Where's all the 1920x1200 monitors?

[Ducman69]

This has already been stated, but again:
1) I said the two monitors cannot be identical in size and display the same image size. A 1920x1080 image of the same diagonal dimension does NOT fit in a 1920x1200 monitor of equal size as was claimed. Not possible. I asked Albovin several times what the model number of the two displays are so that I could demonstrate what he is saying is wrong. I will trust your photoshop test that the right image is larger and the right monitor is smaller. I didn't know how to accurately measure that in photoshop to show Albovin he is wrong.

2) I explained repeatedly that is not an example of HOR+ scaling due to the obviously clear bars on the left screen. With HOR+ scaling, you would utilize the entire screen and you would lose FOV exactly as I had shown in the animated GIF and as on the Widescreen Forum FAQ:

Some were not understanding what the GIF is showing, claimed that the FAQ is wrong, and threw up a plethora of misinformation, based IMO on the fact that they didn't like the negative connotation of this original statement:
LOSE field of view, LOSE screen size, or CHOOSE a 16:9 display. Pick one.

This applies regardless of our disagreement on whether that is coined with the more common anamorphic scaling or graphics driver aspect ratio term. In any case, it is not HOR+ scaling.

Generally speaking, the larger the monitor or the more pixels it has, the more expensive it is. A 16:10 display showing 16:9 footage w/ anamorphic scaling is "wasting" pixels and reducing screen size, generally considered negative by most. Otherwise, why isn't everyone running square monitors with insanely high resolutions in the first place if not w/ the intent of wasting less screen realestate and money? In any case, I can understand how that is subjective, and would not press the point, and as mentioned I'm happy w/ my 16:10 Dell and find it superior to the 27" 16:9 option in all but price. And yes, if Dell made the 30" in 16:9 w/ more horizontal pixels or reduced cost, I would have purchased that for the before-mentioned reasons, and I am happy that 16:9 is increasingly becoming the unified standard for media and look forward to lower mainstream pricing in higher resolution screens when either UHD, QFHD, or WQHD becomes the next standard (all proposals are 16:9).

 

[Cyberbeing]

I said the two monitors cannot be identical in size and display the same image size.

I also said this.

A 1920x1080 image of the same diagonal dimension does NOT fit in a 1920x1200 monitor of equal size as was claimed. Not possible.

Not claimed by me. I only stated that a 1920x1080 frame (pixel grid) fits within a 1920x1200 frame (pixel grid).

I asked Albovin several times what the model number of the two displays are so that I could demonstrate what he is saying is wrong. I will trust your photoshop test that the right image is larger and the right monitor is smaller. I didn't know how to accurately measure that in photoshop to show Albovin he is wrong.

same max FOV in 16:9 (Hor+) games on both,
extra space left on a larger monitor,
the difference in image size is negligible.

Albovin is correct though. I looked through his posts and he appears to be saying the same things about that image as I am.

Identical FOV when using 16:9 resolutions on both monitors with a 16:9 HOR+ game.
The 24" 1920x1200 monitor has extra space left (letter-boxing).
The 3% difference in image size appears to be negligible, since I actually needed to measure the image to tell the difference.

I explained repeatedly that is not an example of HOR+ scaling due to the obviously clear bars on the left screen. With HOR+ scaling, you would utilize the entire screen and you would lose FOV exactly

That is only half-true. HOR+ scaling only utilizes the entire screen when using the native resolution of the monitor.

as I had shown in the animated GIF and as on the Widescreen Forum FAQ:

Some were not understanding what the GIF is showing, claimed that the FAQ is wrong, and threw up a plethora of misinformation, based IMO on the fact that they didn't like the negative connotation of this original statement:

The gif image is an example of how HOR+ games increase FOV with wider aspect ratios. You can't use it to draw conclusions on screen size or image size.

LOSE field of view, LOSE screen size, or CHOOSE a 16:9 display. Pick one.

KEEP field of view, LOSE screen size is also a valid option with HOR+ games and a 16:10 display. Just use a non-native resolution.

