Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Roskoken, 10 Oct 2011.
Trying to get hold of a PX2370, anyone know a reliable stockist with any available?
Aria have one Here
That's the only one I can find though mate. If I come across any more I will post them here.
Nice one cheers man.
That is one expensive monitor! I mean for what you get!
300$+ For a TN panel? WOW that must be the best TN panel ever produced. (it's not)
Plus you have nothing.. you can even rotate the screen. And wobbles a lot
Dude, do yourself a favor, read this post to know more about LCD monitors:
For the same price, you can get:
-> The Dell U2412M
It features 16:10 aspect ratio with 1920x1200 resolution. It full matte, 178 degree view angle, impressive performance and low input lag. It uses an IPS panel, and high grade white LED back light, where you can even adjust the white level produced the the backlight, so that you can reduce the problem with white LED back light monitors, where everything is blu'ish as true white LED's don't exists, In addition, the monitor does not wobble, fully adjustable, and with VGA, DVI and Display Port which is slowly replacing DVI (it's backward compatible down to HDMI and DVI). The Dell monitor uses an LG panel.
In depth review: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2412m.htm
For a cheaper priced monitor, you have the exact same thing but in 23inch flavor, so 16:9 and 1920x1080. Same inputs, same features.
Full in depth review: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2312hm.htm
BTW, the claim on the Samsung "100% sRGB" is complete B.S. You can't achieve sRGB using 6-bit color panels.
Of course, they are other models then the Dell above... You have for instant the LG IPS231P, and others.. we can discuss them if you are interested.
Please show me where i can purchase a Dell U2412M for 200 quid.
And, fair enough the PX2370 may not be the best monitor in its class, but its a damned good one none the less.
Oh and i have no interest in viewing angles.
Might be cheaper at other stores, I did not check.
I cannot comment on PX2370, as Samsung never send it to reviewers for reviews.. so I assume that they are hiding something. When seeing glossy and non-adjustable stand.. that means they followed the "Lets' cut on everything policy". They are exceptions, but these are far in between. So I could be wrong. But usually good monitors are sent to reviewers.
That is like a game company not sending their game to review sites. Well first of all, if a game has no reviews no one buys it.. I believe, in my opinion, that we should do the same for everything related to technology at least. Bu t that is just me, I even check reviews on vacuums sooo I am nuts like that.
Anyway, the decision is all yours, it was just to present alternative models, which many (well everyone that purchased them without exception) people here like, and has good reviews.
Check out monitor advice threads... people here are blown away when they receive their IPS panels. I trust more Bit-tech.net forum users more than the rest, as I know the people here, and I know everyone here is a computer enthusiasts that seek for great products, and will notice issues like completely uneven back light, wrong colors, and poor build quality, performance level, and all that. Over a person that buys the monitor to do Facebook and e-mail once a month on it, and wont' notice any issue, or haven't seen anything better to compare.
That model appears to be a U2312M
Perhaps you miss spoke but you said.
Was a little confused.
On paper though the Dell and the Samsung are very similar, i very much doubt there is any real discernible difference to the naked eye, both have near identical gamut ranges. I just happen to like Samsung as a matter of preference. The one thing that does hack me of slightly is the stand on the Samsung, but ill probably fab a custom bracket for it anyhow.
Cheers for the links though man, will have a read over them.
Yes, sorry about that. Got confused a bit.
Towards the bottom of this post (http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=2776290&postcount=13), I explain the difference between TN and IPS panels. And even if we assume they are the same. The simple fact that it's non-glossy, I think it's great, as you can enjoy more your games, images, and even work, as it doesn't reflect anything.
Dont buy a 16:10 monitor!!!!
They suck big time for gaming and media and will have major compability issues with most things in the future.
Surely with it being a non glossy finish though your gonna take a hit in vibrancy
Nah dont think im going to loose any sleep over 16:10 vs 16:9 to be perfectly honest. I rmbr what crt's were like for gaming. Its fine.
You sir are 100% wrong. Many here, including myself have a 16:10 monitor. No game have any issue, and no stretching happens. Stop repeating the BestBuy sales man crap or what Sony wanted you to believe with HDMI ver1 due to it's limitation of 1920x1080, and have a look for yourself.
Beside I got confused in price. I recommend the U2312HM.
You clearly dont know what you are talking about!
The trend is heading towards no 16:10 support for sure.
