To go or not to go with 16:9

M

Mikerocks2112

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2008
Messages
362
I am so temped to pick up the E2400HD. While comparing the screen size to my 20.1 inch Dell 2001FP, I noticed that my 20.1 monitor actually has a very slight advantage when it comes to vertical viewing area. Horizontal area is of course a lot bigger. I thought 24 inches meant that the E2400HD would have a higher vertical view than my 20.1 inch dell.

Its not really that big of deal to me, but I wonder if it will pose a problem once I start working in photoshop. I'm going to be using this monitor mostly for PC games/ xbox 360/ and photo editing.
 
Fotochop = more real estate .. so going from 1920*1200 to 1920*1080 loses you 120 vertical lines, which seems pretty significant. 16:9 is the new "standard" because it's cheaper to make; I'm sure many who have their 16:10 screens won't be making the jump; almost feels like a downgrade, probably because it is.

A 24" 16:9 @ 1080 max will undoubtedly provide more space than a 20" @ 1050 though, kinda seems like common sense.
 
Is there actually evidence to support that 16:9 is being pushed as the standard? I was under the impression that they were mainly being put out for media viewing.
 
cheesetogo said:
Is there actually evidence to support that 16:9 is being pushed as the standard? I was under the impression that they were mainly being put out for media viewing.
Click to expand...

Panels for LCD TVs are 16:9 1920x1080, so there's presumably a financial incentive for manufacturers to use the same panels as for TVs. However, I've not seen any particular evidence for it, other than the appearance of a number of 16:9 monitors recently.
 
Sadly :mad:

1600x1200 to 1920x1080: You must be really stupid to make that move for you computer monitor.

You loose a lot of vertical working space and gain just a little horizontal. Also, you are getting a garbage TN panel instead of the IPS panel of your 2001FP.
 
Meh I'm fine with 16:9. Never noticed the difference from 16:10. It was necessary to get a big screen :D
 
jcvjcvjcvjcv said:
Sadly :mad:

1600x1200 to 1920x1080: You must be really stupid to make that move for you computer monitor.

You loose a lot of vertical working space and gain just a little horizontal. Also, you are getting a garbage TN panel instead of the IPS panel of your 2001FP.
Click to expand...

lol, I went from 2048x1536 (22") to 1920x1080 (42").
I dont feel stupid and am more than happy :)

There is a framerate benefit of about 10% in GPU limited games using 1080p over 1920x1200.
 
jcvjcvjcvjcv said:
Sadly :mad:

1600x1200 to 1920x1080: You must be really stupid to make that move for you computer monitor.

You loose a lot of vertical working space and gain just a little horizontal. Also, you are getting a garbage TN panel instead of the IPS panel of your 2001FP.
Click to expand...

Wow I had no clue my 2001FP was a IPS. The whole time I thought I thought I had a TN...LOL

I'm still a noob at this computer monitor stuff, but wow here I am thinking I had a nice TN that didn't suffer from viewing angle issues discussed here.
 
Nenu said:
lol, I went from 2048x1536 (22") to 1920x1080 (42").
I dont feel stupid and am more than happy :)

There is a framerate benefit of about 10% in GPU limited games using 1080p over 1920x1200.
Click to expand...
There's a "framerate benefit" for ANY lower resolution.
 
You don't have to use the native resolution. Buying a smaller monitor for the higher framerates doesn't make sense-. My 7900GTX can't run the newer games on 1600x1200, so often I choose to run them at 1024x768 with black bars. And in office applications and web browsing I enjoy the bigger space.

We've gone from 1280x1024 as the mainstream resolution to 1680x1050: hardly an increase in vertical space; only 26 pixels or 6.5mm. And now it goes to 1920x1080? Wow! A 30 pixel (7.5mm) increase :rolleyes:). In general you can say that not a single website benefits from 1920 over 1280. But nearby every website (including this forum) benefits from 1200 vertical over 1024/1050/1080 vertical.

And for the 1920x1200 monitor: the increase in price is bigger then the increase in pixels compared to 1600x1200 monitors.

