Why widescreen?

S

saqdeez

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
208
I am in the market for a new LCD, but wondering what the big fuss is over widescreen. Im not going to be watching HD TV on my monitor..is there something I am missing? Some cool feature? Thx
 
Wider screen = wider resolution = more windows.

It's just nice to have the real estate on one monitor instead of doing a dual monitor setup.
 
Cause our eyes have a larger left to right field than up to down. So it gives more natural look on the eyes than 4:3 screen would at the same size.
 
lt_shiro said:
Cause our eyes have a larger left to right field than up to down. So it gives more natural look on the eyes than 4:3 screen would at the same size.
Click to expand...

just remember though, a 20" 4:3 or 5:4 monitor is going to be vertically taller than a 20" 16:10 or 16:9 monitor (do they make 16:9 monitors that small?) So to get the same vertical height as a standard 4:3 20", you'll have to get a 22" (or maybe 23") 16:10 monitor
 
I for one am glad I bought a widescreen LCD monitor for it's nice to do graphic design work and editing pictures can cause a lot of smaller windows to be open, thus I don't have to worry too much about a crowded work space.
 
Personally I prefer 4:3 for a computer screen. A 20" 4:3 LCD has a higher pixel count (and thus more overall screen space for windows, etc) than a 20.1" LCD.

However, no one makes a 4:3 LCD larger than 20", so when I eventually go to a 24" or 30" I will have to go widescreen. For a television, Widescreen is the only way to go due to HDTV, Widescreen TV broadcasts, and DVDs.
 
Someone starts a new thread on this every few days. Try a search:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1122359
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1118342
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1114357
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1064476

This tends to be dominated by squeeing teens and is more fashion than anything.

Buy what suits your need. I have purchased 5:4, 4:3 and 16:10 they can all make sense. I tend to aim for the most screen real estate I can get in pixels. Just bigger pixels tends to be a turn off for me. As I have excellent vision and it just looks more pixellated.

My view is that for an all purpose monitor:
1920x1200 > 1600x1200 > 1680x1050 > 1400x1050 > 1280x1024 > 1440x900

You can play with the TV calculator to see what works for you:
http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?61079c7e40546717c5aa8bf403f2f74e
 
I had the same question in my head a month ago ended up getting a widescreen and I won't go back. For the dude above, monitors are 16:10, 16:9 is just what most widescreen movies are in. But it is true it looks more natural because your feild of vision is wider than it is tall. I was worried that BF2142 and my older games would look all stretched, but BF2142 i didn't notice a difference, don't really know why it doesn't support WS. I have 19inch at 1440x900 the only thing, I wish I would have saved and got the 20.0 and gone up to a higher resolution. Oh well, next time. :)
 
It's not BF2142, its BF 2.142. Just a re-skin of an old game. EA, get with the times! Anyway, monitors like the 2007FPW have a 1:1 ration setting. It will play non-widescreen games in normal aspect ratio, with bars on the sides. Or you can use the fill setting, and have it stretch, its your call. Not sure if other monitors do this.

Just thought I'd chime in: got a widescreen and it has given gaming a whole new meaning.
 
The 30" monitors are 4:3. Much better than widescreens.

Edit: They aren't 4:3 after all, for some reason I thought they were. I guess they are so big that you don't feel that your vertical scrolling is cripped like on a smaller widescreen.
 
Scyles said:
The 30" monitors are 4:3. Much better than widescreens.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a 30" 4:3 LCD... Either way, your point is pretty baseless, thats like me saying blue is better than green. (which it is) :p
 
Seanmounce said:
I had the same question in my head a month ago ended up getting a widescreen and I won't go back. For the dude above, monitors are 16:10, 16:9 is just what most widescreen movies are in. But it is true it looks more natural because your feild of vision is wider than it is tall. I was worried that BF2142 and my older games would look all stretched, but BF2142 i didn't notice a difference, don't really know why it doesn't support WS. I have 19inch at 1440x900 the only thing, I wish I would have saved and got the 20.0 and gone up to a higher resolution. Oh well, next time. :)
Click to expand...

Wide field of vision works for games and movies but for regular computer work it is irrelevant because you eyes are fixed on points on the screen. Like typing this. I have both a NEC fe2111sb CRT (5:4) and a Samsung 215tw WS and I'm happy on either....each has it's advantages and disadvantages. I do think there is way more hype with WS than is deserved.
 
Its up to you. If you are using your computer primarily for entertainment than I’d say go widescreen but if you spend most of your time on the web, doing office work and a little bit of gaming I'd get a 20” 4:3 or a 19" 5:4.
 
Seanmounce said:
I've never seen a 30" 4:3 LCD... Either way, your point is pretty baseless, thats like me saying blue is better than green. (which it is) :p
Click to expand...

Well, for a period of time, Sony made a 40" 4:3 CRT HDTV that could be used as a monitor through a VGA->Component adapter (and strangely enough I sould a couple to some people who wanted to use it as that) and Gateway sold some Destination (I think that was their name of their old original HTPC set-ups) with 32" or 36" CRT monitors, but you are right, I have yet to see a 30" LCD, though if someone did make one, I would get interested.
 
artmonkey said:
I don't think there are any 16:9 monitors, does anyone know of any?
Click to expand...
the westinghouse 37 and 42 are 16:9..

1920x1080 resolutions
 
Considering all the vertical scrolling that everyone does on a daily basis in apps like Web and email, it's the vertical dimension that's more important, but the other dimension will have its day if the Vista sidebar takes off, which I figure it will once tens or hundreds of millions of people have access to Vista and people start building cool things for it.
 
The thing is, it is only, truely 'Widescreen' when you step down a monitor size. You do not gain much screen width (80 px?), but actually LOSE screen length (150 px). Take for example the Dell 2007FP at 1600x1200, and compare it to the 2007WFP at 1680x1050. You lose pixels. And compare the size of a 2007WFP to 1907FP, yup almost the same length but much wider, so why not call it a 19" WS? (Great marketing!) And the pricing also proves this point, you pay for less pixels and almost always the WS version is less than the 4:3 version of the same monitor. If all things are equal, I will take a regular aspect monitor over WS anyday. Tele's on the other hand, I'll go WS hands down.
 
WHy any screen at all

wide screen = better, unless its stretching the picture.

normal screen = not going anywhere, some people still prefer it

As you can see by my awesome math skills that we have 2 options available: the first you can buy for tvs and pcs.

The second option you can buy for tvs and pcs. So what the hell is the difference? i duno its up to you
 
buffbiff21 said:
WHy any screen at all

wide screen = better, unless its stretching the picture.

normal screen = not going anywhere, some people still prefer it

As you can see by my awesome math skills that we have 2 options available: the first you can buy for tvs and pcs.

The second option you can buy for tvs and pcs. So what the hell is the difference? i duno its up to you
Click to expand...
Heh, do not stress your brain too much, that's some intense thinking. :rolleyes:
 
god, widescreen is > *

I have my 4:3 crt for gaming and the transition is weird. Spoiled by the widescreen :)
 
In the gaming world, normal 4:3, widescreen 16:10. You get to see slightly more to the left and right. For things such as graphic design which I practice myself, you can see more to the left and right. It has to do iwth the screen ratio, not the acctual size. Technically speaking I can see just as much on a 15" LCD running 1024x768 as a 22" LCD. But with a WS (16:10) no matter what size, you see a little bit more to the left and right. Why do you think they run movie projectors at 16:9 ;). Just a little something to think about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top