This applies regardless of our disagreement on whether that is coined with the more common anamorphic scaling or graphics driver aspect ratio term. In any case, it is not HOR+ scaling.

It has everything to do with our disagreement. That image could indeed represent HOR+ scaling using a non-native resolution on the 16:10 monitor. Why do you continue to dispute that?

"wasting" pixels and reducing screen size, generally considered negative by most.

This is counter-balanced by increased vertical resolution, which is considered positive by most for everything except movies and gaming.

Otherwise, why isn't everyone running square monitors with insanely high resolutions in the first place if not w/ the intent of wasting less screen realestate and money?

It's really as simple as no manufacturer offering them. High resolution monitors in more square-like aspect ratios are much more expensive and difficult to manufacture, as well as harder to drive with a GPU. It's all about LCD manufacturers cutting costs and increasing profits by offering 16:9 and 16:10 which they believe are 'good enough' for most buyers, but without making available other options, they are basically just forcing everybody to adopt whatever they choose to manufacture.

 

[Ducman69]

KEEP field of view, LOSE screen size is also a valid option with HOR+ games and a 16:10 display. Just use a non-native resolution.

How many times do we have to rehash this? LOSE screen size or LOSE field of view. Yes, if you want it spelled out if you LOSE screen size you don't lose field of view, no matter the resolution. If you LOSE field of view, you don't lose screen size, no matter the resolution. You have to LOSE one OR the other with a 16:10, or go with a 16:9 display. This has been rehashed to death, and clarified repeatedly. As asked before, stop implying disagreement when you agree 100% with what I have said since page 2.

It's really as simple as no manufacturer offering them. High resolution monitors in more square-like aspect ratios much more expensive and difficult to manufacture, as well as harder to drive with a GPU. It's all about LCD manufacturers cutting costs and increasing profits by offering 16:9 and 16:10 which they believe are 'good enough' for most buyers, but without making available other options, they are basically just forcing everybody to adopt whatever they choose to manufacture.

We live in a consumer driven market. If people want crack, the market will oblige even if made illegal and highly risky. 4:3 and 16:10 monitors are going out of fashion because there is very little media that is still 4:3 or 16:10, its that simple. 16:9 aspect ratio displays are the most efficient at displaying 16:9 media. In any case, the difference between 16:10 and 16:9 is small either way (you gain little vertical resolution all else equal and lose little screen size or field of view).

 

[Cyberbeing]

I edited that gif so all three aspect ratios are using the same diagonal size monitor. This now allows you to compare HOR+ FOV changes in relation to screen size and aspect ratio, instead of FOV only like the other gif.
Hopefully this is more clear to anybody who was confused or objected to the other gif.
This would be like comparing a 24" 1920x1080 monitor using 1920x1080, a 24" 1920x1200 monitor using 1920x1200, and a 24" 1920x1440 monitor using 1920x1440. (replace 24" with any diagonal size)

__________

Here is another one which compares all three aspect ratios which are using the same diagonal size monitor, but this time a 16:9 resolution is being output from SC2 on all monitors.
This would be like comparing a 24" 1920x1080 monitor using 1920x1080, a 24" 1920x1200 monitor using 1920x1080, and a 24" 1920x1440 monitor using 1920x1080. (replace 24" with any diagonal size)

 

[Ducman69]

As much as we have argued, that is an EXCELLENT demonstration, and if you don't mind I would like to use that in the future as it is more clear.

Major props for that, and with such a display of win I bow my hat to you good sir.

 

[Tophmeister]

Cyberbeing-winner of the thread. Basically a TL;DR version of everything else here. Thank you.

 

[Cyberbeing]

You're very welcome.

I made those two gifs very quickly, so while they should be accurate, someone really needs to center everything vertically on the 4:3 display, to make visualizing the changes in aspect ratio and image size easier. With everything clamped to the top of the frame, I'll admit it's a bit hard to see the exact changes. Still a huge improvement over the other gif though.

 

[Deadgye]

And thus ends over 7 pages of semantics arguments.

 

[albovin]

Same thing has been shown since Page 3 (same FOV, extra space ("black bars") and negligible differece in a wide screen game image size).

