• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

1920x1080 - why recommend?

M

Megalomaniac

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
2,193
I am not sure why people keep recommending these, maybe i'm not understanding something, but any monitor where you get less pixels seems to be bad. (unless it's also a smaller size)

I mean you can always scale down to 1080 (yes with bars, lower you brightness and they are barely visible) but you how often do you need it compared to the full realestate you get with the extra pixels?
 
Because:
a) It's native for consoles
b) It's native for TV
c) It's wider than a 1920x1200 set of the same diagonal size, which leads to
d) The human eye being better at seeing along the horizontal than the vertical
e) For most users 1920x1080 is still far too high a resolution for their basic needs
 
It's also a lot smaller vertically than 1920x1200, which will hurt its usability in general use, web browsers etc are always better with more vertical space.

The console argument is the only good one IMO. But for that I'd rather have a big 1920x1080 resolution TV than a small 22-24" monitor.
 
What's it being used for? If you're not hooking a 360 or a PS3 up to then you want a 16:10 screen.
 
Agreed that native console is kinda the only one there, but doesn't 1:1 provide that anyway?
yes with black bars, but you can still play pc games or browse with the additional pixels once youre done with the console.

As i said, even if i was hooking up a console, why would i want to limit my pc use.
I'm just asking for the reasoning people are recommending the 1920x1080.

I see it as such a huge mistake for people to recommend that format.
it should only be recommended to casual PC users who primarily watch HD or use it for a console and cant afford a regular TV.
 
Some people hate black bars.
Seems ridiculous to me as its exactly the same as Watching a Blu Ray movie that has a wider aspect ratio on a 16:9 screen.

If you intend to use it for a console a 16:9 screen will fit the screen without issue.
On monitors that dont do 1:1 pixel mapping very well, you may get a stretched image to fit 16:10 screens.
You can of course choose a 16:10 screen that has known decent 1:1 support.

It has also been reported that there arent many 16:10 screens that use a decent display panel.
If that matters to you and you want 16:10, you need to refine your selections somewhat.

Not many monitors with decent panels are cheap and you end up getting close to Plasma 42" TV prices.
In this case, if you have the room space, get a Panasonic 42" 1080p Plasma thats on offer.
Its 16:9, but the image quality is something else and I honestly dont miss the vertical screen real estate (I use a 22" CRT in 1600x1200 as well).
Note, its not advisable to use a Plasma for just PC use, but if you will watch movies and TV on it, the wear will even out nicely.
I've been using one for 7 months now (approx 8hrs PC, 8hrs video each day) and it still looks perfect.
Plasmas are damn hard wearing these days!
 
Well I personally wont be jumping on the 16:9 screens for my PC since PC games struggled with proper 16:10 support for so long.

However if your not playing PC games and intend to watch a lot of 16:9 HD content on the screen then I can easily see the appeal. Especially if you price range fall in the realm of 20” wide screens. You will get a much better experience on the 16:9.

One thing that caught my eye before I gave it much though was 1920 crammed in to a 20” screen. At first I thought this was a step towards something I have been wanting and that is higher resolution in a smaller package like you can get on laptops. But then I realized it is probably more like a 23-24” with the height chopped down giving it the 20” diagonal.
 
I grab an Asus VK246H recently which is a 1920 x 1080. Normally I wouldn't buy a TN panel monitor, but it will only have limited usage so I couldn't justify spending $600 - $1,200 for a S-PVA or H-IPS monitor. I currently have the 26" NEC 2690WUXi and 19" Planar PX191 (2002 model).

Bought it because it was cheap. I was really looking for a 22" but at $238 I just decided to go with the Asus 24". It's being used maybe 2 or 3 hours a week at most.

Actually for the moment I am using the monitor for more than 2 or 3 hours since I am putting together a review of the Asus VK246H. I figured, hell why not?
 
I value more vertical resolution than a slightly wider screen. If you spend a lot of time programming, word processing or reading stuff on the internet (doing productive stuff on your computer), that extra 120 pixels /~10% can make more of a difference than a half inch would do for movies and games (difference of width between a 24” 16:10 and 16:9 is 0.5 inch). Guess it depends on what you do.
 
There's a lot of people on this board who seem overly sensitive on this issue. The second I say I like 16:9 for general use and they all freak out.

I prefer 16:9 over 16:10 for a computer, tv, xbox, web surfing, gaming, whatever. Everything, I prefer a 16:9.

I was running a standard 22" monitor. Then I picked up a 1920x1080 24" and I was like, shit, this just makes more sense.

YES - On certain web pages the sides are really open. Whatever. I got that. But I still prefer it over 1920x1200 by a long shot. But that's just my opinion. Go look at one yourself and see what you like more. I just wouldn't let a couple pixels waver your decision at all. Look at them in person and decide from there what you'd rather have.
 
