Acer V243H 24" Backlit LED Monitor, 1920x1080, DVI/VGA, HDCP, 5ms response £159.67 at Scan - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
272Expired

Acer V243H 24" Backlit LED Monitor, 1920x1080, DVI/VGA, HDCP, 5ms response £159.67 at Scan

£159.67 @ Scan
Display Type: LCD display / TFT active matrix - LED Backlight technology TFT Technology: TN Width: 56.7 cm Depth: 40.3 cm Height: 20 cm Weight: 5.3 kg Enclosure Colour: Black Disp…
Sulphur Man Avatar
6y, 8m agoFound 6 years, 8 months ago
Display Type: LCD display / TFT active matrix - LED Backlight technology
TFT Technology: TN
Width: 56.7 cm
Depth: 40.3 cm
Height: 20 cm
Weight: 5.3 kg
Enclosure Colour: Black
Display
Diagonal Size: 24" - widescreen
Dot Pitch / Pixel Pitch: 0.276 mm
Max Resolution: 1920 x 1080 / 60 Hz
Video Format: 1080p (FullHD)
Colour Support: 24-bit (16.7 million colours)
Max Sync Rate (V x H): 75 Hz x 80 kHz
Response Time: 5 ms
Display Positions Adjustments: Tilt
Tilt Angle: 20
Signal Input: DVI-D, VGA
Features: HDCP, Acer EcoDisplay, 72% NTSC colour gamut
Environmental Standards
EPA Energy Star Compliant: Yes
Expansion / Connectivity
Interfaces: 1 x DVI-D - 24 pin digital DVI ¦ 1 x VGA - 15 pin HD D-Sub (HD-15)
Image
Image Aspect Ratio: 16:9
Image Brightness: 250 cd/m2
Image Contrast Ratio: 8000000:1 (dynamic)
Image Max H-View Angle: 176
Image Max V-View Angle: 176
Manufacturer Warranty
Service Support: 3 years warranty
Service Support Details: Limited warranty - 3 years - carry-in
Miscellaneous
Cables Included: 1 x VGA cable
Flat Panel Mount Interface: 100 x 100 mm
MTBF: 50,000 hour(s)
Features: Security lock slot (cable lock sold separately), wall mountable
Compliant Standards: TCO '03, FCC Class B certified, CE, CSA, UL, TUV GS, EN 60950, EN55022, ISO 13406-2, CB
Power
Form Factor: Internal
Power Consumption Operational: 32.5 Watt
Power Consumption Stand by / Sleep: 1.2 Watt
Software / System Requirements
Software Included: Acer eDisplay Management
Video Input
Analogue video Signal: RGB
Digital Video Standard: Digital Visual Interface (DVI)



NOTE: it's currently £153.91 in Scans Today Only section!
- mamboboy
More From Scan:

All Comments

(28) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
[mod]#1
Thanks for your post :) I've added a price and a retailer name to your title, we always try to include these when posting deals. Thanks
#2
How can it be FULL HD output when it doesn't have a HDMI input?

?
#3
ski_haggis
How can it be FULL HD output when it doesn't have a HDMI input?

?


Has DVI.
#4
Interesting!!

So DVI AND HDMI produce the same digital quality picture but the DVI cannot send sound aswel?

Im learning, I was confused that so many monitors said HD but didn't have HDMI.

Another question????

I have a DELL 22" monitor that is set up as 1680 x1050 and comes through a DVI cable.

Would it be worth me getting a FULL HD monitor, would I get a better crisper picture?

Please let me know

Thanks
#5
mamboboy
ski_haggis
How can it be FULL HD output when it doesn't have a HDMI input??
Full HD just refers to the 1920x1080 resolution. DVI carries a digital signal, but it doesn't have the audio capabilities of HDMI.As for the deal, it's good, but no overly fantastic. Scan often feature it in their Today Only section for £151.EDIT: It's actually there today for £153.91. Check the Today Only section...Plus if you are contemplating buying at this price, then spend the few quid extra on the Samsung P2450H which hasa 2ms response time, has HDMI AND looks sexy!http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002DPYQSW/ref=nosim/?tag=hotukdeals-21

