daemionsos
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2005
- Messages
- 270
My 19" widescreen is great for gaming. But I like my 19" 4:3 better for desktop applications.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
help desiding between widescreen and non-widescreen lcds?
- Thread starter stopmenow
- Start date
idoc said:I recently upgraded from a 17in CRT (at 1024x768 res) to a 17in LCD. The increase in screen area is very evident, but text size is quite small for me at the LCD's native resolution of 1280x1024. I need to wear my reading glasses for more comfortable viewing, unless I increase DPI setting to 120 (from default 96).
I'm now considering getting a bigger LCD instead, and was considering the 19in or 20in WS but after reading this thread, it seems that I wouldn't be getting any improvement in text size since the actual vertical screen dimension would actually be less than or just the same as my current 17in LCD. I know that there will be more pixels, but text would still look small at native resolutions of 1440x900 or 1680x1050, right? Am I correct in thinking I'm better off getting a regular 19in LCD instead? 20in (4:3) LCD is not available here.
The important number is pixel pitch. Yes you can change the DPI setting but that doesn't work smoothly on everything. I think you might want to look at screens with pitch in the .290mm range. 19" 5:4 or 20" 4:3 1400x1050. Next would be the 19" 16:10 with .285mm.
LCD pixel Pitch at common sizes/aspects/resolutions:
17" 5:4 .264mm (1280x1024)
19" 5:4 .294mm (1280x1024)
19" 16:10 .285mm (1440x900)
20" 4:3 .255mm (1600x1200)
20" 4:3 .292mm (1400x1050)
20" 16:10 .258mm (1680x1050)
21" 4:3 .270mm (1600x1200)
21" 16:10 .270mm (1680x1050)
22" 16:10 .282mm (1680x1050)
23" 16:10 .258mm (1920x1200)
24" 16:10 .270mm (1920x1200)
30" 16:10 .250mm (2560x1600)
Snowdog said:The important number is pixel pitch. Yes you can change the DPI setting but that doesn't work smoothly on everything. I think you might want to look at screens with pitch in the .290mm range. 19" 5:4 or 20" 4:3 1400x1050. Next would be the 19" 16:10 with .285mm.
LCD pixel Pitch at common sizes/aspects/resolutions:
17" 5:4 .264mm (1280x1024)
19" 5:4 .294mm (1280x1024)
19" 16:10 .285mm (1440x900)
20" 4:3 .255mm (1600x1200)
20" 4:3 .292mm (1400x1050)
20" 16:10 .258mm (1680x1050)
21" 4:3 .270mm (1600x1200)
21" 16:10 .270mm (1680x1050)
22" 16:10 .282mm (1680x1050)
23" 16:10 .258mm (1920x1200)
24" 16:10 .270mm (1920x1200)
30" 16:10 .250mm (2560x1600)
I'm not sure what you mean. Pixel pitch, as I understand it, is the distance between pixels, and is directly related to image sharpness. The smaller the pixel pitch, the sharper the image. I don't have a problem with sharpness with my current 17in 5:4 (0.264) LCD. My problem is that at native resolution of 1280x1024, font and icon size is too small for my eyes to read without having to wear reading glasses.
I believe I'll have some improvement in reading comfort when I get a 19in 5:4 LCD, but it will not be due to the pixel pitch. In fact, pixel pitch will be worse at .294, and I've read of some people complaining that their 19in 5:4 LCD's are too grainy, due to the big pixels.However, it will be easier on my eyes because, while still remaining at same resolution of 1280x1024, the screen size has increased, and thus the font size will be more comfortable for reading even without changing the DPI setting. I just hope that I won't be too disappointed with the grainy pixel pitch.
So I think the key term is RESOLUTION. The higher native resolutions offered by 19inWS and 20inWS would still result in font sizes too small for my viewing comfort. Bigger regular format LCD's (19in 5:4 or 20in 4:3) would work better for me, right?
Pixel pitch is also pixel size. That will make everything bigger. If you have a hard time with the fonts on 17" then bigger pixels will help.
17" and 19" are essentially the same except for the size of the pixels and that accounts for the size difference in the monitors.
17" and 19" are essentially the same except for the size of the pixels and that accounts for the size difference in the monitors.
There are a lot of apples and oranges comparisons in this thread. There are clear benefits to stepping up to widescreen within the same resolution class. You get more width and don't lose any height. The thing is, however, that 1680x1050 and 1600x1200 aren't in the same resolution class. 1680x1050 (WSXGA+) is intended as an upgrade for SXGA+ (1400x1050), not as a replacement for 1600x1200 (UXGA).
The merits of WSXGA+ should be considered with respect to it's 4:3 variant: 1400x1050 SXGA+. WSXGA+ is a big boost over SXGA+ but it's a step backwards from UXGA. 20" diagonal UXGA screens are only a little over an inch narrower than WSXGA+ screens but are much taller. In terms of width, UXGA can do most anything that WSXGA+ can do. Two pages width will fit quite nicely on both WSXGA+ and UXGA, but UXGA will give you more vertical resolution to the point that it's possible to fit two entire pages side by side in a readable font size.
The widescreen version of 1600x1200 UXGA is 1920x1200 WUXGA. With no loss in height and 320 more pixels in width, WUXGA is what UXGA should be compared to when considering the merits of 4:3 vs 9:16 or 10:16 in the abstract. Comparing UXGA to WSXGA+ is nothing more than comparing apples and oranges.
The merits of WSXGA+ should be considered with respect to it's 4:3 variant: 1400x1050 SXGA+. WSXGA+ is a big boost over SXGA+ but it's a step backwards from UXGA. 20" diagonal UXGA screens are only a little over an inch narrower than WSXGA+ screens but are much taller. In terms of width, UXGA can do most anything that WSXGA+ can do. Two pages width will fit quite nicely on both WSXGA+ and UXGA, but UXGA will give you more vertical resolution to the point that it's possible to fit two entire pages side by side in a readable font size.
The widescreen version of 1600x1200 UXGA is 1920x1200 WUXGA. With no loss in height and 320 more pixels in width, WUXGA is what UXGA should be compared to when considering the merits of 4:3 vs 9:16 or 10:16 in the abstract. Comparing UXGA to WSXGA+ is nothing more than comparing apples and oranges.