# NEW 2048x1536 LCD monitor wanted



## qubit (Dec 6, 2009)

My friend recently lent me his Dell 1600x1200 LCD monitor a little while ago. This has the old 4:3 aspect ratio, which I've always preferred over widescreen and has a great picture. Viewing web pages in particular is nice, as the extra depth really helps. Games look good too, but suffer a lot of smearing, due to the 16ms response time.

I'd like a higher resolution screen and that is my own, though. Therefore, I wonder if it's possible nowadays to buy a *new* 2048x1536 resolution LCD monitor, regardless of price. I've had a look around the web, but large 4:3 monitors appear to be completely discontinued, unfortunately.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 6, 2009)

you can get 30" LCD's with 2560x1600 resolution - its higher than you wanted in 4:3 in every way


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2009)

Yes, I know (and I would normally recommend these to people that want large hires monitors) but I really prefer 4:3 and having this Dell reminds me of just how much. I was hoping that it might just be possible to get them, but it seems doubtful, though.

I tell you what: I've seen 2048x1536 on several CRTs. The desktop area is fantastic and the characters are tiny, but it's quite blurred and has to run at a flickery 60Hz. Between these two effects, I find it impossible to look at it for more than a few seconds. Gaming is more acceptable though and the smoothness in resolution and animation is fantastic when there's no dropped frames from the PC. However, it still leads to eyestrain with that 60Hz flicker.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Dec 6, 2009)

The highest res 4:3 LCDs I have seen are 1600x1200, and the lowest response time is 8ms, and it is very expensive.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176053

What bothers you so much about the now ubiquitous widescreens?


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2009)

Jstn7477 said:


> The highest res 4:3 LCDs I have seen are 1600x1200, and the lowest response time is 8ms, and it is very expensive.
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176053
> 
> What bothers you so much about the now ubiquitous widescreens?



Thanks for the link.  I'm not surprised at the price, really.

I just prefer the shape of 4:3, as it's more comfortable to view, for me. By "widening" the picture, all that's really happening, is that the vertical resolution is lowered, which means more vertical scrolling. Think about how screen size is measured - diagonally. Therefore, for any given diagonal size, the widescreen ratio will actually give you less area.

Technically, the "ideal" ratio would be 1:1, but then that wouldn't be very comfortable to view either, because humans have two eyes, spaced horizontally. Therefore the picture does need to be wider than taller, but the question is by how much? To me, the old 4:3 ratio struck the right balance.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2009)

qubit said:


> Thanks for the link.  I'm not surprised at the price, really.
> 
> I just prefer the shape of 4:3, as it's more comfortable to view, for me. By "widening" the picture, all that's really happening, is that the vertical resolution is lowered, which means more vertical scrolling. Think about how screen size is measured - diagonally. Therefore, for any given diagonal size, the widescreen ratio will actually give you less area.
> 
> Technically, the "ideal" ratio would be 1:1, but then that wouldn't be very comfortable to view either, because humans have two eyes, spaced horizontally. Therefore the picture does need to be wider than taller, but the question is by how much? To me, the old 4:3 ratio struck the right balance.



Widescreen doesn't diminish vertical viewing if you choose the appropriate size. 24" WS monitors weigh in at 1920x1200 in most cases. That's superior to 16x12 as it offers no losses in any direction, but gains in the horizontal. Just depends on how you want to look at things, I suppose.

Tho, 1920x1440 would be swell. lol.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 6, 2009)

Buy the 30" 2560x1600, disable scaling, set the resolution to 2048x1536.  The black bars will just be a reminder of the extra space you are losing by demanding a 4:3 monitor...

And going with a Widscreen does not lower vertical resolution, in fact the 30" 2560x1600 widescreens have a higher vertical resolution than a 4:3 2048x1536.


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Buy the 30" 2560x1600, disable scaling, set the resolution to 2048x1536.  The black bars will just be a reminder of the extra space you are losing by demanding a 4:3 monitor...



As I explained, it's not a matter of the individual size, but the ratio that matters. So yes, with your particular example, the 2560x1600 screen would be bigger in both dimensions.