Be wary of response times quoted by manufacturers. The response times varies according to the change in pixel colours so blue to red may have a 2ms response time but green to white may have a 10 ms response time. It all depends how quick the polarisation filter acts. Of course, the manufacturers will give the quickest measurement hence one should never judge a monitor by the response time, since one that has a 5ms response time, for example, may have an overall average response time that is better. In any case, virtually all monitors have response times quick enough for games and fast moving images since the human eye cannot detect movement from such low response times anyway.
#6
ski_haggis
Interesting!!So DVI AND HDMI produce the same digital quality picture but the DVI cannot send sound aswel?Im learning, I was confused that so many monitors said HD but didn't have HDMI.Another question????I have a DELL 22" monitor that is set up as 1680 x1050 and comes through a DVI cable.Would it be worth me getting a FULL HD monitor, would I get a better crisper picture?Please let me knowThanks

As mentioned earlier, HD means high definition and consequently the signal input is irrelevant. Even the venerable CRT monitors with VGA inputs are capable of a resolution high enough to be described as HD. Anything higher than standard definition could be loosely described as HD but there are no defining boundaries as to what HD is or isn't, really.

Your current monitor of 1680x1050 resolution simply means there is less screen space and doesn't necessarily result in a less crisp picture since you are using a 22 inch display as opposed to the 24 inch display advertised here. What it does mean is that you won't receive 1080P from Blu Ray films. I'm not sure of the black bars mentioned earlier - I would have expected them to be more emphasized since the vertical resolution is much higher than 720P which results in 330 pixels (1050-720) of extra black top and bottom border in addition to the black borders already encoded in the Blu Ray film. However, some software players can achieve remarkable results from rescaling the video to fit full screen (although the encoded black bars cannot be dealt with - you will see them whether you want them or not).



Edited By: ElliottC on Jul 28, 2010 15:40:
Edited By: ElliottC on Jul 28, 2010 15:42:
Edited By: ElliottC on Jul 28, 2010 15:47:
#7
mamboboy
Well the ridiculous response times are mostly a marketing gimmick anyways. I remember reading that the human doesn't notice anything under 12ms anyways.My Samsung 2232BW has a setting to 'enable' it's 2ms response time, otherwise it stays on 8ms. And to be honest there's absolutely no visible different at all!

Quite. It's not just response times that are used to convey performance misleadingly. So many listed items in manufacturers' specifications are quite frankly, utter rubbish.
#8
INFORMATION OVERLOAD!!!!!!!!!!

I have a HD TV and when watching HD the quality is amazing.

My new iPhone 4 (no silly comments please) is HD and looking at that then going to my monitor the monitor looks blury and pixelated. I want a crisp sharp HD quality monitor!!!

Can anyone help!!
My above comment states my resolution is 1680 * 1050.
#9
ski_haggis
INFORMATION OVERLOAD!!!!!!!!!!I have a HD TV and when watching HD the quality is amazing.My new iPhone 4 (no silly comments please) is HD and looking at that then going to my monitor the monitor looks blury and pixelated. I want a crisp sharp HD quality monitor!!!Can anyone help!!My above comment states my resolution is 1680 * 1050.

Well, the picture from your iPhone 4 (no I won't laugh or make silly comments about lack of memory card slot, flash, sealed battery and so on) has to be rescaled to fit your monitor's resolution. If you connected it to a monitor of higher resolution there would be more work in scaling it.

Imagine a picture with a cross on it that is 2 pixels wide and 2 pixels high on a screen that is 4 x 4 resolution (OK 2x2 is not a cross but imagine it is for the sake of ease of explanation). Scale that to a display of 1024 x 1024 and you will see a cross that is 512 pixels high and 512 pixels wide and it would be twice the thickness. This is upscaling and you can now see why upscaling makes pictures look blurry. Some software can process the image to smoothen the blurriness and jaggedness of edges resulted from scaling. Try installing ffdShow on your PC as that can process the image before upscaling. It takes some effort to configure it though.



Edited By: ElliottC on Jul 28, 2010 15:52:
Edited By: ElliottC on Jul 28, 2010 15:53:
Edited By: ElliottC on Jul 28, 2010 15:54:
Edited By: ElliottC on Jul 28, 2010 16:02:
#10
Samsung mentioned above is not LED. This one is LED. I never had LCD and LED monitors standing next to each other. However, I have both laptops and there is a clear difference between LCD and LED, with LED having much brighter and more vivid colors.
#11
^ it may be, but what he said still stands, LED backlit screens do produce brighter more vivid colours.
#12
I have a dell 2209wa 22" ips monitor as apose to normal tn panels. Its not full hd but is 1050. The colour and crispness and viewing angle are the best ive seen of any monitor sub £250.

