ViewSonic intros new 20-, 22- and 24-inch VG27 LCD monitors
By Darren Murph 
posted Jun 3rd 2009 3:50AM
posted Jun 3rd 2009 3:50AM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
16:9 form factor is nice, what isn't is the resolution of 24 inch model (for me).
Because I want to keep my eyes healthy and I want to be able to sit not so close to monitor I am generally looking either for lower resolution on these screens, or when I keep this resolution I am glad when the monitor is 26-27'' big. So when I connect my Sony Z to a docking station, my laptop can be 2m away from the screen and I can still type on it.
So far I have found only one that suits me, 27inch big DELL Dell 2709WFP. Pixel Pitch: 0.303 mm.
But it is 16:10 which is soooo "last year" ;)
Any other candidates are welcomed.
Hmm, I'm actually considering it in the opposite way. I'd love to get a 20" 1080p screen, because that would be awesome pixel density. But I think I'd probably take a 22" over a 20" because at some point that pixel density does hurt. I just don't know whether it would fit on my desk. But I think there are cheaper options for 1080p 20ish LCDs.
Why would anyone want less pixels on a computer screen? I like to be productive and use my screen real estate to the fullest. 16:9 is for watching material produced for TV.
16:10 is a widescreen extension of 4:3 (1600x1200 -> 1920x1200) and suits computer screens perfectly and still allows you to watch 16:9 if you so wish.
"OMG BLACK BARS SUCKS!!1" Yeah, what's that black bezel around your monitor again and is that you watching a 2.35:1 movie?
That's a nice contrast ratio. My Dell 2408WFP only has the 3000:1.
@loonix: Contrast ratio is the next big thing in marketing. As are miliseconds. Because these are the only thing shitty TN panels can be proud of.
There are dozen ways to measure the contrast ratio for example, as there are other more important parameters of a monitor. Like viewing angles or color reproduction, in both your Dell will crush these TN very...but very badly!
Your Dell is excellent screen as long as you got Spyder calibration to fix its saturated colors and bright white retina-attack capabilities :)
I believe contrast ratios are rated per panel type. While TN panels may be rated at 10,000:1, your sPVA dell's 3,000:1 is more likely a better contrast ratio in actuality. I wouldn't worry about it.
Also, how is viewsonic getting away with selling their 24" for 499$ when dell and samsung have their PVA panels in the same price range that are WORLDS better?
In short, these guys are saying that there isn't any type of industry standards when it comes to calculating contrast ratio. cowgaR is correct when he mentioned that it has to do with marketing. If you don't know what the hell you're buying and you see something with a bigger number odds are that you're going to go with the product that has a bigger number.
ViewSonic. Designing monitors so smexy that even the most atrociously insulting sample imaginery won't curtail you of your eyesight.
Well, maybe just a little.
I forgot to add, at least S-PVA screen (as this DELL, 8bit colors) or S-IPS preferred (10 bit).
Can't understand ppl buying TN panels like this Viewsonics these days. Although they were able to "fix colors" they can't fix viewing angles and other things due to limits in technology.
Never had an TN panel except my laptop, and never would like one, not for such a price. There are hundreds on the market already (most notably from superior Samsung) but there are few using "real 16,7 milion colors" screens.
and input lag is a myth!
When will you LCD snobs learn that most people don't give a flying fuck about whether it's a TN panel or an S-IPS panel? As long as the resolution is good and the display doesn't suck, it's fine for 99% of people.
the reason some ppl choose to buy TN is because of fast passed games. and now with VX2268wm and 2233rz there is even more reason to (and not talking about the 3d glasses)
Are these TN panels?
Wow, TN Panels. Awesome.
And then 16:9.
So awesome. Less space for more money.
Why the heck do computer screens have to come with tv ratio?
Aren't you supposed to CREATE the tv material on a computer? And for that I guess you can make good use of more vertical space: display full HD content plus required controlls.
But, that's just my oppinion.
I HATE that stupid picture of 3 birds sitting in a row and all that crap to suggest "OOH - VIDEO EDITING" What a load of balls. And what's that in the top left corner? ahhhh, a cheap drawing to suggest film. FILM - FILM - FILM! COME ON!! while were at it, lets represent new age digital media with wax cylinder player and some cave paintings! It just reminds me of those awful cards you get when your 13 years old from your god parents with "Happy 13th" on the front with random pictures of 1950's racing cars, golf clubs, soccer shoes and a freakin' pipe! I mean, REALLY? I have the proof too.
Anyway, random rant over, nice monitors.
I'm with you...time for a new look View Sonic. All I think of when I see those damn birds is Miami Vice. Not just because of the colors, but because their marketing department must not have had one new employee since 1985.
Is it just me or are viewsonic monitors just sooo fugly! And the 16:9 aspect ratio is great for televisions but for computer monitors I find it's just not tall enough. 16:10 is the sweet spot. Also quite pricey - would rather go for a nice Benq.
Get this instead...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001280&Tpk=T240HD
...it's better in every way.
Always likes ViewSonic. From my experience, their colours and contrast is not replicated by any other monitors.
Is viewing angle really a problem when you're sitting at a computer?