REAL monitors at work (NEC 2490WUXi, BenQ V2400 Eco - Hor+ game Red Faction Guerilla):

Other test photos:

Older games

Wide screen movies

Classic movies

Video editing

Internet

MS Word

Photos

 

[Ducman69]

Albovin, we have the excellent gif that leaves no doubt in anyone's mind what your options are. With HOR+ scaling you can see not only the amount of FOV lost, but how it relates to size all else equal, as well as anamorphic scaling (via in game or forced).

The monitors you had shown were not the same viewable size, you weren't demonstrating HOR+ scaling, and didn't understand the difference. Its been clarified perfectly. This can be put to bed.

 

[Walker]

Nice comparison pics albovin. They show pretty well why I believe the 16:10 ratio is much more natural for a computer display. And even when you want the zomg wide FOV in games you can get it at the cost of a negligible loss of screen size. Don't see how can anyone argue on the versatillity of 1920x1200 in comparison with 1920x1080 TBH.

 

[daveswantek]

Albovin, we have the excellent gif that leaves no doubt in anyone's mind what your options are. With HOR+ scaling you can see not only the amount of FOV lost, but how it relates to size all else equal, as well as anamorphic scaling (via in game or forced).

The monitors you had shown were not the same viewable size, you weren't demonstrating HOR+ scaling, and didn't understand the difference. Its been clarified perfectly. This can be put to bed.

When you go over to the wide screen gaming forum and tell them what you have learned here. Make sure you give proper credit to Cyberbeing.

The funny part is they will treat you like you treated us.

Dave

 

[InorganicMatter]

Video editing

Internet

MS Word

This thread has grown so long that I haven't read it all, but these pics right here convinced me to get a 16:10. Why you'd sacrifice the "free" extra vertical pixels is beyond me, especially since I'll be coding on it. Thanks [H], looking at the 24" HP.

 

[Ducman69]

There is nothing inaccurate in the widescreen forum FAQ. They don't need to be educated on anything.

Nice comparison pics albovin. They show pretty well why I believe the 16:10 ratio is much more natural for a computer display. And even when you want the zomg wide FOV in games you can get it at the cost of a negligible loss of screen size. Don't see how can anyone argue on the versatillity of 1920x1200 in comparison with 1920x1080 TBH.

By showing two unequal size monitors next to one another, not displaying HOR+ scaling, and in just about every other comparison using non-widescreen examples?

The internet page has forced constrained dimensions (unlike this forum which would show slight reduced need for scrolling), neither the video nor photo editing display 16:9 media, the text isn't scaled to fit the horizontal span, etc.

 

[Walker]

By showing two unequal size monitors next to one another, not displaying HOR+ scaling, and in just about every other comparison using non-widescreen examples?

The internet page has forced constrained dimensions (unlike this forum which would show slight reduced need for scrolling), neither the video nor photo editing display 16:9 media, the text isn't scaled to fit the horizontal span, etc.

The BenQ V2400 seems to be a full 24" monitor. The NEC is 24.1", just like the majority of the 24" 1920x1200 monitors I believe. Hardly "unequal size monitors" are they? The whole point of comparing non-widescreen examples was just that, to show the versatillity that you get with the increased vertical resolution and 16:10 aspect ratio. As hard as it to believe, there are people who do other things than playing games and watching TV shows on their computers.

 

[daveswantek]

Nice comparison pics albovin. They show pretty well why I believe the 16:10 ratio is much more natural for a computer display. And even when you want the zomg wide FOV in games you can get it at the cost of a negligible loss of screen size. Don't see how can anyone argue on the versatillity of 1920x1200 in comparison with 1920x1080 TBH.

This is where we actually do have a consensus.

 

[kasakka]

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. 16:10 display will be generally better for everything but games because they allow more vertical space for toolbars or vertically displayed content (text mostly). 16:9 video content on the same display will have black bars at the top and bottom.