I cant recommend it highly enough if you can get passed it not being full hd.
Check the reviews out online, i havnt read many if any negative reviews.
#13
NOTE TO IPHONE HATERS!!!

iPhone 4 does have awesome LED flash!

Thanks for all your help Elliott.
#14
dcx_badass
ski_haggis
INFORMATION OVERLOAD!!!!!!!!!!I have a HD TV and when watching HD the quality is amazing. My new iPhone 4 (no silly comments please) is HD and looking at that then going to my monitor the monitor looks blury and pixelated. I want a crisp sharp HD quality monitor!!!Can anyone help!!My above comment states my resolution is 1680 * 1050.

Lol no it isn't.


This person has clearly stated that they are new to all of this but you still feel the need to ridicule. Fair enough if you do it to people who think they know their stuff about technology but not to the self-confessed noobs.



Edited By: mr.potato_head on Jul 28, 2010 16:54: Stevie Wonder would have spelt it better.
#15
dcx_badass
ski_haggis
INFORMATION OVERLOAD!!!!!!!!!!I have a HD TV and when watching HD the quality is amazing. My new iPhone 4 (no silly comments please) is HD and looking at that then going to my monitor the monitor looks blury and pixelated. I want a crisp sharp HD quality monitor!!!Can anyone help!!My above comment states my resolution is 1680 * 1050.

Lol no it isn't.


It is, you're just holding it wrong :p

Edited By: wastedcolumbo on Jul 28, 2010 16:44: spelling
#16
ski_haggis
NOTE TO IPHONE HATERS!!!iPhone 4 does have awesome LED flash!Thanks for all your help Elliott.

Absolutely. I was jesting about the iPhone's flaws (subjective, of course). The Apple's interface is first rate though (but I must have a dig at the high price, given the extremely low wages paid to those Chinese people who work tirelessly to produce the products).

Moving back to the subject in question, it doesn't appear that you require a new monitor. This one will not improve the clarity of the images when playing back media from the iPhone. If you currently watch Blu Ray films on your existing monitor then it may be worth the upgrade if you feel the need for 1080P playback. The extra desktop space does help though (such as being able to see more of a document in PDF viewer, Word, web browser, etc) but once again it is dependent on whether you feel the need for this.
#17
I always new mr potato head was a nice guy!

Thanks
#18
ski_haggis
INFORMATION OVERLOAD!!!!!!!!!!

I have a HD TV and when watching HD the quality is amazing.

My new iPhone 4 (no silly comments please) is HD and looking at that then going to my monitor the monitor looks blury and pixelated. I want a crisp sharp HD quality monitor!!!

Can anyone help!!
My above comment states my resolution is 1680 * 1050.


Sorry man, its because your iphone is not HD (960*640) so it cant playback hd video. You could try a better phone? :P
#19
Regarding the iPhone being HD or not HD, I mentioned earlier that the definition can be subjective and generally refers to definition that is higher than Standard Definition. Since at least a couple have said the iPhone 4's resolution is not HD, as it transpires, the so-called "Noob", Ski_haggis is correct in describing the iPhone's resolution as HD. Although the definition is loose, Ski-Haggis' comment is far from incorrect (this link is also congruent with what I referred to earlier - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video). The issue with the unsatisfactory playback quality on a monitor is NOT due to the iPhone failing to meet (the loose) HD requirements - it is simply straightforward linear interpolation upscaling.
#20
ElliottC
Regarding the iPhone being HD or not HD, I mentioned earlier that the definition can be subjective and generally refers to definition that is higher than Standard Definition. Since at least a couple have said the iPhone 4's resolution is not HD, as it transpires, the so-called "Noob", Ski_haggis is correct in describing the iPhone's resolution as HD. Although the definition is loose, Ski-Haggis' comment is far from incorrect (this link is also congruent with what I referred to earlier - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video). The issue with the unsatisfactory playback quality on a monitor is NOT due to the iPhone failing to meet (the loose) HD requirements - it is simply straightforward linear interpolation upscaling.


The iphone screen is 640 and the generally accepted minimum standard for HD is 720, preferably 1080, fairly loose requirements but it still falls short. As for upscaling, can the iphone do this? Personally I've never seen anything upscale to an acceptable standard anyway, if it was possible, why get blue ray? Why not just "upscale" your dvds?
#21
The iPhone 4 screen is not really "HD". It is very high resolution for a 3.5" screen though. The reason it looks so sharp is because each pixel is tiny. For a 16:9 22" monitor to look as sharp it would need a resolution of approximately 6256x3519 pixels. I do not believe such screens are commercially available.
#22
alasrati
The iPhone 4 screen is not really "HD". It is very high resolution for a 3.5" screen though. The reason it looks so sharp is because each pixel is tiny. For a 16:9 22" monitor to look as sharp it would need a resolution of approximately 6256x3519 pixels. I do not believe such screens are commercially available.