RoastedTiresX said:
1920x1080 24"...YES - On certain web pages the sides are really open. Whatever.
Click to expand...
I run my browser windows at 1024x1600, which is hugely better suited for the internet and word-wrap readability. You should try keeping your width at 1024 and using the extra space for multitasking. I use anandtech to calibrate that width.
 
For regular monitor use, I still prefer 16:10 over 16:9 which is why many new 24" monitors are still released with the 16:10 aspect ratio and a resolution of 1920x1200.
 
Some people hate black bars.
Seems ridiculous to me as its exactly the same as Watching a Blu Ray movie that has a wider aspect ratio on a 16:9 screen.
Click to expand...

Black bars or black bezel, whats the difference? AND very small amount of movies are 16:9. You still end up seeing black bars on 16:9 monitor.
 
It's just a personal opinion but I don't like the idea of 16:9 computer monitors. Heck I was even a tad unhappy with the bandwagon-like market transition from 4:3 to 16:10. Having a good amount of vertical space available is important to me. For TVs, sure, use 16:9... it better suits what they are used for.

EDIT: What concerns me in particular is the prospect that in a year or two I won't be able to buy a state-of-the-art computer monitor in anything other than a 16:9 aspect ratio. I hope that doesn't happen like it has with 4:3. I have no objection to 16:9 monitors being on the market, so long as they do not limit the choice of available 16:10 monitors.
 
GHarris said:
Heck I was even a tad unhappy with the bandwagon-like market transition from 4:3 to 16:10. Having a good amount of vertical space available is important to me.
Click to expand...
Dell jumped on the bandwagon by transitioning their D-laptop line from 1400x1050 (D610) to 1440x900 (D620+). Trade 150 vertical for 40 horizontal, and lose 13% of the total. Bad especially for webpages and code writing.

But I think 16:10 makes sense for 24" and above, since it fits your field of vision better and there's still adequate (1200+) vertical.
 
Because HDTV fills the screen and games don't have a problem with it
 
GHarris said:
EDIT: What concerns me in particular is the prospect that in a year or two I won't be able to buy a state-of-the-art computer monitor in anything other than a 16:9 aspect ratio. I hope that doesn't happen like it has with 4:3. I have no objection to 16:9 monitors being on the market, so long as they do not limit the choice of available 16:10 monitors.
Click to expand...

This actually echoes my own worrys, I only recently went to a 16:10 24" monitor and was on an old 4:3 lcd before that. Wide screen makes sense to me, it did before this too, but i could not justify a new monitor earlier. However 16:9 after 16:10 does not.

Having wide screen is great, having narrow screen, not so much.
 
I, too, value more vertical space. I have a 40" LCD TV in the living room for movies. The computer is for computing! :D
 
Yesterday I picked up a 23" Samsung 2343BWX - very interesting monitor. It has a 2048x1152 resolution (16:9) and a 20000:1 dynamic contrast ratio. I played a couple of blu-ray movies and a 4:3 movie and it's beautiful. More than anything, the desktop space allows 2 a4 docs side by side + the sidebar in Vista. Plus the vertical size is a little better than the 1050 on my 22". I know it's not a huge monitor physically, but the desktop space is quite vast. Also, the nVidia control panel had no problem detecting the correct resolution. So far so good..
 
prasvt said:
Yesterday I picked up a 23" Samsung 2343BWX - very interesting monitor. It has a 2048x1152 resolution (16:9) and a 20000:1 dynamic contrast ratio. I played a couple of blu-ray movies and a 4:3 movie and it's beautiful. More than anything, the desktop space allows 2 a4 docs side by side + the sidebar in Vista. Plus the vertical size is a little better than the 1050 on my 22". I know it's not a huge monitor physically, but the desktop space is quite vast. Also, the nVidia control panel had no problem detecting the correct resolution. So far so good..
Click to expand...
Is there any backlight bleeding on that monitor?
 
That's one of the first things I checked. First off it's really bright monitor - and the magic tune software has presets for various usages (movies, gaming, internet, text, etc.). I turned off the light and the backlighting looked very uniform. I know my 22" KDS LCD had backlight bleeding on the edges, but compared to that, I couldn't see any on this Samsung.
 
I just want something standard. 16:9 works for TV, movies, games, and the computer. :)
 
I think most new games can deal with 16:9 resolutions so it shouldn't be a problem. Games like Battlefield 2142, I've always used command line options to get widescreen (or since last night the widescreen fixer utility), since it didn't support WS resolutions natively. In any case the game looked fine at 2048 x 1152 on max settings. No ghosting or anything. I have far cry 2 and crysis installed, so I'll try them out at 720p and 1080p today when I get back from work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top