Whatever happened to 1920*1200?

E

Elf_Boy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
2,549
I know this isn't world shaking or very deep, but whatever happened to monitors with 1920*1200?

For some time (six months or more) there have not been any monitors at the local Frys with this resolution, I thought maybe it was a fluke or just them, I've wandered though a few more stores recently like Best Buy and they dont have any either.... For both even the 25" monitors max out at 1920*1080 .

When the budget allows I'd like to pick up one or two more at the bigger rez to match my existing monitor. I'm sure I can find them online.... just curious why stores dont seem to stock them. Do they not sell?

Just took a quick look at a few web retailers. Some dont have 1920*1200 either, others have just one or two models that do and they all seem to be either refurbished or older items. Strange.
 
Last edited:
1920x1200 is dying because it is cheaper to build and market a 1920x1080 27" monitor than a 1920x1200 25.5" monitor. They both offer the same physical real estate.
 
deanx0r said:
They both offer the same physical real estate.
Click to expand...


:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:


not sure what you mean by "physical real estate"...but you could have a 100" screen at 1920x1080, and it's still not going to be able to fit more on the screen than a 24" 1920x1200? Or are you talking about the space they take up on your desk? In which case, I'm equally perplexed by your statement.
 
JaguarSKX said:
WHAT?!?!?!?

I may need several drinks just to begin to understand what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I think he means it literally guys. Physical as in, you know the kind of physical you can grab in reality with your hands and not the kind you click, grab and move with your mouse.

Though they may have a slightly different shape a 16:10 vs 16:9 physically the majority of consumers who want a 27" screen will buy a 27" screen regardless of it's ratio, mainly goes by availability and cost.

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that it is also cheaper to stick with one form of screen ratio then it is to have two separate standards.

Do you get more out of a 1920x1200 then a 1920x1080? Yes you do, but those who care so much about it are not the majority of consumers out there and aren't as easily herded like sheep... In my case I wanted a big screen and a plasma, so I had to go with 1080P, if I had a choice in the range of screen size I was looking for obviously I would have chosen the 1200P.

To put it in simple terms... They're all dead, Dave.
 
^^^

What you wanted was an HDTV which are all max out at 1920 x 1080. There is no such thing as 1920 x 1200 for HDTVs since that does not equal 16:9 aspect ratio.

PC monitors are different. More 1920 x 1080 monitors are being pumped out than 1920 x 1200 monitors because it is cheaper to produce and it is also being influenced by HDTV resolution. It's cheaper to produce because more 1920 x 1080 can be cut from the a single large LCD glass pane. I believe current generation production lines produce LCD panes that measures around 13 feet x 8 feet. Lower resolutuion LCD panels uses less "glass" so more 1920 x 1080 panels can be cut from a single production pane than 1920 x 1200 panels.
 
Because ignorant consumers are all enamored with anything 1080P or "HD"
 
There are still some 16:10 models coming out, but they are not TN for the most part, which means you won't see them in any stores.
 
1920x1080 has fewer pixels, cheaper to manufacturer.
Can still be advertised as 1080P to the general consumer.

Win all around for manufacturers.
 
I understand if more 16:9 ratio screens can be cut out of a large piece of glass than 16:10 ratio screens.

I don't mind the move to 16:9 ratio from 16:10. I even prefer it. I only dislike it when it comes at a cost to resolution, like 1920x1200 to 1920x1080. Can't we have a resolution like 2132 x 1200, which is 16:9 aspect ratio but keeping the same vertical space?

For instance, I have seen going from 16:10 to 16:9, one situation where the resolution actually increases, from 1440x900 to 1600x900 in recent monitors. So why not increase the resolution from 1920x1200 to 2132x1200. Make the screen real estate WIDER, not SHORTER.

But it is sad that because of marketing, many ignorant consumers think that 1080P is the golden resolution, the highest possible resolution ever created by man and nothing greater than it can possibly exist. Looks like I may hold onto my monitor for quite a while and my future display (looking at 120hz or higher) will probably be of lower resolution than my current monitor. One of the few times in technology where we are going backwards! :mad:
 
Last edited:
nerdydesi said:
I understand if more 16:9 ratio screens can be cut out of a large piece of glass than 16:10 ratio screens.