This is the perfect answer I was looking for, however..... why is my HD 42" TV in my living room crisper sharper better quality pictire than my Delll 1680*1050 ????
#23
jaybear88
ElliottC
Regarding the iPhone being HD or not HD, I mentioned earlier that the definition can be subjective and generally refers to definition that is higher than Standard Definition. Since at least a couple have said the iPhone 4's resolution is not HD, as it transpires, the so-called "Noob", Ski_haggis is correct in describing the iPhone's resolution as HD. Although the definition is loose, Ski-Haggis' comment is far from incorrect (this link is also congruent with what I referred to earlier - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video). The issue with the unsatisfactory playback quality on a monitor is NOT due to the iPhone failing to meet (the loose) HD requirements - it is simply straightforward linear interpolation upscaling.
The iphone screen is 640 and the generally accepted minimum standard for HD is 720, preferably 1080, fairly loose requirements but it still falls short. As for upscaling, can the iphone do this? Personally I've never seen anything upscale to an acceptable standard anyway, if it was possible, why get blue ray? Why not just "upscale" your dvds?

As I referred to earlier, HD is loosely defined to be a resolution higher than standard definition. 720P is NOT the minimum standard but it is the minimum standard for HD Ready which is more strongly defined by EICTA (or Digital Europe). Ski_Haggis is correct in using the term HD. Why did you say a minimum of 720 is loosely defined? You've quantified (albeit incorrectly) it so I would say it is strongly defined.

As wiki points out "HD video refers to any video system of higher resolution than standard-definition (SD) video". Now, you've clearly pointed out the 960 x 480 resolution of the iPhone. Does that not fall within the category of being higher than standard definition? It doesn't take a genius to work that out.

Nobody mentioned that upscaling gives Blu Ray quality video. Where did you see that? In fact, upscaling doesn't even improve the picture but worsens it and I pointed that out earlier with a very basic example of a 2x2 picture being upscaled. It is image processing that improves a picture prior to or subsequent to upscaling. Again, the nomenclature needs to be taken notice of carefully - upscaling is NOT equivalent to image processing, no matter what the manufacturers tell you.

The point of upscaling in conjunction with image processing is to allow standard definition sources to be more pleasurable to watch - not to give Blu Ray quality so your question regarding why get Blu Ray" is merely a moot point. Also why mention upscaling by the iPhone - it is the source not the destination. You don't upscale (and process the image) at the source.




Edited By: ElliottC on Jul 29, 2010 09:34:
Edited By: ElliottC on Jul 29, 2010 09:38:
Edited By: ElliottC on Jul 29, 2010 10:03:
Edited By: ElliottC on Jul 29, 2010 10:18:
Edited By: ElliottC on Jul 29, 2010 10:21: nth edit due to the ridulous bugs on the site that changes the content of the data. It is storing original copies of posts and does not correctly pull out the most recent version from the database!
#24
ski_haggis
alasrati
The iPhone 4 screen is not really "HD". It is very high resolution for a 3.5" screen though. The reason it looks so sharp is because each pixel is tiny. For a 16:9 22" monitor to look as sharp it would need a resolution of approximately 6256x3519 pixels. I do not believe such screens are commercially available.
This is the perfect answer I was looking for, however..... why is my HD 42" TV in my living room crisper sharper better quality pictire than my Delll 1680*1050 ????

When comparing, did you use the same video feed? It is also possible that the TV processes the image to improve it. Computer monitors do not (or should not, since some can be set to do it), for obvious reasons. As I mentioned earlier, you can apply image processing using the excellent ffdShow software which applies to video but should not apply to photos as you would not want photos or anything else displayed on a monitor to be manipulated (except for video).
#25
ElliottC
jaybear88
ElliottC
Regarding the iPhone being HD or not HD, I mentioned earlier that the definition can be subjective and generally refers to definition that is higher than Standard Definition. Since at least a couple have said the iPhone 4's resolution is not HD, as it transpires, the so-called "Noob", Ski_haggis is correct in describing the iPhone's resolution as HD. Although the definition is loose, Ski-Haggis' comment is far from incorrect (this link is also congruent with what I referred to earlier - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video). The issue with the unsatisfactory playback quality on a monitor is NOT due to the iPhone failing to meet (the loose) HD requirements - it is simply straightforward linear interpolation upscaling.
The iphone screen is 640 and the generally accepted minimum standard for HD is 720, preferably 1080, fairly loose requirements but it still falls short. As for upscaling, can the iphone do this? Personally I've never seen anything upscale to an acceptable standard anyway, if it was possible, why get blue ray? Why not just "upscale" your dvds?


As I referred to earlier, HD is loosely defined to be a resolution higher than standard definition. 720P is NOT the minimum standard but it is the minimum standard for HD Ready which is more strongly defined by EICTA (or Digital Europe). Ski_Haggis is correct in using the term HD. Why did you say a minimum of 720 is loosely defined? You've quantified (albeit incorrectly) it so I would say it is strongly defined.

As wiki points out "HD video refers to any video system of higher resolution than standard-definition (SD) video". Now, you've clearly pointed out the 960 x 480 resolution of the iPhone. Does that not fall within the category of being higher than standard definition? It doesn't take a genius to work that out.

Nobody mentioned that upscaling gives Blu Ray quality video. Where did you see that? In fact, upscaling doesn't even improve the picture but worsens it and I pointed that out earlier with a very basic example of a 2x2 picture being upscaled. It is image processing that improves a picture prior to or subsequent to upscaling. Again, the nomenclature needs to be taken notice of carefully - upscaling is NOT equivalent to image processing, no matter what the manufacturers tell you.

The point of upscaling in conjunction with image processing is to allow standard definition sources to be more pleasurable to watch - not to give Blu Ray quality so your question regarding why get Blu Ray" is merely a moot point. Also why mention upscaling by the iPhone - it is the source not the destination. You don't upscale (and process the image) at the source.





I must admit, I am totally ignorant to upscaling having seen a couple of bad examples and then completely dismissed it, but you said his problem was with the "straightforward linear interpolation upscaling", are you sure it might not be because the source video is 960x640 (crazy resolution on such a small screen) and hes possibly expecting it to look 1080 on his tv?
#26
jaybear88
I must admit, I am totally ignorant to upscaling having seen a couple of bad examples and then completely dismissed it, but you said his problem was with the "straightforward linear interpolation upscaling", are you sure it might not be because the source video is 960x640 (crazy resolution on such a small screen) and hes possibly expecting it to look 1080 on his tv?

That is precisely the issue so we now sing from the same hymn sheet! Moving from 960x640 resolution to a display of a higher resolution requires interpolating the picture. The most basic form of interpolation is linear interpolation (very, very simple maths) which results in geometric calculations to define certain points between a starting and end point. The calculations are based on a "linear" scale, hence the nomenclature. This is precisely what upscaling is. Upscaling is NOT manipulating the picture to make it clearer, no matter what the manufacturers lead people to believe. Given my earlier example of the redefining a picture of a cross to be displayed on a higher resolution screen, we can see why linear interpolation does not produce satisfactory results. That is why the upscaling demonstrations you have seen have been of substandard quality.

Now, image processing is different. Complementing upscaling, many manufacturers implement image processing. Unlike linear interpolation, which is so simple, image processing is much more convoluted - so much so that it is a subject in its own right as part of a university degree. It involves techniques such as edge detection and smoothening the edges by applying filters. Other techniques are used such as Wu's algorithm, Bressinham's (spelling?) algorithm and so on. Different software used for image processing will have different features with some requiring more powerful processors (that is why some TVs experience a lag due to the image processing). When many people and the display manufacturers refer to upscaling they tend to be referring to upscaling and image processing. The 2 are different.

Edited By: ElliottC on Jul 30, 2010 11:03:
#27
ElliottC
jaybear88
I must admit, I am totally ignorant to upscaling having seen a couple of bad examples and then completely dismissed it, but you said his problem was with the "straightforward linear interpolation upscaling", are you sure it might not be because the source video is 960x640 (crazy resolution on such a small screen) and hes possibly expecting it to look 1080 on his tv?