However, consider the 4:3 version: keeping the horizontal resolution the same would give you a vertical of 1920 in 4:3! That would give you an awesomely huge screen! 

This issue is also about the shape of screen that you prefer looking at, too. I was only offered this Dell monitor, because I got burgled recently  and the _<insert expletive>_ made off with my Samsung 2233RZ 1680x1050 monitor, among other things, besides smashing my window. The Samsung was nice looking too, but having seen both now, I can tell you that I prefer the squarer picture. My friend likes the wider picture; there's no right or wrong here. Also, it just so happens that 1600x1200 gives you about 8.8% more resolution, too.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2009)

qubit said:


> As I explained, it's not a matter of the individual size, but the ratio that matters. So yes, with your particular example, the 2560x1600 screen would be bigger in both dimensions.
> 
> However, consider the 4:3 version: keeping the horizontal resolution the same would give you a vertical of 1920 in 4:3! That would give you an awesomely huge screen!
> 
> This issue is also about the shape of screen that you prefer looking at, too. I was only offered this Dell monitor, because I got burgled recently  and the _<insert expletive>_ made off with my Samsung 2233RZ 1680x1050 monitor, among other things, besides smashing my window. The Samsung was nice looking too, but having seen both now, I can tell you that I prefer the squarer picture. My friend likes the wider picture; there's no right or wrong here. Also, it just so happens that 1600x1200 gives you about 8.8% more resolution, too.


Or 16.7% *less* resolution than a typical 24". Again, it all depends on the perspective you use to make your calculations.


----------



## Disparia (Dec 6, 2009)

True. I love my 16:10 24" monitor for 'everything', but a couple jobs ago I had a triple 4:3 19" setup that was great for development.


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Or 16.7% *less* resolution than a typical 24". Again, it all depends on the perspective you use to make your calculations.



It depends on what your baseline is. If we use the standard diagonal measurement for sizing monitors, then you lose more & more as you make it wider and wider.

However, if you say "we'll keep the surface area the same" then you don't lose anything - it's a zero sum game. Ultimately though, it's the diagonal measurement that determines optimum area, as it's the ratio of the two sides.

A good way to demonstrate what I'm saying, is to view a PDF document. Max it out to fill the screen and set the text rendering to screen width. Then, regardless of screen size or resolution, the 4:3 monitor will show you more of the document, every time. Similarly, a hypothetical 1:1 monitor would show more than the 4:3 or the 16:9 and is actually the ratio that would show you the most - think about it, the X & Y dimensions are balanced.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2009)

qubit said:


> It depends on what your baseline is. If we use the standard diagonal measurement for sizing monitors, then you lose more & more as you make it wider and wider.
> 
> However, if you say "we'll keep the surface area the same" then you don't lose anything - it's a zero sum game. Ultimately though, it's the diagonal measurement that determines optimum area, as it's the ratio of the two sides.
> 
> A good way to demonstrate what I'm saying, is to view a PDF document. Max it out to fill the screen and set the text rendering to screen width. Then, regardless of screen size or resolution, the 4:3 monitor will show you more of the document, every time. Similarly, a hypothetical 1:1 monitor would show more than the 4:3 or the 16:9 and is actually the ratio that would show you the most - think about it, the X & Y dimensions are balanced.



No, the amount shown has nothing to do with the physical diagonal measurement at all.

The absolute only thing that matters is resolution. 1920x1200 will show 16.7% more of the pdf than 1600x1200 100% of the time. Screen size does not matter at all.


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, the amount shown has nothing to do with the physical diagonal measurement at all.
> 
> The absolute only thing that matters is resolution. 1920x1200 will show 16.7% more of the pdf than 1600x1200 100% of the time. Screen size does not matter at all.



That's ok, you don't have to believe me. You're making the classic mistake of thinking "wider" = "more", when it actually means less.

Simply try the experiment for yourself as I described it and the proof will be irrefutable - the squarer screen will show more of the document, regardless of screen size or resolution.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2009)

qubit said:


> That's ok, you don't have to believe me.
> 
> Simply try the experiment for yourself as I described it and the proof will be irrefutable - the squarer screen will show more of the document, regardless of screen size or resolution.