I don't mind the move to 16:9 ratio from 16:10. I even prefer it. I only dislike it when it comes at a cost to resolution, like 1920x1200 to 1920x1080. Can't we have a resolution like 2132 x 1200, which is 16:9 aspect ratio but keeping the same vertical space?

For instance, I have seen going from 16:10 to 16:9, one situation where the resolution actually increases, from 1440x900 to 1600x900 in recent monitors. So why not increase the resolution from 1920x1200 to 2132x1200. Make the screen real estate WIDER, not SHORTER.

But it is sad that because of marketing, many ignorant consumers think that 1080P is the golden resolution, the highest possible resolution ever created by man and nothing greater than it can possibly exist. Looks like I may hold onto my monitor for quite a while and my future display (looking at 120hz or higher) will probably be of lower resolution than my current monitor. One of the few times in technology where we are going backwards! :mad:
Click to expand...
Not really, it may be going backwards for enthusisats. For me going from my FP241 VA panel to one of the newer 1080P TN panels would certainly be a downgrade. But there are 30" 2560x1600 IPS panels for me to look at should I feel the desire to upgrade.

Most of these general consumers buying into the 23-25" 1920x1080 panels are coming from 17-19" 5:4 LCDs or even CRT displays. It is still a massive step forward for them.
 
conscript said:
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:


not sure what you mean by "physical real estate"...but you could have a 100" screen at 1920x1080, and it's still not going to be able to fit more on the screen than a 24" 1920x1200? Or are you talking about the space they take up on your desk? In which case, I'm equally perplexed by your statement.
Click to expand...

Physical real estate as in how big the screen is physically. There is a variety of sizes for the 1920x1200 resolution, from lowly 23in to 28in screen. Most people buy by the screen size and usually go for the biggest they can afford.

The problem with 16:9 screen is that you do lose vertical resolution and this reflects itself in the size of the screen. For instance: a 27in 16:9 monitor is about the same size as a 25.5in 16:10 monitor. A 24.6in 16:9 monitor is about the same as a 22in 16:10.

It almost fooled me when I was shopping for a 27in HP monitor. I wasn't aware of the different ratios and resolutions back then, and thought it was weird that this 27in didn't look bigger than other 25-26in monitors.
 
27" 1920x1080 = 311.2 square inches, and 25.5" 1920x1200 = 292.09 square inches, so the 27" has 19 more square inches - that's a bit less than a fourth of a standard piece of paper. Viewed side by side, the 25.5" monitor is about half an inch taller while the 27" is almost 2 inches wider, so at a glance, you may or may not notice the 27" being wider and that's about it.

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?303cad5efa37e049ac5161a7cad87f3f
 
I must say there is much more discussion and thought here then I expected. The gist I am getting is that 1920*1200 is fading is due to costs and people wanting to keep things the same as their TV.

Sad that TV, a thing I have little use for, a thing that rots brains, grows bellies, and turns active little children into something not so different then the common garden variety slug, seems to strongly affect what resolution monitors are for sale, new, at the local computer stores. All because unthinking, lazy, slug like couch potatoes don't have the ability to understand 1080 is not a magic number.

Or am I perhaps being a bit biter and critical of how the market works?
 
I don't know.. what happened to 4:3, what happened to laser disk, and what happened to the telegraph?
 
VistaVick said:
There are still some 16:10 models coming out, but they are not TN for the most part, which means you won't see them in any stores.
Click to expand...

Yeah most of the monitors in the stores are TN and they suck. There are very few decent monitors in any store to be had. Occasionally Microcenter has the oddball Dell 3007WFP-HC or something along those lines. However the price is usually excessively high.
 
I am disappointed the market is going this way. I wonder though, are the higher rez monitors off shelves due to consumers being shorter on cash over all right now? Will these displays be back when consumer buying power is back to full strength?

I am hoping so.

Other wise, here is to seeing two "Samsung 245 BW" monitors dirt cheap soon.

I am very happy with the one I have. My other [older] screen - "Samsung 225 BW", is nice as well.