That is precisely the issue so we now sing from the same hymn sheet! Moving from 960x640 resolution to a display of a higher resolution requires interpolating the picture. The most basic form of interpolation is linear interpolation (very, very simple maths) which results in geometric calculations to define certain points between a starting and end point. The calculations are based on a "linear" scale, hence the nomenclature. This is precisely what upscaling is. Upscaling is NOT manipulating the picture to make it clearer, no matter what the manufacturers lead people to believe. Given my earlier example of the redefining a picture of a cross to be displayed on a higher resolution screen, we can see why linear interpolation does not produce satisfactory results. That is why the upscaling demonstrations you have seen have been of substandard quality.

Now, image processing is different. Complementing upscaling, many manufacturers implement image processing. Unlike linear interpolation, which is so simple, image processing is much more convoluted - so much so that it is a subject in its own right as part of a university degree. It involves techniques such as edge detection and smoothening the edges by applying filters. Other techniques are used such as Wu's algorithm, Bressinham's (spelling?) algorithm and so on. Different software used for image processing will have different features with some requiring more powerful processors (that is why some TVs experience a lag due to the image processing). When many people and the display manufacturers refer to upscaling they tend to be referring to upscaling and image processing. The 2 are different.




Not exactly an amateur in this field are you? lol. Relating back to the question though, would it be fair to say that playback from the phone will not be great quality on the tv just due to the lack of information contained in the video file, replacing the tv wont improve this by much (especially with a computer monitor such as this, as I assume theres alot less image processing going on than in its tv-alternative)

btw hot deal :D, wonder how it compares to the 24" benq leds?
#28
jaybear88
ElliottC
jaybear88
I must admit, I am totally ignorant to upscaling having seen a couple of bad examples and then completely dismissed it, but you said his problem was with the "straightforward linear interpolation upscaling", are you sure it might not be because the source video is 960x640 (crazy resolution on such a small screen) and hes possibly expecting it to look 1080 on his tv?
That is precisely the issue so we now sing from the same hymn sheet! Moving from 960x640 resolution to a display of a higher resolution requires interpolating the picture. The most basic form of interpolation is linear interpolation (very, very simple maths) which results in geometric calculations to define certain points between a starting and end point. The calculations are based on a "linear" scale, hence the nomenclature. This is precisely what upscaling is. Upscaling is NOT manipulating the picture to make it clearer, no matter what the manufacturers lead people to believe. Given my earlier example of the redefining a picture of a cross to be displayed on a higher resolution screen, we can see why linear interpolation does not produce satisfactory results. That is why the upscaling demonstrations you have seen have been of substandard quality.Now, image processing is different. Complementing upscaling, many manufacturers implement image processing. Unlike linear interpolation, which is so simple, image processing is much more convoluted - so much so that it is a subject in its own right as part of a university degree. It involves techniques such as edge detection and smoothening the edges by applying filters. Other techniques are used such as Wu's algorithm, Bressinham's (spelling?) algorithm and so on. Different software used for image processing will have different features with some requiring more powerful processors (that is why some TVs experience a lag due to the image processing). When many people and the display manufacturers refer to upscaling they tend to be referring to upscaling and image processing. The 2 are different.
Not exactly an amateur in this field are you? lol. Relating back to the question though, would it be fair to say that playback from the phone will not be great quality on the tv just due to the lack of information contained in the video file, replacing the tv wont improve this by much (especially with a computer monitor such as this, as I assume theres alot less image processing going on than in its tv-alternative)btw hot deal :D, wonder how it compares to the 24" benq leds?

Yes that is correct. Naturally, the resolution of the iPhone will not have enough detail to fill a display of higher resolution but the issues regarding upscaling will be less pronounced than upscaling a standard DVD (which is of lower resolution than the iPhone). Many TVs do possess image processing but the quality differs amongst different TVs - usually the budget models either possess no image processing (therefore they simply upscale using the most basic interpolation methods known). It is this image processing that can improve the quality of the video from the iPhone to the TV as the edges can be smoothened and extra detail can be artificially added by using algorithms to make a "guess" as to how to improve the image. Similar techniques are used for 100Hz TVs to create extra frames.

I have had personal usage of the 24 inch BenQ V2220 and V2420 range and they blow this Acer model away. The backlighting of the BenQ models are more even and the picture is visibly brighter. The thinness of the BenQ's bezel is a will appeal to the image conscious but it suggests that LEDs are placed at the edge rather than at the rear. Edge-lit LEDs cannot perform localised dimming - that is dimming the picture at a specific point (to produce deeper blacks) but neither can this Acer model.

The BenQ 2420 model is a better display but is also pricier. However, based on value, it is a close call and it's your choice as to whether you can justify the extra few notes for the BenQ models.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Looking for Twitter login?
Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!