@Nenu: Most of those CRT's that did 2048x1536 weren't very sharp for the eye. Especially at the end of the lifetime of a CRT the sharness decreases fast. But trading in a sharp 2048x1536: no way.

@Mikerocks2112: Keep your 2001FP and save up for a nice newer, bigger IPS monitor. Going to TN from anything else is quality-wise always a downgrade.

As for the vertical resolution: Go to your videocards controlpanel and set it to output 1600x1080 and see how much you loose for webbrowsing and so ;)
 
jcvjcvjcvjcv said:
@Nenu: Most of those CRT's that did 2048x1536 weren't very sharp for the eye. Especially at the end of the lifetime of a CRT the sharness decreases fast. But trading in a sharp 2048x1536: no way.
Click to expand...

Read my post again :)
 
If you watch a lot of 16:9 video then a 16:9 screen is the way to go. With a 16:10 display you get the black bars at the top and bottom -- a perfect way to make otherwise unnoticeable backlight bleed horribly irritating, especially if you're watching movies with the lights turned down.

And as a previous poster said, if you go from an ips panel to a tn you'll likely want to shoot yourself in the face.
 
If you have a 16:10 or 4:3 monitor with that much backlightbleeding to notice it during movie watching then you've bought the wrong monitor in the first place. :rolleyes:
 
Would not consider anything ultimate without LED based selective lighting, which I imagine is LCD's final stand before OLED or something else takes over.

(Though there may be other innovations I'm not aware of...)
 
Lasers!!
Thats if they dont take forever bringing separate lasers out (not in TVs).
Thats the only way you will get a 24" laser screen.
But then once you have it, the whole wall suddenly becomes more preferable :)
Sadly they will cost quite a bit for a few years.
Hopefully there is some way other companies can compete to drive prices down.
 
Meh,

I'll stick with 1920 x 1200. Simply more to see.

If I wanted 1920 x 1080, then I'll buy a HDTV.
 
SH1 said:
Would not consider anything ultimate without LED based selective lighting, which I imagine is LCD's final stand before OLED or something else takes over.

(Though there may be other innovations I'm not aware of...)
Click to expand...

Read up on Canon/Toshiba's SED technology. You'll be amazed at the claimed abilities.
 
back to the discussion on 16:9....
I just got a 16:10 monitor and I am very happy with it. While I might feel a bit of buyers remorse when i watch some more modern media, there is still plenty of 4:3 media that I watch every now and then and I wonder how large the vertical bars on the sides would be if I had gotten a 16:9 instead!
And while horizontal space is great while working for sidebars, interface menus, etc in photoshop, illustrator, dreamweaver, etc. I already have a bit "too much". there's only so much horizontal stretching I want to do with my workspace
 
I like 16x9 for the type of software I run. Vegas and Live. Damn I could have a 40" 16x3 monitor and I would still have a horizontal scroll bar. :D

Yes I said 16x3. :p
 
Y'know, I was thinking about the advantages of a 16:6 monitor. Specifically, the ability to watch two 4:3 videos at the same time when I get the urge to rewatch some stuff from several years ago :p

0100 said:
I like 16x9 for the type of software I run. Vegas and Live. Damn I could have a 40" 16x3 monitor and I would still have a horizontal scroll bar. :D

Yes I said 16x3. :p
Click to expand...

Wow, I didn't know vegas was still in use! I switched over to premier a while back, but I still use the older version for video importing/transcoding, since i like it more than how premier does it. i don't use either much anymore, but that is indeed they are two apps that can never get enough horizontal space! lol
 
The only reason why the benq interests me is because I really don't want to see any black bars when I plug in my Xbox 360 via HDMI. Is there ways to get rid of the black bars on normal 16:10 monitors without losing quality? I don't mind black bars in movies.
 
if you can see the black bars, that means the image is not being stretched, so there is no quality loss. The only detriment will be that since an LCD cannot achieve "true black", it will kinda glow dark grey.

@jcv - back at home I have two 1280x1024, pretty pwn. Maybe when I go home I'll add my 1920x1200 to the array :) two old videos PLUS a wide-screen movie teehee
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top