This looks interesting - Viewsonic VX2260wm 22" True HD LCD Monitor

Gibbo

Gibbo

Gibbo

OcUK Staff
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
39,364
Location
OcUK HQ
Hi there


What do you guys think of this:-


Viewsonic VX2260wm 22" Widescreen True HD LCD Monitor - Glossy Black

MO-071-VS_400.jpg


Optimize your desktop experience with ViewSonic’s full HD 1080p 22" (21.5” viewable) VX2260wm widescreen LCD. Encased in a glossy black bezel, this monitor delivers beautiful HD images. Connect your game console or DVD player through the HDMI input and enjoy HD content on your desktop. High brightness and super-fast 2ms video response and ultra-high 20,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio deliver brilliant, blur-free images with incredible definition and detail. Completing the multimedia desktop experience are integrated stereo speakers with SRS WOW HD stereo sound. The Eco-mode function can save up to 40% on energy costs. The VX2260wm is ideal for the discriminating gamer or professional who demands top-of-the-line images and performance.

- Viewable Area: 22” Widescreen (1920x1080 Resolution)
- Interface: Analog / Digital / HDMI
- Response Time: 2ms
- 16.7M Colours
- Contrast Ratio: 20,000:1
- Viewing Angle (H/V): 170°/ 160°
- Brightness: 300cd/m2
- 1:1 Pixel Mapping
- Stereo SRS WOW Speakers (2x 1.5W RMS)
- 3 Years On-Site Warranty with Viewsonic


More Info!http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...Widescreen True HD LCD Monitor - Glossy Black



Key Points
1. 1920x1080 Resolution
2. Analogue, DVI & HDMI inputs
3. 2ms Response
4. 20,000:1 contrast ration (Dynamic)
 
Will this have an effect on the pricing of current 24" monitors, since this is Full HD, and very cheap?
 
Very interesting....any ideas on what panel is in use ? Guessing TN with response time......
 
Methinks 1920 on a 22"would be far too big a resolution for such a small pixel area for desktop usage but for movies it would be pretty crisp.
 
mrk said:
Methinks 1920 on a 22"would be far too big a resolution for such a small pixel area for desktop usage but for movies it would be pretty crisp.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of a 1920 res on a 22" screen, currently got the DGM 24" and i cant help but think its slightly too big.

I would be very intrested to know what the panels are like as i am looking at selling on my DGM and going for one of these
 
22" (21.5” viewable)
Click to expand...
(a bit off topic)
Been wondering about this with some 24" screens. First time i noticed with an LCD was an ocuk value screen and a Benq in the same room - i thought straight away that the Benq looked larger, and sure enough it was. So what is it with this 'viewable' thing - i thought we'd got rid of all that after the CRT's?.
 
Just another 22" TN. Vertical resolution is what's important and 1080 isn't really any better than the standard 1050. I can't see the point in it unless it's priced very keenly.

Edit: Just seen the price. Complete waste, you can get a 24" for that.
 
Last edited:
Don't see the point in 16:9 monitors myself, id rather have 16:10 and scale whatever 1080p content i view :/ (screen 'real estate' is more important to me, rather than the minor degradation in IQ when scaling HD content personally)
 
Chong Warrior said:
Hmm the 2262wm looks identical to the 2260wm except it doesn't have HDMI input... but it costs £40 less!!
Click to expand...

And only does 1650x1080 which is not True HD - the whole point of this monitor is that it is 1:1 pixel perfect for HD if you plugged in a 360 of PS3 into any 22" or 24" TFT it will look blurry as it displays more or less pixel than 1080/720p (ie: 1920x1080/1280x720)
 
mrk said:
Methinks 1920 on a 22"would be far too big a resolution for such a small pixel area for desktop usage but for movies it would be pretty crisp.
Click to expand...

Are you saying it would look pants for PC gaming/windows use?

Can someone confirm/add?
 
The screen size is too small for such a large res, it means in desktop use fonts will be too small so you will be sitting closer to read them, essentially it would be as if it were being scaled "down" instead of native. Like the HannsG 28" that only does 1920x1200 that's scaling "up" and fonts look too big on that much like running 1680x1050 on a 24" screen.

Native res on native sizes is how it should be.
 
It is native res for a 16:9 screen... You loose 120px from the height but this is also lost in the actual height of the screen itself.

If you stick it next to a 16:10 22" TFT the panel will not be the same physical height so it is not stretching of scaling and that is IDEAL for game consoles.

The whole point of this monitor is that it supports TRUE HD half the cheap LCD TVs that are release along with most TFT's say they support 1080p and 720p but they dont support 1:1 pixel mapping as the native res is always larger than either 1920x1080 or 1280x720.

This TFT will be ideal for people using 360s, PS3 as well as there PC on the same monitor.
 
Last edited:
No it's still physically too small for 1080p, a 22" screen is 1680x1050, because this is 16:9 doesn't make it native just because it's 22" and only lost some vertical space because it's lost both side h and v. for 1080p it should be 24" to be native for that pixel space.

This screen /will/ show font sizes that are smaller compared to a 24” displaying in 1080p. You would know this if you have had or have both a 22” and a 24” display.

And yes whilst it's fine for games my point is that it's NOT fine for desktop usage. If you're buying it for games you might as well get a 32" HDTV and get a better display all round for a small amount extra.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom