Any new 16:10 monitors in 2014

K

Kreed

n00b
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
42
Does anyone know if there will be any new 16:10 monitors in 2014?

I was hoping for a 1920x1200 version of the Dell U2414H with thin bezel, but given the small number of 16:10 monitors dell have released in the past two years (U2413 in 2012 and U3014 in 2013), I am not hopeful.
 
Posting this in case it helps give you some perspective. I made this graphic and it helped me visualize the differences in different monitors better.

http://www.web-cyb.org/images/lcds/4k_21x9_27in_30in_same-ppi.jpg

I realize some of them are pretty expensive but some of the korean knockoffs at 16:9 aren't. The main point is, the higher the overall resolution and vertical pixel increase, the less important 16:10 is to most people (as compared to a much more cramped 1080).
 
elvn said:
Posting this in case it helps give you some perspective. I made this graphic and it helped me visualize the differences in different monitors better.

http://www.web-cyb.org/images/lcds/4k_21x9_27in_30in_same-ppi.jpg

I realize some of them are pretty expensive but some of the korean knockoffs at 16:9 aren't. The main point is, the higher the overall resolution and vertical pixel increase, the less important 16:10 is to most people (as compared to a much more cramped 1080).
Click to expand...

That link is broken, at least for me it is.

I have thought about moving to a 27" 2560x1440 monitor, which will give me more vertical pixels. However, the PPI will be higher, making fonts smaller and thereby putting more strain on the eyes. I know DPI scaling exists in Windows 8, but from what I've read, it's still not quite there yet:

http://techreport.com/blog/25797/high-ppi-support-in-windows-8-1-still-not-so-great
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/LivingAHighDPIDesktopLifestyleCanBePainful.aspx
http://anandtech.com/show/7939/scaling-windows-the-dpi-arms-race

I might be wrong, but I think a lot of existing software will also need to be updated to support DPI scaling. Until that happens, which could be in a couple of years, I would prefer to stick with more common resolutions that have been tried and tested i.e. 1920x1080 and 1920x1200.
 
Just wait for an affordable 30"+ 4K 60Hz TV/monitor to be released. It may take a while, but 16:10 would become a distant memory.
Or buy a 21:9 monitor and experience something new.
 
yeah something messed up with webserver this morning. I'm checking on it.
The useless tech support line person forwarded the issue to the real tech support people. They gave eta 1hr. Sorry about that. Never had a prob with this web host before. Was down for an hour maybe once in years.
 
Last edited:
regarding ppi, I use a 27" 2560x1400 , and my 17" 1080p laptop's ppi is even higher. I have no problems with either of them at all. 4k would be dependent on the screen size vs the rez to see what the ppi is.

A 4k around 40" is about the same ppi as a 27" 2560x1440 (108.8ppi)
Going smaller would move more toward my laptop's ppi (129.58 PPI)
The 31.5" 4k panels are around 139.87 ppi.
A 55" TV 4k is way too big for at a desk imo (unless you set it back some), and is 80.5ppi (though the pixels would shrink to your perspective and you would perceive the ppi higher if you moved it back farther).

Anything that is close to 108.8 ppi is perfect at 1:1 pixel mapping imo, without needing scaling. Higher ppi's with perfect scaling implementation across the board would be superior though of course. You can fine tune firefox with the nosquint addon if you need to adjust browser text globally or on a page by page basis(which it will remember). I mostly use it to change background colors from white to grey since I have no problem with 108.8 ppi.

108.8 ppi is great. It's not really smaller than newspaper or a novel's text comparatively. The 129.58 on my laptop is no problem either, but that screen is a little closer so it depends on your view distances a bit as well.
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
Posting this in case it helps give you some perspective. I made this graphic and it helped me visualize the differences in different monitors better.

http://www.web-cyb.org/images/lcds/4k_21x9_27in_30in_same-ppi.jpg

I realize some of them are pretty expensive but some of the korean knockoffs at 16:9 aren't. The main point is, the higher the overall resolution and vertical pixel increase, the less important 16:10 is to most people (as compared to a much more cramped 1080).
Click to expand...

I posted it on imgur for now until my site is back up.

HSYl4OO.jpg
 
Kreed said:
I might be wrong, but I think a lot of existing software will also need to be updated to support DPI scaling. Until that happens, which could be in a couple of years, I would prefer to stick with more common resolutions that have been tried and tested i.e. 1920x1080 and 1920x1200.
Click to expand...

What programs do you use?
That said, I personally prefer standard 100% scaling.
So much screen real-estate.
 
All at the same ppi to show you how much desktop real-estate (and usable height) you are missing not using higher resolutions vs 1080/1200.

At the ppi shown, the 1920x1080 screen would be around 20.5" diagonal vs the 27" 2560x1440, so if you can use a 20.5" +/- size 1080p screen's text without scaling you shouldn't be having a problem at 27" 2560x1440 though it varies a bit by view distance.

ceVaP4q.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top