Some games will have a wider FOV in 16:9 resolutions, a good example is Dead Space which pretty much has to be played in 16:9 resolutions to avoid the "running around with binoculars on" effect the reduced FOV in 16:10 resolutions causes in that particular game. All this means is that there are black bars. Maybe you'd get a slightly larger picture with a 16:9 display, but overall for this IMO it's pretty irrelevant.

It's a real shame manufacturers keep pushing for 1080p displays for computer use.

 

[dbphelps]

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. 16:10 display will be generally better for everything but games because they allow more vertical space for toolbars or vertically displayed content (text mostly). 16:9 video content on the same display will have black bars at the top and bottom.

Some games will have a wider FOV in 16:9 resolutions, a good example is Dead Space which pretty much has to be played in 16:9 resolutions to avoid the "running around with binoculars on" effect the reduced FOV in 16:10 resolutions causes in that particular game. All this means is that there are black bars. Maybe you'd get a slightly larger picture with a 16:9 display, but overall for this IMO it's pretty irrelevant.

It's a real shame manufacturers keep pushing for 1080p displays for computer use.

And I believe this sums up the sentiments of those of us that actually use computers and don't just play games... 1920x1200 16:10 is preferred over 1920x1080 16:9.

Again, that is what this thread started with.

 

[King of Heroes]

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/7008/sc2169.gif
Here is another one which compares all three aspect ratios which are using the same diagonal size monitor, but this time a 16:9 resolution is being output from SC2 on all monitors.
This would be like comparing a 24" 1920x1080 monitor using 1920x1080, a 24" 1920x1200 monitor using 1920x1080, and a 24" 1920x1440 monitor using 1920x1080. (replace 24" with any diagonal size)

Perfect image. You see the exact same thing on all three, the only difference being the thickness of the black bars. The notion of losing anything of value on 16:9 content by going 16:10 (or even 4:3) is basically shot to hell with this.

 

[Ducman69]

Perfect image. You see the exact same thing on all three, the only difference being the thickness of the black bars. The notion of losing FOV by going 16:10 is basically shot to hell with this.

No, its not just black bars, the image size changes. Is that not apparent now?

And the reason there is no FOV change is due to the forced anamorphic scaling. You lose FOV when you utilize a 16:10 aspect ratio as he showed you:
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1081/sc2transparent.gif

There is really still debate that you lose screen size or you lose field of view? The gifs demonstrate the scaling options perfectly.

 

[King of Heroes]

No, its not just black bars, the image size changes. Is that not apparent now?

The size of the actual content doesn't change. So you don't lose anything of value. You get the full 1920x1080 content on all three screens.

And the reason there is no FOV change is due to the forced anamorphic scaling. You lose FOV when you utilize a 16:10 aspect ratio as he showed you:
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1081/sc2transparent.gif

Who cares? If you want the full FOV, just use a 1920x1080 resolution in-game. All three screens can present this in full without losing anything. Hell, you don't even need to force anamorphic scaling. You can just expand the 16:9 content to fill the screen. It'll be stretched (only slightly on 16:10, moreso for 4:3), but its an option to people who don't like seeing black bars.

There is really still debate that you lose screen size or you lose field of view? The gifs demonstrate the scaling options perfectly.

There is no debate anymore. 16:10 and 4:3 screens can present 16:9 content in full without losing anything. Black bars are not a hindrance to anyone who isn't easily distracted, and you really don't even need them for 16:10 since the stretching would be minimal.

 

[SuperSubZero]

No, its not just black bars, the image size changes. Is that not apparent now?

Some of the images in this thread are old, and they make an assumption. They assume that we compare two screens of the same size. Two 24" panels. Well.. Fun fact: There are now more '23"' panels for sale on Newegg than 24". So by 2011 standards, we can't really compare two 24" panels anymore.

Can someone compare a 24" 16:10 panel running in 16:9 and a 23" 16:9 panel? I'd like to see how much the image size changes with those.

On a related note, I see Lenovo has pretty much scrapped all their 17" laptops. I wonder if that will start a trend.

 

[Ducman69]

The size of the actual content doesn't change. So you don't lose anything of value. You get the full 1920x1080 content on all three screens.