No, you are 100% incorrect. Sorry. That's not the way it works. The size of the screen does not matter. Images on a computer are not rendered in inches, they are rendered in pixels. 1920x1200 will display the same amount of the pdf on a 17" screen, as it would a 24" screen. It would be smaller on the 17" screen, but the same thing will be rendered on both.

This is 100% fact. 100% indisputable. The only contributing factor to how much of a specific image/document/pdf/web page/game/etc./etc. is displayed is the output resolution. Screen size has absolutely 0 to do with it. 1920x1200 will render more than 1600x1200 in 100% of all cases. Screen size does not matter.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 6, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, you are 100% incorrect. Sorry. That's not the way it works. The size of the screen does not matter. Images on a computer are not rendered in inches, they are rendered in pixels. 1920x1200 will display the same amount of the pdf on a 17" screen, as it would a 24" screen. It would be smaller on the 17" screen, but the same thing will be rendered on both.
> 
> This is 100% fact. 100% indisputable. The only contributing factor to how much of a specific image/document/pdf/web page/game/etc./etc. is displayed is the output resolution. Screen size has absolutely 0 to do with it. 1920x1200 will render more than 1600x1200 in 100% of all cases. Screen size does not matter.



This, and I'll give an example:

Using the original two resolutions discussed in this thread.  The Black and White part shows what you would see on a 4:3 screen, and the color part shows what you would see on a 16:10 screen.






It doesn't matter if the screens are 17" or 30", the amount shown on the screen is greater in both directions with the 16:10 resolution.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Dec 6, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, you are 100% incorrect. Sorry. That's not the way it works. The size of the screen does not matter. Images on a computer are not rendered in inches, they are rendered in pixels. 1920x1200 will display the same amount of the pdf on a 17" screen, as it would a 24" screen. It would be smaller on the 17" screen, but the same thing will be rendered on both.
> 
> This is 100% fact. 100% indisputable. The only contributing factor to how much of a specific image/document/pdf/web page/game/etc./etc. is displayed is the output resolution. Screen size has absolutely 0 to do with it. 1920x1200 will render more than 1600x1200 in 100% of all cases. Screen size does not matter.



+1.

1920*1200 = 2,304,000 pixels 16:10
1920*1080 = 2,073,600 pixels 16:9
1600*1200 = 1,920,000 pixels 4:3 (or 13.3:10 or 12:9)

Thus, the 4:3 display will only display 83% of the pixels versus a 16:10 display of *the same vertical resolution.*

Like Wile E said, everything is rendered in pixels. If you have a 19" 1920*1200 monitor vs. a 24" 1920*1200 monitor, the 24" displays the same amount of data. The 24" display has much larger pixels than a 19" display of the same resolution.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 6, 2009)

qubit said:


> A good way to demonstrate what I'm saying, is to view a PDF document. Max it out to fill the screen and set the text rendering to screen width. Then, regardless of screen size or resolution, the 4:3 monitor will show you more of the document, every time. Similarly, a hypothetical 1:1 monitor would show more than the 4:3 or the 16:9 and is actually the ratio that would show you the most - think about it, the X & Y dimensions are balanced.



Yes, if you set the document to the full width, with the window maximized, more of the document is shown on a 4:3 screen.  The reason for this is obviously because the document has to be zoomed in less on a 4:3 screen than a 16:10 to fill the space horizontally.

I'll try and show what you are talking about and what we are talking about with some examples:

Here is a PDF displayed on a 1680x1050 screen:





Here is the same PDF displayed on a 1280x1024 screen:





The interesting thing to note, is obviously what you have been saying, more of the document is displayed vertically on the 4:3 resolution, despite it having a lower vertical resolution.

But lets look at one last thing.

Here is the same PDF displayed on a 1680x1050 screen, but with the PDF reader window resized to be 1280 pixels wide:





Notice how even more of the document is visable now than with a 4:3 resolution?  The document is still 1280 Pixels wide, but more of the document is visable vertically because the 16:10 resolution allows for a higher vertical resolution.