The 245 is a little brighter and clearer, and on the 225 I can barely see a little ghosting if I push it hard.

Hmmm wonder when 25" or better drops in price? I don't see the point in getting more inches (keep it out the gutter guys) with out getting more resolution. I am strongly against getting more inches and losing resolution.

Anyhow, it is late and I wander around the topic. What thoughts do you [H]ard people have concerning more inches resulting in less?

Hmmm, is there an easy (and cheap) way to try and color match the two monitors? My eye for this thing is not so good.
 
Dan_D said:
Yeah most of the monitors in the stores are TN and they suck. There are very few decent monitors in any store to be had. Occasionally Microcenter has the oddball Dell 3007WFP-HC or something along those lines. However the price is usually excessively high.
Click to expand...

Which is the allure for me at least for a nice IPS Apple monitor. I HATE having monitors shipped to me. I want to be able to return immediately and with no inconvenience if there's something wrong, including unacceptable stuck/dead pixels. The Apple tax for monitors for me is justified, and I'll definitely be getting their new 27" monitor when it releases.
 
People like 1080p because 1080p = no black bars. Until you watch some 2.35:1 movies anyway. The obsession with eliminating black bars is rather silly. But really there are still plenty of 1920x1200 monitors; just not in your typical big box store. The typical consumer doesn't care, but for those that do there are plenty of avenues to fulfill the need for more lines of resolution.
 
no hijack.

What is the visual difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200?
 
DrDoU said:
What is the visual difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200?
Click to expand...

Assuming the same size, let's say 24": 1920x1080 is shorter and wider, while 1920x1200 is taller and narrower. 1920x1200 has more viewing area and higher pixel density, but when playing movies at 16:9, 1.85:1 or 2.35:1, the 1920x1080 will display the image slightly larger than the 1920x1200 display does. As for picture quality, almost all 1920x1080 monitors are TN panels with much poorer image quality, while most 1920x1200 monitors are VA or IPS panels with much better image quality.

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?88cc98f8f3271db7b59de548d424824a

Hopefully that answers your somewhat vague question.
 
x1200 has an extra 120 rows of pixels. 16:9 has a slightly wider field of vision, but don't forget that any x1200 monitor worth it's shit will be able to display stuff in x1080. (With 60 pixel rows of black bar on the top and bottom.)
 
evilsofa said:
Assuming the same size, let's say 24": 1920x1080 is shorter and wider, while 1920x1200 is taller and narrower. 1920x1200 has more viewing area and higher pixel density, but when playing movies at 16:9, 1.85:1 or 2.35:1, the 1920x1080 will display the image slightly larger than the 1920x1200 display does. As for picture quality, almost all 1920x1080 monitors are TN panels with much poorer image quality, while most 1920x1200 monitors are VA or IPS panels with much better image quality.

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?88cc98f8f3271db7b59de548d424824a

Hopefully that answers your somewhat vague question.
Click to expand...

Deadgye said:
x1200 has an extra 120 rows of pixels. 16:9 has a slightly wider field of vision, but don't forget that any x1200 monitor worth it's shit will be able to display stuff in x1080. (With 60 pixel rows of black bar on the top and bottom.)
Click to expand...

Thanks I understand.
 
I've had some heated debates about 16:9 vs 16:10 monitors with some friends. The concensus was:

16:9 is better for games because it usually offers a slightly wider field of view
16:10 is better for desktop/Windows
 
Definitely a frustrating situation, the extra vertical space is what is needed. I would never buy a monitor with that aspect ratio. I still own 2007fp's which are a dying breed as well.
 
there are 1200p hdtvs.
i have one, 1920x1200 hdtv hannspree 28".
and 1080p as computer monitors suck imo. 1080p should be only used on hd TVs imo!!
 
I thought long and hard about 1080 vs 1200 but went 1200. I couldnt justify doing 1080 coming from a 1680x1050 screen. Thats almost the same vertical space, so objects, images will be about same size. It may be good for watching movies in 16:9, but I'll take 1920x1200 for gaming any day.
 
