would challenge you to find a widescreen monitor which WASNT more than 1080p. They are pretty much ALL WUXGA+ (1920x1200).

And the 22" panels? try these:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/02/toshibas-22-inch-monitor-touts-insane-3-840-x-2-400-resolution/

http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/17/lenovo-launches-22-inch-wuxga-thinkvision-l220x/


Please people, for the sanity of the rest of the readers, think before posting...

[Chain @ Aug 8th 2008 1:15PM]

Wow way to read Joe Templemen, I said 16:9 1080p(native). I'm aware that you can get 16:10 monitors that can do higher resolutions than 1920x1080 but that's not what I'm asking for is it?

"Please people, for the sanity of the rest of the readers, think before posting..." Really? troll...

[Tom @ Aug 8th 2008 5:45PM]

@Chain...just don't upscale it? Make it display the video at 1920x1080 with 60px of black bar at top and bottom, where's the problem? I've been doing this for a year now, and honestly you never ever notice.

[cbilly @ Aug 8th 2008 10:09AM]

768 vertical res is a non-starter. It's basically a stretched 15" 1024x768 which is so 5 years ago. Not feeling too jealous of Asia, Europe and Latin America in this case.

[mrgrim @ Aug 8th 2008 10:10AM]

yeah PORNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

[Brandon @ Aug 8th 2008 10:23AM]

Anyone who has a 1366x768 HDTV can tell you that getting ATI and NVIDIA drivers to display these resolutions is a pain in the ass... Most video cards will only display in multiples of 8, meaning 1360 or 1368 instead of 1366, IE overscan or underscan either way you look at it. Plus, windows won't even give you those options without installing the drivers or installing powerstrip or some such program (say goodbye to PnP), and the fact that HDMI won't display that resolution means you're stuck with analog, talk about taking a step backwards!

For benQ's sake, I sure hope they included some easy setup software or something.

[OSnix*-geek @ Aug 8th 2008 11:21AM]

Brandon... which is why you just tell your vard to output to 1280x720

[fgl82 @ Aug 8th 2008 10:50AM]

Awful resolution!

[OSnix*-geek @ Aug 8th 2008 11:21AM]

I don't understand the gripes of all you gaming geeks.

HD video which is kind of like this NEW (but not really) big thing, as you might have been able to tell uses 16:9 for it's standard resolutions (con any letterboxing), it would seem that this is a logical and somewhat future proof resolution. Here's why... 16:9 aspect ratio is/was also present in your good old DVD's, yah it's anamorphic or whatever, but it's still there. So again quit the bitching, and to think that they are going to suddenly bust out a 2:1 (16:8) aspect ratio screen, is kind of a non-issue. They do have those cinemascope displays, but I seriously doubt computer monitors are going to leapfrog what we have in our living room. What's going on here is the line between your TV and your computer, and your home office and your living room are more than slowly being blurred, for obvious reasons.

Last point, wider means better, because it "fills your peripheral vision", why do you think film is shot in such a wide aspect ratio. It looks amazing, I would think all you gamers would LOVE this.

[Sere @ Aug 8th 2008 2:17PM]

One trend with larger LCDs has to do with the trend of Digital Signage catching on where they do both 4:2 and 16:9 ratios for screen size depending if you want to flip it vertical or horizontal. Generally 42" plasma and LCDs are used depending on price. Scala, Cisco and other companies have been doing digital signage for sometime.

[xchekox @ Aug 8th 2008 2:26PM]

... some NorthAmericans will get the Monitor... Mexicans...