Uhm, yes, the size does change. The resolution doesn't change. Open a game, lower the resolution maintaining the same aspect ratio and play the game. You still see the same amount on screen, right?

There is no debate anymore. 16:10 and 4:3 screens can present 16:9 content in full without losing anything.

Except screen size or FOV... right! Seriously, there are no-brainer animated gifs now, no one should have to continue to explain this.

Can someone compare a 24" 16:10 panel running in 16:9 and a 23" 16:9 panel?

I have an even better idea. Since more pixels generally costs more, all else equal, how about you compare a 26.5" 1080p display like my mom has in her kitchen with an equal cost 24" 1200p.

 

[King of Heroes]

Uhm, yes, the size does change. The resolution doesn't change. Open a game, lower the resolution maintaining the same aspect ratio and play the game. You still see the same amount on screen, right?

The difference in size of the actual 1920x1080 box is practically insignificant between the 16:9 and 16:10 screens (which makes sense, since its a 23-inch 1920x1080 box displayed on a 24-inch 1920x1200 screen; a difference of an inch or less compared to the few 24-inch 1920x1080 screens and NO difference at all compared to the vast majority of 23-inch 1080p monitors out there right now). But, as I said in my previous post, you can simply remove anamorphic scaling if the black bars bother you that much (and they obviously do, since your entire problem seems to be you not liking black bars).

Except screen size or FOV... right! Seriously, there are no-brainer animated gifs now, no one should have to continue to explain this.

Remove the black bars and you don't lose screen size (if that 1-inch difference really bothers you that much) while keeping the FOV. Personally, I don't mind the black bars at all. But I know some people are easily distracted and may not like them.

 

[Walker]

Can someone compare a 24" 16:10 panel running in 16:9 and a 23" 16:9 panel? I'd like to see how much the image size changes with those.

Assuming the 24" 16:10 panel is 24.1" and the 23" is 23" as is usually the case, the former would have a 16:9 image that is just under half an inch bigger in size. A difference not even worth mentioning considering all you're getting is bigger pixels which is yet another reason I find the whole drama in this thread about losing screen size when displaying 16:9 content on a 16:10 screen really silly.

 

[SD45]

I have an even better idea. Since more pixels generally costs more, all else equal, how about you compare a 26.5" 1080p display like my mom has in her kitchen with an equal cost 24" 1200p.

Maybe that explains how this works for the manufacturers--upsell us all to a larger size monitor while forcing us to accept an inferior aspect ratio. Unfortunately, not all of us have room on the desk.

 

[Ducman69]

Inferior resolution you mean? Clearly aspect ratio is a matter of preference, and its beneficial to match the aspect ratio that your game and media is designed for. Consensus amongst the industry btw is that 16:9 is the "best" aspect ratio for media, as it is not only the current standard for just about every video format (HDTV/DVD/bluray/games,etc), but all three future HD proposals are also on the same aspect ratio. 16:9 displays are also available in higher than 1200p resolution.

Remove the black bars and you don't lose screen size (if that 1-inch difference really bothers you that much) while keeping the FOV.

W/ vert+ scaling you mean? Most games are HOR+ scaling, so if you lose the black bars to utilize the entire screen size, you lose FOV. Watch the GIFs again, you're confused.

 

[daveswantek]

Inferior resolution you mean? Clearly aspect ratio is a matter of preference, and its beneficial to match the aspect ratio that your game and media is designed for. Consensus amongst the industry btw is that 16:9 is the "best" aspect ratio for media, as it is not only the current standard for just about every video format (HDTV/DVD/bluray/games,etc), but all three future HD proposals are also on the same aspect ratio. 16:9 displays are also available in higher than 1200p resolution.

That must be why you dropped over $1200 on a 16:10 display.

 

[SD45]

Inferior resolution you mean?

No, I meant what I said. There is more to life than you seem to know.

 

[daveswantek]

Anybody in here ever seen or used a viewing distance calculator. What does that mean?

It means that you can scale the physical size of the display by moving you viewing position in or out. So small changes in physical size mean absolutely nothing.

What happens when you reduce the number of vertical pixels from 1200 to 1080 and you hold the vertical FOV constant. You are describing the same image with 120 less pixels, this is a clear reduction in screen resolution and spacial resolution in the game itself. The same is true in width, you are describing a wider FOV with the same number of pixels. That is why I said 16 = 16 and 9 < 10. The only change is -1 in the vertical direction.

W x H
16 x 10
16 x 9
Diff 0 x 1

W x H at 120
1920 x 1200
1920 x 1080
0 x 120

W x H at 160
2560 x 1600
2560 x 1440
0 x 160

Confusion arises when people start comparing aspect ration with different scale factors, like 1920:1200 and 2560:1440. The first has a scale factor of 120 and the second has a scale factor of 160. That is apples and oranges.

Physical size is the product of screen resolution with dot pitch. Dot pitch varies from one display to another, so once again physical size is trival.

The only advantage to 16 x 9 is price and price alone.

Dave

 

[Ducman69]

It means that you can scale the physical size of the display by moving you viewing position in or out. So small changes in physical size mean absolutely nothing.

I could have saved myself so much money on my 30" display by simply touching my nose to my netbook screen.

What happens when you reduce the number of vertical pixels from 1200 to 1080 and you hold the vertical FOV constant.

You either get black bars or a wider horizontal FOV w/ the typical hor+ scaling.

You are describing the same image with 120 less pixels, this is a clear reduction in screen resolution and spacial resolution in the game itself.

The FOV on my 2560x1600 display in games is the same as your 1920x1200 display. Resolution doesn't matter in that regard, only aspect ratio. This was explained earlier.

That is why I said 16 = 16 and 9 < 10. The only change is -1 in the vertical direction.

This was already addressed twice. 16:9 and 16:10 are ratios. you can't just subtract a number from one side Otherwise what is 4:3, 16:12 so its +2 height? And I have an extra 400 pixels in height on you, but its still 16:10, so theres 0 difference? Cmon.

You have an excellent illustration that demonstrates the loss in screen size or loss in field of view (has to be one or the other) that is clear as rain.

That must be why you dropped over $1200 on a 16:10 display.

I explained my purchase multiple times, do you really need clarification?

 

[Ducman69]

Physical size is the product of screen resolution with dot pitch. Dot pitch varies from one display to another, so once again physical size is trival.

I wonder how it is that manufacturers are able to convince people that larger monitors and TVs of the same resolution are worth more money...

The only advantage to 16 x 9 by is price and price alone.

And the fact that it is the most efficient use of screen realestate for 16:9 media or increased FOV is, what, a disadvantage?

Last I checked, a Dell U2711 is also considerably more expensive than your run of the mill 1920x1200 monitor.

 

[King of Heroes]

W/ vert+ scaling you mean? Most games are HOR+ scaling, so if you lose the black bars to utilize the entire screen size, you lose FOV. Watch the GIFs again, you're confused.

Umm, no. Set your in-game resolution to 1920x1080, but disable any anamorphic scaling in the Nvidia control panel or your monitor. The 1920x1080 image will be upscaled to fit the 1920x1200 screen instead of black bars being inserted (considering how close the resolutions are, any stretching of the image will be practically unnoticeable). The black bars are gone if you dislike them so much and you keep the FOV of 16:9.

 

[daveswantek]

This was already addressed twice. 16:9 and 16:10 are ratios. you can't just subtract a number from one side Otherwise what is 4:3, 16:12 so its +2 height? And I have an extra 400 pixels in height on you, but its still 16:10, so theres 0 difference? Cmon.

Go back to school 4:3 and 16:12 are the same ratio. I am compareing 16:10 to 16:9 and their respective multipels. I ask again is 16 different than 16? Is 9 the sam or less than 10? When you loose pixels you loose resolution especially in HOR+.

The FOV on my 2560x1600 display in games is the same as your 1920x1200 display. Resolution doesn't matter in that regard, only aspect ratio. This was explained earlier.

