1600 x 1200

[SD45]

I am thinking about buying an NEC LCD2190UXi (1600x1200 native resolution) to use at a desktop location where I mainly work on Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, and digital photos. I currently use a Samsung 215tw (1680x1050 resolution) at this spot. I am not using this computer to go on the Internet.

All of the photo and book design software that I use has toolbars that are best lined up on the right or left side of the image, which makes the widescreen useful. But it would also be useful to see more of a Word document vertically. Of course, I can turn the display, but I want to avoid that if possible given that I am constantly switching back and forth among these applications.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that 1680 and 1600 pixels is the same "real estate." Would a 1600x1200 display simply add 150 rows of pixels at the bottom, retaining basically the same real estate horizontally?

One of the photo editing applications has a feature that displays a photo full-screen. Most of the photos I work with are 3:2 proportions, not 4:3. These photos somehow automatically stretch or maybe crop themselves nicely to fit a 16:10 widescreen when I choose the full-screen option (or when I use one of them as the Windows desktop backrgound). How does the 1600x1200 display handle this? Will it display the image across the upper part of the screen, leaving a band of black at the bottom, or perhaps at the top and bottom? If not, will it try to resize the photo to fit the 4:3 screen?

Thanks in advance for any information.

 

[Staples]

Let's say for the sake of discussion that 1680 and 1600 pixels is the same "real estate." Would a 1600x1200 display simply add 150 rows of pixels at the bottom, retaining basically the same real estate horizontally?

Yes

One of the photo editing applications has a feature that displays a photo full-screen. Most of the photos I work with are 3:2 proportions, not 4:3. These photos somehow automatically stretch or maybe crop themselves nicely to fit a 16:10 widescreen when I choose the full-screen option (or when I use one of them as the Windows desktop backrgound). How does the 1600x1200 display handle this? Will it display the image across the upper part of the screen, leaving a band of black at the bottom, or perhaps at the top and bottom? If not, will it try to resize the photo to fit the 4:3 screen?

No idea about this one. If it resizes them to fit your screen and they are 3:2 (which most if not all digital cameras are 3:4), then there will be bars at the bottom and the top.I prefer 4:3 monitors and I that screens are getting wider and wider.

 

[evilsofa]

1600x1200 is 150 pixels taller but 80 pixels less wide, so it's almost twice as much taller than it is less wide. See this image to see what that looks like.

In this example, WSGF made black rectangles of 4:3, 16:10 and other ratios, each 120 pixels high, to show you what that does to the length of the picture:

As we see from those images, when the height is the same and the aspect ratio increases, the screen gets wider. While they don't show a 3:2 ratio, it should be apparent from this list that it will be a little more than halfway between a 4:3 and a 16:10:

4:3 = 1.33
3:2 = 1.50
16:10 = 1.60
16:9 = 1.77

Now it's obvious that 3:2 is narrower than 16:10, but wider than 4:3. Your photo editor that displays 3:2 images full-screen without black bars on a 16:10 monitor is stretching it - you should see if it has an option to not stretch the picture in fullscreen, and if it doesn't, get a photo editor that does. Displaying a 3:2 picture on a 16:10 monitor without stretching the picture puts black bars both sides. Displaying a 3:2 picture on a 4:3 monitor without stretching the picture puts black bars on the top and bottom.

Therefore, if your two monitors were the same length, the the 4:3 will be displaying the 3:2 picture larger than the 16:10 does (think this through carefully).

But the two monitors you are comparing do not have the same length, so we still need to check the actual measurements. The NEC LCD2190UXi is a 21.3" monitor that is 432.81 mm wide and 324.61 mm tall, while the Samsung 215tw is a 21.0" monitor that is 452.32 mm wide x 282.7 mm tall (thanks to the Pixel Size Calculator for calculating the measurements). Therefore, the NEC will display a properly displayed 3:2 picture 432.81 mm wide, and the Samsung will display a properly displayed 3:2 picture 423.68 mm wide. The NEC LCD2190UXi will display an unstretched unsquashed 3:2 picture 0.36 inches wider than the Samsung 215tw does.

To show my work on how wide the Samsung displays the picture: the Samsung is 1050 pixels tall, and a 3:2 picture that is 1050 pixels tall will be 1575 pixels wide. The Pixel Size Calculator also told us that a 21" 1680x1050 display's pixels are 0.269 mm, so multiply that by 1575 and we get 423.675 mm.

 

[SD45]

evilsofa wrote:

Your photo editor that displays 3:2 images full-screen without black bars on a 16:10 monitor is stretching it - you should see if it has an option to not stretch the picture in fullscreen, and if it doesn't, get a photo editor that does.

I checked it: It doesn't really display full screen. There are 1-inch bars on the right and left, and a thin header and footer as well. All consistent with maintaining 3:2 proportions.

3:2 images used as desktop background in Windows XP are indeed stretched to fit a 16:10 widescreen. That option is explicitly provided in the Display options (in Control Panel) and it is the one I would be using if I wanted the image to fill the screen. No big deal--they're up there for entertainment only.

evilsofa also wrote:

Therefore, the NEC will display a properly displayed 3:2 picture 432.81 mm wide, and the Samsung will display a properly displayed 3:2 picture 423.68 mm wide. The NEC LCD2190UXi will display an unstretched unsquashed 3:2 picture 3.6 inches wider than the Samsung 215tw does.

I do not understand how you got "3.6 inches wider" out of your calculations. Based on your figures it looks more like a 9mm (432.81-423.68) difference. I'm not getting something.

So far, what I do get from the replies--thank you--is that the 2190 might have some advantages for writing in Word, while remaining useful for working with images. If I did not have a horizontal space limitation at this one favored location looking out the window, I would just pick up a 24" 1920x1200 display. I'm thinking off the 2190 as a chopped version of that.

 

[Jonte]

A chopped off version that you can hardware calibrate if you'd like.


Some proportions
4:3 --> 1,33:1
3:2 --> 1,5:1
16:10 -->1,6:1
16:9 --> 1,78:1

So, slightly larger black bars for those 3:2-photos.

 

[SH1]

I am thinking about buying an NEC LCD2190UXi (1600x1200 native resolution) to use at a desktop location where I mainly work on Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, and digital photos. I currently use a Samsung 215tw (1680x1050 resolution) at this spot. I am not using this computer to go on the Internet.

All of the photo and book design software that I use has toolbars that are best lined up on the right or left side of the image, which makes the widescreen useful. But it would also be useful to see more of a Word document vertically. Of course, I can turn the display, but I want to avoid that if possible given that I am constantly switching back and forth among these applications.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that 1680 and 1600 pixels is the same "real estate." Would a 1600x1200 display simply add 150 rows of pixels at the bottom, retaining basically the same real estate horizontally?

One of the photo editing applications has a feature that displays a photo full-screen. Most of the photos I work with are 3:2 proportions, not 4:3. These photos somehow automatically stretch or maybe crop themselves nicely to fit a 16:10 widescreen when I choose the full-screen option (or when I use one of them as the Windows desktop backrgound). How does the 1600x1200 display handle this? Will it display the image across the upper part of the screen, leaving a band of black at the bottom, or perhaps at the top and bottom? If not, will it try to resize the photo to fit the 4:3 screen?

Thanks in advance for any information.

Wider the better for Excel I think...

 

[evilsofa]

I do not understand how you got "3.6 inches wider" out of your calculations. Based on your figures it looks more like a 9mm (432.81-423.68) difference. I'm not getting something.

Oh shoot, I mixed up my mms and cms. Editing my post. It should be .36 inches wider. And I was doing so well until that last sanity check...

 

[SD45]

Ok, thanks.