But notice the zoon percentages at the bottom of each window.  The 16:10 document is zoomed in to almost 200%.  The 4:3 windows is only 150%.  That is why more of the document is visable on the 4:3 resolution.  To fill the space horizontally, the document must be zoomed in further on a 16:10 screen.  Of course the simple way to avoid this is to not maximize the window, and instead manually size it to a narrower size.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 6, 2009)

newtekie1's last example is where i was going to go.

While some PDF viewers may show less when fullscreened due to the fact they zoom in more, a 1600x1200 and a 1920x1200 screen will show you 100% the same amount of PDF - just that you'll have extra space on the side for another window or two, on the widescreen.

You CANNOT get less if the resolution is GREATER.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 6, 2009)

I can see where the other guy is coming from, thing is your comparing apples to oranges, they need to have the similar resolutions to be comparable. 


If you had a 4.3 screen that's width was 1920 pixels then it would show more then a 16:9 also with a 1920 width.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Dec 6, 2009)

Qubit. I know where you are coming from and I agree 100%.

*We need more TFT options with more "y".*

This is how *I* have solved the issue:


Buy 3x 1600x1200 monitors that have "90 rotate" feature. Alternatively, just make sure you can VESA mount them and buy your own stand
Rotate. And put next to each other
Now you have 3x  1200x1600 = 3600x1600.  The 1600 in the "y" is perfect for reading webpages and PDFs and writing Word documents
You obviously need to GPUs to drive 3 screens or a modern ATI card with eyefinity
Use www.ultramon.com to manage the three monitors

Unfortunately, one of my Samsung 204Ts blew, and so I now only use 2 monitors in this setup.

IMO, for "office work" 2 or 3 monitors in the above configuration is much much better than a massive 2560x1600 due to ability to run 2 or 3 independent applications all locking within their respective monitors.  The only downside is gaming... and cleartype.  Unbelieveably, Windows CE *can* do cleartype on 90° rotate, but regular PC Windows cant!!!!

TIP: Go to display, options, advanced and set screen to 120dpi, rather than the default 96dpi. It will make everything a lot more legible.


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2009)

Thanks for the screenshots newtekie1. But unfortunately, as pantherx12 said, you aren't comparing like with like, as the widescreen shot just had more pixels in it, which simply shows a _finer_ picture and hence the 1280 unmaxed shot fits inside it - the widescreen still has less area. These monitors would be more accurately described as "shallow depth", but then nobody would buy them...

What I'm talking about is the _ratio_ of width & height, which is completely independent of resolution and physical screen size. This is why it's called the Aspect Ratio and the squarer monitor wins in showing more.

It all comes down to Pythagoras Theorem, which is explained in this Wikipedia article.

Also, to prove this to yourself, take a pencil, paper and ruler and draw two triangles. One with the hypotenuse (the diagonal) at about 45 degrees from the horizontal and length, say, 5cm (it could actually be anything convenient). Then draw another triangle with a 5cm diagonal at say, 20 degrees to the diagonal.

Measure the horizontal & vertical lengths of both triangles and multiply them to get the area of a box ie the monitor (divide by 2 for a triangle). You'll find that the 45 degree triangle has more area. There's your proof. I would draw this to make the illustration easier to understand, but I don't know how to do this on the computer, unfortunately.

Another way to think about it, is to consider what happens when you reduce that angle, to say 5 degrees - you now have a "super widescreen" shape and hardly any area. To show any level of detail in it, you'd have to jack up the resolution a great deal and sit about 2 inches away from it to see it.

Of course, the marketing guys all want us to think that widescreen gives us "more", because it helps their sales, doesn't it?


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2009)

lemonadesoda, that's a really creative solution. Nice. 

Thanks for the dpi tip.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 6, 2009)

qubit said:


> Thanks for the screenshots newtekie1. But unfortunately, as pantherx12 said, you aren't comparing like with like, as the widescreen shot just had more pixels in it, which simply shows a _finer_ picture and hence the 1280 unmaxed shot fits inside it - the widescreen still has less area. These monitors would be more accurately described as "shallow depth", but then nobody would buy them...
> 
> What I'm talking about is the _ratio_ of width & height, which is completely independent of resolution and physical screen size. This is why it's called the Aspect Ratio and the squarer monitor wins in showing more.
> 
> ...




seriously... if you cannot comprehend that 1920x1200 = more than 1600x1200, you really have some issues.