The FOV is the same, but the scale factor and resolution are both different. If you stay within the same scale factor then resolution is reduced 120/1200 or 10%

I am showing the exact same thing that Cyberbeing showed you, but with math instead of pics.

We are trying to help you learn. Why such a big additude?

Get over it already

Dave

 

[Ducman69]

Go back to school 4:3 and 16:12 are the same ratio. I am compareing 16:10 to 16:9 and their respective multipels. I ask again is 16 different than 16? Is 9 the sam or less than 10?

We are trying to help you learn. Why such a big additude?

*facepalm* Yes, 4:3 and 16:12 are the same, as I said, so that makes it +2 (compared to 16:10)... of course not. I have a ME degree, my math is quite adequate.

I don't have an "additude", I'm growing exhausted attempting to explain basic concepts to you.

 

[daveswantek]

I have a ME degree, my math is quite adequate.

Dang, that is sad, and I am out, cause you are hopeless.

 

[suiken_2mieu]

Dang, that is sad, and I am out, cause you are hopeless.

Wow, i guess sarcasm is too hard for you to grasp. I cant believe I left this thread days ago and this same stupid argument is still going.

 

[fudge2011]

MS Word

could you do a comparison of two pdfs in actuals size 8.17x11.4 inch please in adobe with the rouphly 1.5 inch toolbar in aswell.

luckily this entire thread would prove useful in my questions if someone would help me with proof shots.

I was going to get a 27'' either 1920x1080 for the main purpose of rendering two actual size pdfs. Im considering just a 24'' ...., 27'' would be mint for gaming..

ideally if anyone has a 27'' 1920x1080 and a 27'' 1920x1200 could they do the comparison,

thnx

ps i do believe the above shots are zoomed out. (not at 100%) as testing on my 19'' monitor I only got 61% to show the whole two documents(top to bottom & side to side) and that was to the very edges...im guessing above they'll be at about 65% its hard to say.

OH , THATS IINTERESTING , I DIDNT REALISE THAT WAS THE RIM OF THE MONITOR,,YEAH 16:10 GIVES MORE VERTICAL COVERAGE CAN'T DENY THAT


still a 27'' and,,, confused,,,,confirmation of how 100% text is rendered '',

 

[hardBBQ]

Round and round we go.

I think most people would prefer an even wider aspect than 16:9 (a single-display alternative to eyefinity) as long as there is adequate vertical resolution. 4800x1600 anyone?

2134x1200 (16:9) > 1920x1200 (16:10)

Since 1200 vertical pixels has long been a standard with 4:3 displays, having to sacrifice 120 pixels for a wide aspect (1920x1080) is a backwards step for computing applications where vertical resolution is especially useful.

Hence the 16:9 bashing since it has become synonymous with the loss of vertical resolution.

1920x1200 > 1920x1080 for all-around use, but 16:9 > 16:10 for optimizing use of human FOV, so that's the conundrum causing endless debate.

Both sides have a valid argument depending on the application.

 

[Ducman69]

1080p displays HD media natively and w/ the correct aspect ratio (be it 480p DVDs, 720p xbox games, 1080p BluRays/HDTV), which is why its the standard right now on affordable displays. For most, this is sufficient dot pitch, and actual screen realestate can be made available by simply getting a larger screen with the savings of reduced number of pixels.

The actual desktop size for example is very easily scaled in Windows 7:

I find that even with "just" 1080p, that on 100% icons and text are too small on anything less than a 24" screen, and prefer 125%.

In my living room for example, my display is only 1080p, but its a nice LED backlit 55" screen, and is quite attractive for use w/ my HTPC and wireless air remote/mouse, but runs 150% for ease of use at 10ft.

For desktop use for higher end and/or larger displays where finer dot pitch is required, there are 16:9 displays w/ much higher than 1200p resolution, such as Dell's popular U2711 display which runs WQHD (2560 x 1440 pixels).

I had considered it, but wanted even larger (30-32") and so went w/ their 16:10 display as an only option, but all the next HD standards are 16:9 resolution, so when they hit the mainstream, we will see plenty of higher resolution larger screens in the 16:9 format.