Samsung LTM295W 29" LCD Review 320
An anonymous reader noted a review of the Samsung LTM295W. Quick excerpt "The contrast ratio of 600:1 is amazing, and takes the cake for being the highest Iâ(TM)ve seen to date here with the site. I was pleased to see a more than acceptable brightness level of 450cd/m2. The response time isnâ(TM)t anything to snuff at, standing at 22ms. For viewing angles everyone should be pleased with 170/170 (W&H). The last mention is the pixel pitch which sits at .4935(h) X .4935(w). The optimal resolution while in PC use is 1024 x 768 @ 75Hz although the maximum is 1280 x 768 @ 75Hz." Not the highest resolution, but still, quite impressive.
What?? (Score:4, Insightful)
You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you decide to browse at -1 for some entertainment.
Yeah, but . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to see display manufacturers spend as much time on usability as developers do (or should!)
LCD's are still overpriced. (Score:1, Insightful)
Resolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a monitor, it's a TV. If you buy one of these as a monitor you're an idiot.
Yikkes.. the spcs suck (Score:5, Insightful)
No thanks.
Makes a bad monitor. (Score:2, Insightful)
Where's UXGA ?! (Score:1, Insightful)
is UXGA, but I can't get a UXGA LCD monitor for my desktop. Until I can, I'm going to run 1600x1200 on my 19".
Its a TV really... (Score:5, Insightful)
1024 x 768 is worthless... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Price? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you read the review, they call it a "Monitor/TV" and mention things like a remote control and speakers. It has a DVI input and a DVI/RGB adaptor. I expect that it's really a (HD)TV with RGB monitor support being a bonus feature.
Viewing angle - I'm skeptical (Score:3, Insightful)
That's almost all the way off to one side. Most LCDs look like crap from there.
Sure, you can see whats on the screen, and it's still readable, but the contrast and brightness go way down.
Rant: FUXGA! (Score:2, Insightful)
XGA, SXGA+, WUXGA, QUXGA, WTFUXGA!
For Chrissake, why can't flat panel and laptop manufacturers just say the goddamn screen is "640x480" or or "1024x768" or "1280x1024" or "1400x1050" or whatever the fucking resolution is, rather than inventing a new resolution for every oddball configuration the latest LCD screen happens to be.
(I hate shopping for laptops on sites that just list the acronym and not the damn resolution!)
Not too surprising... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:sw33t (Score:3, Insightful)
A terrible review (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mmmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
1024 vertical lines is attrocious for a 29" display. My 18" Philips 180P2 is native at 1280x1024.
I've seen these giant monitor/TV hybrids before. Ultimately, they end up being a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none knd of device.
Re:Yeah, but . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want a monitor, there are much higher resolution LCD displays available. It's only 21" but the Eizo L985EX [eizo.co.jp] is very well reviewed.
Re:Resolution? (Score:1, Insightful)
Most TV shows and movies don't make you read tiny text off the screen... if you're going to be working behind a 29" wide screen beast like this, you'd have to sit a few feet back from the monitor to be comfortable looking at it. Do you want to see your desktop at 1920x1080 from 4 or 5 feet away? You wouldn't be able to see any pixels or read any text!
It's a usability issue... on a display with this kind of brightness and contrast, not to mention sheer size, sitting close enough to read ultra high resolution text and graphics would give you a splintering head ache!
Incidentally, to get 1024x768 and 1280x1024, they just resample the pixels in hardware on the display, so the pixels would still look smooth, not large.