There is simply no way, none that you can explain otherwise. you're making some really weird examples, but they dont prove anything.

how is aspect ratio even related to this?

If you put a PDF or webpage on a screen with the two resolutions i listed above, you get *the exact same image* just on the widescreen you have _*more space on the sides*_

anything you say other than that, is pure delusion


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2009)

Mussels said:


> seriously... if you cannot comprehend that 1920x1200 = more than 1600x1200, you really have some issues.
> 
> There is simply no way, none that you can explain otherwise. you're making some really weird examples, but they dont prove anything.
> 
> ...



You obviously don't understand my explanation. Perhaps it's a little too deep for you? Delusional my ass.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Dec 6, 2009)

qubit said:


> My friend recently lent me his Dell 1600x1200 LCD monitor a little while ago. This has the old 4:3 aspect ratio, which I've always preferred over widescreen and has a great picture. Viewing web pages in particular is nice, as the extra depth really helps. Games look good too, but suffer a lot of smearing, due to the 16ms response time.
> 
> I'd like a higher resolution screen and that is my own, though. Therefore, I wonder if it's possible nowadays to buy a *new* 2048x1536 resolution LCD monitor, regardless of price. I've had a look around the web, but large 4:3 monitors appear to be completely discontinued, unfortunately.



I have one sitting right next to me in CRT 2048x1536. I used it for CAD 12 years ago.


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> I have one sitting right next to me in CRT 2048x1536. I used it for CAD 12 years ago.



It must be gorgeous! I'm so jealous.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 6, 2009)

Mussels said:


> seriously... if you cannot comprehend that 1920x1200 = more than 1600x1200, you really have some issues.
> 
> There is simply no way, none that you can explain otherwise. you're making some really weird examples, but they dont prove anything.
> 
> ...



Mussels you've completely missed the point man 

He's arguing the 4.3 aspect ratio reveals more.



For example 4.3 1920 would be 1920x1440

That's more pixels then 1920 x1080 or even 1200 ( 16.9 and 16.10 )


Thus 4.3 "better"

simples!?


----------



## Sir_Real (Dec 6, 2009)

qubit said:


> I tell you what: I've seen 2048x1536 on several CRTs. The desktop area is fantastic and the characters are tiny, but it's quite blurred and has to run at a flickery 60Hz. Between these two effects, I find it impossible to look at it for more than a few seconds. Gaming is more acceptable though and the smoothness in resolution and animation is fantastic when there's no dropped frames from the PC. However, it still leads to eyestrain with that 60Hz flicker.



Blurred !! 60Hz flicker !! Not on my CRT it isnt  I'm still using a sony 21" crt mainly because this baby can run 2048x1536 @ 70hz. 

But not many crt's can manage it. Most crt's have been dumped or recycled by now. & as for finding a 2048x1536 LCD ! Pretty sure there was never any made. 



> *newtekie1*: This, and I'll give an example:
> 
> Using the original two resolutions discussed in this thread. The Black and White part shows what you would see on a 4:3 screen, and the color part shows what you would see on a 16:10 screen.
> 
> ...



Dont work like that ! Hardly anyones monitor is going to have a high enough pixel count to show that pic in its true size. Hence windows resizes pictures to fit your resolution. 

That fact that 2560x1600 dog photo wouldnt fully fit in a res of 2048x1536 is nothing to do with the aspect ratio its simply the pic is to big ! 






Look heres a 1920x1200 (16:10) photo shown in its full size. Fits nice on my monitor at 2048x1536 (4:3)


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 6, 2009)

qubit said:


> Thanks for the screenshots newtekie1. But unfortunately, as pantherx12 said, you aren't comparing like with like, as the widescreen shot just had more pixels in it, which simply shows a _finer_ picture and hence the 1280 unmaxed shot fits inside it - the widescreen still has less area. These monitors would be more accurately described as "shallow depth", but then nobody would buy them...