Examples of games without 16:10 support.
Blacklight: Tango Down
WRC FIA World Rally Chamionship 2010
Assassins Creed Brotherhood
Alice: Madness returns
Driver: San Francisco
Dungen Siege 3
Ghostbusters: Sanctum Of Slime
Monday Night Combat
Pro Evulotion Soccer 12
Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena
Splinter Cell: Conviction
Witcher 2 (Before patched after many months)
For gaming and movies 16:10 is useless. You lose Field of view, get a letterbox or deformity.
Welcome to the land of 16:10
Loss in Field Of View
That made me laugh a hell of alot. Do your research before making silly comments like that.
I have several of these games, and I don't see what you are showing (I mean I don't have this problem)
1920x1200 is the exact same width as 1920x1080. Hey look the width pixel 1920 are identical.
AMAZING! My vote is that your GPU drivers that screws up the game for some reason, or you are looking at ultra crappy monitors. Like that Samsung one that you posted on the picture. I already had a PS3 plugged on my Dell U2410, all I have is 2 small black lines at the top and bottom, no stretch.
The worst I ever got in a game, is despite putting 1920x1200 resolution, was 2 small black lines at the top and bottom... What I did notice is mostly (this means, not necessarily, but a good correlation) PC-port games (console to PC) are the ones with 2 small black lines at the top and bottom, the rest have no issue, you see more height.
TV you can get 16:9, I could not care less. (well you don't have any choice)
But computers it used to be 16:10 all the way, until Sony (ok, well it's a team of company, but mostly Sony) and their HDMI 1.0 limitation (sorry, feature), and massive marketing and push on Blu-ray, made people think that if it's not 16:9, you will have massive problems, or won't work, or you'll get black lines at the top and bottom, like 99% (stat source from my ass) non-crop to 16:9 aspect ratio movies. Very few movies are filmed in 16:10. In fact, there is no specific universal standard in filming. What I mean, is that they are different aspect ratio standard, but there is no "This is the only option, and that is all". A variety of reason why a directory might want to pick an aspect ratio. Maybe he wants to see more width, as he wants to show objects or the environment which he or she may think might submerge more the viewer, some people might want to take shorter ones (width wise) but taller, to show more the height. Arts reason as well (as movies are art). Maybe he likes the camera specs, and it just happen to have an aspect ratio. All different possibility of picking one... But 16:9 is not the definitive movie filming standard at all.
I am not going to say that 100% of PC games has no problem (because I have not tried them, nor do I care to buy crappy video games or movie license games done in couple of weeks (double crappy)), but the major games don't have any problems.
The width of the pictures aren't even matching! LOL
Dude come on. This is simply a lower resolution, and the game being stupid.
Might be 16:10, but it's a lower resolution.
Me too I can play this similar game:
[in Futurama guy voice] Behold the world of 21:9!!!!
If you agree that the above is silly, then you get where I am going.
The image is supposed to be scaled down/up by keeping the camera aspect ratio, at worst. At best, it shows you more height (you have to assume that the resolution width is the same for both aspect ratio)
And the reason for Witcher 2.. I want to comment on this, because this I know.
It is because the game was supposed to be released on the XBox 360 as well as on the PC. Notice the menus designed for controllers. And the game had no problem, just black lines at the top and bottom, as I mentioned before. The patch give me more height visibility. They decided to delay the XBox360, and as the most of their market share is on PC they fixed it. (fixing such problem is not easy as a changing a value, you need to ensure that the 3D depth effect isn't broken, and if it is, spend a lot of time fixing it, and ensuring that the game experience isn't altered.)
As a matter of course you might find it interesting David Lean shot the entirety of Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm, thats 2.20:1 lol.
You see more in a 1366x768 than 2560x1600 unless the 16:10 has a letterbox. 16:10 is crap for gaming!
21:9 would be better than 16:9 if most games would support it and it would be "allowed" in multigaming but it isnt. Also there are no decent 21:9 monitors which make your proposal useless for that reason too.
16:9 is the standard and the obvious choice for gaming!
Wikipedia isn't a valid source. It's great for many things, but not others.
Wikipedia assumes a matching height, because they they assume that the 3D depth cannot be changed or won't be changed, or the have the goal to be the same. Also, they ASSUME that 100% games are exclusively done in 16:9, including back in the days with 5:6 and 4:3 monitors. Which isn't correct, and completely false.
This is what happens in games with a 16:10 monitor
1- Either the games knows that it had not implemented dual 3D depth view point for the camera, so it adds black lines at the top and bottom of 1980x1200 to make it 1920x1080.
2- Had the 3D depth field adjusted to properly support it. Results is the same 16:9 image, but you get to see more of the height. So, YES more polygons are shown on the screen, so YES it consumes more GPU power (well a bit).
As for the console being stretch, the Wikipedia article is moronic. They assume that everyone uses garbage bin, insult to humanity 50$ monitors, just because the author of this article has one. Maybe he should have gotten one with 1:1 pixel mapping, or one that properly support gaming consoles. I won't be surprised if he used a HDMI to DVI adapter to plug it in, and that is why the monitor stretch, as the monitor goes "as I don't support fancy setup like that, because I am an ultra budget monitor, I'll let the GPU drivers handel that". Well consoles don't. Actually the Wii, does interestingly enough (I have it on my monitor). I don't know about the XBox 360.
But Ok, let's ASSUME that Wiki is right.
That means that 21:9 aspect ratio, would mean that when you move, objects to the left and right would be squish. This is the limitation of the 3D depth effect (makes everything looks like in a sphere, so on badly designed 3D depth, a wall lamp, will stretch in height and shrink in height, as you move up and down as you look at it up close. You can replicate this effect in any Orange Box game, as it allows you to adjust the field of view. The "sphere" is large enough that it doesn't affect objects on the side.. but at 21:9, it will, IF NOT ADJUSTED.
People don't get 16:9 monitors because of gaming view area. In fact, back in 2008 (not long ago), 16:10 was still widely purchased and there was no down side to gaming. The only reason why the push of 16:9 is happening now, is that it cost less to produce, people want a label "1080p ready" on the monitor. Plus, companies get to re-use their old LCD manufacturing machines to produce 24, 27inch 16:9 computer monitor at 1920x1080 on both, aimed at the budget market.
In fact, 16:10 aspect ratio is the same as 4:3, but with more space to the right side. It's extended on-wide screen. So games are adjusted for 4:3, and going 16:10 showed you more to the left and right. It's only very recently with console to PC ports where this became an "issue" (black lines at the top and bottom).
Check the "references" of this Wikipedia article. They link to blog sites and some game list site.
Where are the link to actual research or scientific papers?
Sorry for being a dick.. but I have a 16:10 monitor in front of me. And I see that what you are saying is wrong. Takes 2 sec to set the game at 1920x1200 to 1920x1080, and I don't have this problem that you are trying to show. The worst I get. is the exact same results. Why?
Well 1920x1200, I have the game adding black lines, and when I set it to 1920x1080, I have the monitor 1:1 pixel mapping kicking in, which doesn't scale the image, and centers it.. so the back line are there, as before. The best case scenario, is that I lose height. Ok I did not try EVERY game I have... but I already looked into this. They were many topics here on this forum 16:9 vs 16:10. I wanted to see in making a point on either field. As the height increase was negligible, and doesn't affect game play (it's only 120 pixels), so I don't bother.
If I did NOT have a 16:10 monitor in front of me, I would be ready to do research on the mater ,and give you rep points (1 for correcting me, and another one if you are right, and an apology if I said wrong stuff (oh yes, I am that kind of person)). But this is not the case.
HOWEVER, when I have free time, I'll look into it once more.
Around 80 procent of the games today are HOR+ which means that the Field Of View is bigger in 16:9 than 16:10.
Around 19 percent doesnt have 16:10 support at all leaving 16:10 users with a letterboxed 16:9 view.
The last 1 percent are Vert- but who cares?
If you dont trust wiki simply check the wikisource. Surprisingly you have no source what so ever which is not strange because all sources will prove you wrong.
Maybe this pic is easy enough for you. This is how HOR+ works.
Both Starcraft 2 and Dirt 3 are HOR+ but Starcraft 2 does not have 21:9 support which means that the Field of view will not be wider in 21:9 than 16:9 in starcraft 2. But it will in Dirt3.
Surely if a game doesn't support 1920x1200 change it to 1820x1080 and have black lines.
@OP I got a u2311h (version before 2312) and ips panels are major different to tn panels. Ask around and anyone who has one will tell you this.
And not being biased but goodbytes tends to be right on monitors
Separate names with a comma.