Anything less than 1200 lines of resolution is totally impractical for working on a PC, I'm not too worried about the 16:10 meeting its death... perhaps in consumer grade screens but not on the higher end.
 
xp3nd4bl3 said:
I've had some heated debates about 16:9 vs 16:10 monitors with some friends. The concensus was:

16:9 is better for games because it usually offers a slightly wider field of view
16:10 is better for desktop/Windows
Click to expand...

ratio has nothing to do with field of view. 1920x1200 vs.1920x1080 have the exact same "width of view".
 
I agree it is a bit annoying. I love my Samsung 24" but my only options in terms of getting a bigger monitor involve actually going to a lower resolution (1920x1200 -> 1920x1080) or paying $$$ for a monitor that can do a higher resolution.

I'm really about to jump on that 28" Hans-G as it is 28" AND still 1920x1200 and not too expensive either.
 
conscript said:
ratio has nothing to do with field of view. 1920x1200 vs.1920x1080 have the exact same "width of view".
Click to expand...

You are half right.

In a Vert- game, the horizontal field of view is kept and the vertical field of view is adjusted to fit. This is what you describe. It doesn't have to be that way, and it shouldn't be that way, or an Eyefinity 3x1 setup would look very strange.

In a Hor+ game, the vertical field of view is kept and the horizontal field of view is adjusted to fit. In this case, the 1920x1080 monitor would have a wider field of view than the 1920x1200.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/FAQ#Screenchange
 
evilsofa said:
You are half right.

In a Vert- game, the horizontal field of view is kept and the vertical field of view is adjusted to fit. This is what you describe. It doesn't have to be that way, and it shouldn't be that way, or an Eyefinity 3x1 setup would look very strange.

In a Hor+ game, the vertical field of view is kept and the horizontal field of view is adjusted to fit. In this case, the 1920x1080 monitor would have a wider field of view than the 1920x1200.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/FAQ#Screenchange
Click to expand...

I think I'm actually double half right :cool:

your link goes back to when we were moving from 4:3 to 16:10 screens, and most games had to have the .ini tweaked to support the full widescreen resolution.

Nowadays, I'm not aware of any game that only provides 16:9 and not 16:10. There is no compromise on "width of view" between 16:9 & 16:10, just a compromise on the number of vertical pixels. Your example would only matter if there were a 16:9 game only that you were trying to fill on a 16:10 screen...but since I'm fairly certain that there aren't many (if any) games that that is the case, the issue is moot.
 
Last edited:
conscript said:
There is no compromise on "width of view" between 16:9 & 16:10, just a compromise on the number of vertical pixels.
Click to expand...

Pixels do not equal field of view. A 1680x1050 display has the same field of view as a 1920x1200 display, even though 1680 does not equal 1920. A 1920x1080 display does not have the same field of view as a 1920x1200 display. Don't get caught up in thinking that 1920 = 1920, because that's not the field of view.

You're making the same mistake that a lot of game companies are still making. Just recently, Bioshock 2 had trouble with Eyefinity 3x1 setups because it displayed the same field of view on three screens that it did on one screen.
 
Solstice said:
Anything less than 1200 lines of resolution is totally impractical for working on a PC, I'm not too worried about the 16:10 meeting its death... perhaps in consumer grade screens but not on the higher end.
Click to expand...


Agreed, though it would be nice to have more options.
 
evilsofa said:
Pixels do not equal field of view. A 1680x1050 display has the same field of view as a 1920x1200 display, even though 1680 does not equal 1920. A 1920x1080 display does not have the same field of view as a 1920x1200 display. Don't get caught up in thinking that 1920 = 1920, because that's not the field of view.

You're making the same mistake that a lot of game companies are still making. Just recently, Bioshock 2 had trouble with Eyefinity 3x1 setups because it displayed the same field of view on three screens that it did on one screen.
Click to expand...



I think you may be mistaking max display resolution versus actual game resolution. Sure, having a higher resolution monitor in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean you'll have a wider field of view, but if the game support both resolutions then yes you would? :confused: Don't reference poorly coded games as a means to support your argument. Most games scale the FOV with the resolution. Bioshock2 was an exception, not the norm...which is why there was an article at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top