If you go by pure resolution, the sole determining factor of how much can fit on the screen, if you look at 1280x1024 and the closest widescreen resolution 1680x1050, the widescreen definitely has more area.  1280x1024=1,310,720 Pixels 1680x1050=1,764,000 Pixels  

If you look at just the vertical area, the 4:3 resolution only has 1024 vertical pixels, and the 16:10 has 1050.  The widescreen still has more.

Now I will say, if you go with a 1280x800 moniotor, keeping the horizontal number the same, then yes you loose screen area, but no one does that.  That is why it is called widescreen, because the screen is made wider, not shorter.  If we did that, they would be called shortscreens...



qubit said:


> What I'm talking about is the _ratio_ of width & height, which is completely independent of resolution and physical screen size. This is why it's called the Aspect Ratio and the squarer monitor wins in showing more.



It doesn't win at showing more, as I've and others have said, how much can be shown depends entirely on the resolution.  Higher resoltuion means more shown on the screen.  Aspect ratio does not matter.  This is true even when the aspect ration remains entirely the same.  Look at 720x480(SD) and 1920x1080(HD), more is definitely shown with the higher resolution.

In reality, for document viewing, a taller screen wins at displaying more of the document.  If that is what you are after, then buying a widescreen that can rotate is actually better than a 4:3.  The same 16:10 aspect ration, ratated 90° will show far more of the document then 4:3 ever could.



qubit said:


> It all comes down to Pythagoras Theorem, which is explained in this Wikipedia article.
> 
> Also, to prove this to yourself, take a pencil, paper and ruler and draw two triangles. One with the hypotenuse (the diagonal) at about 45 degrees from the horizontal and length, say, 5cm (it could actually be anything convenient). Then draw another triangle with a 5cm diagonal at say, 20 degrees to the diagonal.
> 
> ...



Now you are thinking entirely of dimensions again.  The dimension of the monitor has nothing to do with how much is displayed on the screen.  We've gone over this.



Sir_Real said:


> Dont work like that ! Hardly anyones monitor is going to have a high enough pixel count to show that pic in its true size. Hence windows resizes pictures to fit your resolution.
> 
> That fact that 2560x1600 dog photo wouldnt fully fit in a res of 2048x1536 is nothing to do with the aspect ratio its simply the pic is to big !
> 
> ...



You failed real hard at understanding the point of that example...

The picture is irrelevent(I just used it because my dog is bad ass and it was quickly available to me).  The important part that you are missing is the red square showing the difference in amount of viewable area between the two resolutions we discussed.  Obviously, when actually viewing a picture, it will be resized to fit any screen.  In actuality, the picture was bigger than even that when I started, the original dimensions were 3072x1920...

I could have done the example with simple colors, but what fun would that be?

But if you must have it:





That is the same thing without the picture of SuperDog(no that's not his real name).  Notice how the 2048x1536 resolution fits entirely inside the 2560x1600 resolution?  That is because the 2560x1600 resolution has more pixels, so it can display more.

As I've said, the 4:3 aspect ratio might give the illusion of displaying more in a few instances, like displaying documents full screen displaying more of the document.  However, I've already gone over why this is.


----------



## Frick (Dec 6, 2009)

@ this entire discussion: Is it hard to calculate Width*Height?

+1 on panthers post though.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Dec 6, 2009)

A 27" widescreen monitor* is smaller *than a 27" square monitor, measured by total area. It is a smaller screen. The manufacturing costs, as determined by area, cm^2, not by pixel count, is lower.

The question which has more pixels is a different question. That is *only* answered by the simple calculation: Total pixels =  "x pixels" x "y pixels".

The automatic scaling done in Windows or Word or Acrobat when reading a document is based on screen width. The higher the "x" the larger the zoom that can "fit".  When zoomed, the page stretches from left to right, but typically less is shown in the vertical and you need to scroll more and fewer lines of text are shown.  A squarer screen therefore "fits" a typical PORTRAIT document better. However, the reverse is true for a LANDSCAPE document. If you do a lot of powerpoint work, or photoshop, then you want your screen LANDSCAPE.

