PLP & MisMatched Aspect Ratios

S

SiRCYRO

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
111
I'm looking into making a PLP 20-30-20 monitor setup for my main work PC, and maybe the occasional windowed multi-monitor gaming.

I was about to order some monitors when I realized that the aspect ratios don't match up, and so the actual display area width of the 20's won't match up with the display area height of the 30 when they are rotated. (Also confirmed by the conversion chart on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_size

This is my first PLP setup, so maybe I'm wrong but even though the horizontal resolution of the 20's matches the vertical resolution of the 30, if the display widths don't match the 30 display height, will it not look off? Especially when having a window span multiple monitors? They would have a different ppi, no?

Ideally I would go with:
1x Dell U3014
2x Dell P2012H

As far as I know, 1600x1000 monitors don't exist, so 1600x900 is the best match...

Backup Plan:
1x Dell U2713HM
2x Dell P1913

None of those aspect ratios match up. Is this something to worry about, or should I keep looking for a good matching pair?
 
1600x1200 is an option if you can track down Dell 2007 FP monitors at a decent price. I've seen those pictured next to Dell 3007's in the past and they match pretty well.
 
I had thought about 1600x1200 but it's still not the right aspect ratio, so the size of the monitors display around won't line up again.

I have a feeling that it may not be possible to align the display area dimension.
 
I find that my 2 Dell 2007FP match nicely my new u3014.
Dell 2007FP can be found on Dell's website (expensive) or cheap on eBay.
 
Are you aware that you can rotate the Dell 2007FP display so that it is 1200x1600? That is how you get the match-up. I can tell you from experience with my 20/30/20 that 1200 across is already too narrow for some web sites. 900x1600 might not be very useful. I'm ready for 4Kx1.
 
SiRCYRO said:
I had thought about 1600x1200 but it's still not the right aspect ratio, so the size of the monitors display around won't line up again.
Click to expand...
eh? Aspect ratio is irrelevant. All that matters, if you want them to line up, is that the vertical on the 30" matches the horizontal (which becomes vertical when rotated) on the 20"

A 30" 16:10 display has a ~16" viewable vertical at 101dpi.
A 20" 16:12 (4:3) display has a ~16" viewable horizontal at 100dpi (essentially, depending on panel)
http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html

Rotate the 20" and that is the closest match you will find with a multi-display PLP setup.
 
Yeah I get that the monitor can be rotated. I was speaking more of the physical display area width of the side monitors matching the height of the center monitor when they are rotated.

ie. 16:9 20" is 44cm wide, a 16:10 30" is 40cm high. Based on that link I posed at Wikipedia.

As people mentioned, 1600x1200 works best in this setup, unfortunately for the cost of finding just one I can get a 27" monitor. Also, doing some measurements with a measuring tape I realized that a 16:9/16:10 monitor rotated will be very narrow, probably not even practical at that point. Hence why people do 1600x1200.

For the time being I'll just buy 2-3 27" monitors and stick with that.

Thanks for all the feedback.
 
SiRCYRO said:
Yeah I get that the monitor can be rotated. I was speaking more of the physical display area width of the side monitors matching the height of the center monitor when they are rotated.

ie. 16:9 20" is 44cm wide, a 16:10 30" is 40cm high. Based on that link I posed at Wikipedia.

As people mentioned, 1600x1200 works best in this setup, unfortunately for the cost of finding just one I can get a 27" monitor. Also, doing some measurements with a measuring tape I realized that a 16:9/16:10 monitor rotated will be very narrow, probably not even practical at that point. Hence why people do 1600x1200.

For the time being I'll just buy 2-3 27" monitors and stick with that.

Thanks for all the feedback.
Click to expand...


I don't game on my 20/30/20, it's for business only. After using it for a few months, I found that I only needed one of the 20's for palates and menus while I use the 30 for drawing or Photoshoping. That's how the other 20 was relegated to internet use. So I think you're right, a couple of 2560x1440 monitors could work very well at good price point. Also consider that a lot of new monitors will hit the market over the next year or so.
 
SiRCYRO said:
Yeah I get that the monitor can be rotated. I was speaking more of the physical display area width of the side monitors matching the height of the center monitor when they are rotated.

ie. 16:9 20" is 44cm wide, a 16:10 30" is 40cm high. Based on that link I posed at Wikipedia.

As people mentioned, 1600x1200 works best in this setup, unfortunately for the cost of finding just one I can get a 27" monitor. Also, doing some measurements with a measuring tape I realized that a 16:9/16:10 monitor rotated will be very narrow, probably not even practical at that point. Hence why people do 1600x1200.

For the time being I'll just buy 2-3 27" monitors and stick with that.

Thanks for all the feedback.
Click to expand...

What about a single 4k monitor? :D
 
XiP said:
What about a single 4k monitor? :D
Click to expand...

I agree that 4K is the next "standard" monitor for the [H] crowd, but it will take a couple of years for the tech and market to settle out. If I needed to buy today, I'd buy a pair of 2560x1440, 27inch monitors for <$800.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top