If you do a lot of PORTRAIT work, like reading documents in Word, PDF, etc. then I thoroughly advise anyone to rotate their screen 90°, assuming your TFT can do this. This is what I have on my PRODUCTIVITY WORKSTATION. Three screens side by side in PORTRAIT orientation.

I've forgotten why I'm even explaining all this. It's blxxdy obvious. :shadedshu


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2009)

pantherx12 said:


> Mussels you've completely missed the point man
> 
> He's arguing the 4.3 aspect ratio reveals more.
> 
> ...


And like I said, it all depends on your perspective. 4:3 is better if both screens have the same horizontal resolution. AKA: 1920x1200 vs 1920x1440. But, 16:10 is better if you have the same vertical resolution. AKA: 1920x1200 vs 1600x1200.

Again: perspective, perspective, perspective.

But, considering anything higher than 1600x1200 in a 4:3 lcd is next to impossible to find, 16:10 options end up being better in real world scenarios.

Now, don't take any of this to mean I think 16:10 is superior in every way. That's not the case. If There was a 1920x1440 monitor in the same approximate size as my 24", I would've grabbed it. Problem is, that monitor doesn't exist, so it's a moot point.

As far as the zoom argument, that's just a simple matter of turning down the zoom.


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2009)

Thanks newtekie1. Unfortunately, you are still confusing the resolution the monitor is built with, with the aspect ratio. I don't really know what else I can do to clarify it.

Perhaps you could try this variation on my PDF experiment:

Set your monitor to 1:1 pixel mapping (I have a feeling it is already  )
Set a screen res of 1024x768 (4:3 ratio) on that big monitor of yours
Max out the PDF and not how much of it you can see (set viewer to screen width)
Do a print screen (screenshot)
Now set your monitor to native res (2560x1600 widescreen, I believe)
Max out that PDF

Compare the 4:3 screenshot with what you see now.

The result? You see more of the document in the low res 4:3 screenshot. This is because aspect ratio is independent of physical resolution and screen size.

And here, I've just found this wikipedia article while writing this, explaining why widescreen gives you less, not more. While it's not as thorough as my first principles explanation, it does explain it briefly. Please scroll down to the section called *Conversion*. Here's the relevant part of it:

For word processing and office type applications, vertical measurement can be more important than diagonal measurement when determining size requirements. When monitors are sold the quoted size is the diagonal measurement of the display area. *Because of the different ratio, a 16:10 monitor will have a smaller vertical size than a 4:3 monitor of the same advertised size.* [Qubit's emphasis]

If you still don't agree, then perhaps it's best we leave this one here. This is only an informal discussion, after all and somewhat off-topic for this thread.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2009)

What difference does the inches measurement of the screen make? Informed buyers don't go by screen size alone, they also factor in resolution. You can't take one without the other. a 22" 1600x1200 screen will display exactly the same thing as a 20" 1600x1200 screen.

Again, the size doesn't matter, only resolution.


----------



## erocker (Dec 6, 2009)

WileE is correct. 

Do you really want to spend thousands of dollars on a 2048x1536 monitor?

Yeah this is widescreen, you you get a great pixel/money ratio here:

23" http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001317

27" http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009165

If you truly want a 4:3 ratio monitor, don't bother with LCD. Get a used CRT and be done with it. Or, just go drop a couple grand + on what you really want. That being said, what is the purpose? Why don't you just get what you want to get suited to your opinion?




qubit said:


> For word processing and office type applications, vertical measurement can be more important than diagonal measurement when determining size requirements. When monitors are sold the quoted size is the diagonal measurement of the display area. *Because of the different ratio, a 16:10 monitor will have a smaller vertical size than a 4:3 monitor of the same advertised size.* [Qubit's emphasis]
> 
> If you still don't agree, then perhaps it's best we leave this one here. This is only an informal discussion, after all and somewhat off-topic for this thread.




Disagree. 4:3 = 1600x*1200* / 16:10 = 1920x*1200*.  Same "vertical size."


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 6, 2009)

qubit said:


> Thanks newtekie1. Unfortunately, you are still confusing the resolution the monitor is built with, with the aspect ratio. I don't really know what else I can do to clarify it.
> 
> Perhaps you could try this variation on my PDF experiment:
> 
> ...



I already did that, and like I said, the phenomenon you are decribing is related to the aspect ration.  But more importantly it has to do how much the page has to be zoomed to fill the screen.

A piece of paper it taller than wider.  Ideally, if you are viewing documents constantly, you want a monitor that is also taller than wider.  The issue comes down to the aspect ratio of the screen vs. the aspect ratio of the document/image you are viewing.

Now, the 16:10 aspect ratio gives more screen real estate.  So more _can_ be shown on the screen, as my previous screenshots show.  However, if you expand the document to fill the entire screen width, then it needs to be zoomed in further to do that, and hence more of it gets pushed off the bottom of the screen.  But as I showed, if you don't maximize the Window, and instead leave the window at the same width that you would have on a 4:3 screen, more is displayed on a 16:10 screen then would be displayed on the 4:3.

Now here is another interesting trick, and Lemon touched on this.  If you are really into document viewing, take a 16:10 monitor and rotate it 90°.  There are a lot of monitors out on the market designed specifically for this.  The stands allow rotating on the fly, and many even come with software that automatically orient the screen properly when you physically rotate the monitor.

The result is this:





Notice how, not only is there more visable, but a lot more of the document is visable. You can see the entire first page, and some of the second.

You are wrong, in saying a square monitor would be best.  For the one instance where a widescreen lacks, a square monitor would not be ideal, but instead a tall narrow monitor would be best.

I've done your PDF experiment, and shown what it does.  You are correct in saying that when the window is maximized and the document is set to display at the full with, less of the document is visable.  However, you are wrong in saying a 16:10 resolution displays less area.  That simply isn't true.  More resolution means more display area, there is no way around that.  And as I've already shown on the first page of this thread, when the window isn't maximized, not only is the document taking up the same horizontal area, but it has more vertical area, and more of the document is shown.

So the simple solution to your problem is not to spend outragous amounts of money on a 4:3 hi res monitor, but instead spend far less on a 16:10 monitor with a higher res, and simply not maximize the window, or buy one that rotates.


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2009)

erocker said:


> WileE is correct.
> 
> *Do you really want to spend thousands of dollars on a 2048x1536 monitor?*
> 
> ...



No, I just wondered if it was at all possible to still get them. I didn't think so and this thread has confirmed that, so thanks everyone. I don't want a CRT for general desktop use any more, but a large 4:3 LCD would have been nice, as I like the shape better. I wouldn't drop stupid money on any monitor, either.



erocker said:


> Disagree. 4:3 = 1600x*1200* / 16:10 = 1920x*1200*.  Same "vertical size."



Of course 1920x1200 will display more detail than 1600x1200 and I never said it didn't. However, yourself, Wile E & Newtekie1 are all missing the point of what I'm trying to say. I've explained it several times over now, in a lot of detail, so I can't see the point in going round in circles any more. This is a casual chat anyway, so it doesn't matter that much if we don't agree. No harm done.


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> I already did that, and like I said, the phenomenon you are decribing is related to the aspect ration.  But more importantly it has to do how much the page has to be zoomed to fill the screen.
> 
> A piece of paper it taller than wider.  Ideally, if you are viewing documents constantly, you want a monitor that is also taller than wider.  The issue comes down to the aspect ratio of the screen vs. the aspect ratio of the document/image you are viewing.



Matching the aspect ratio to the content is a sensible idea, agreed there. Hence, 16:9 TV programs look better on a 16:9 TV, as the picture fits exactly, without black bars. No-ones arguing that and isn't what I was saying.



newtekie1 said:


> Now, the 16:10 aspect ratio gives more screen real estate.



It does not. There's the crux of your misunderstanding. The answer to this question is in my previous posts, even the Wikipedia article explained it, in a simplified way. So I won't repeat myself here.



newtekie1 said:


> So more _can_ be shown on the screen, as my previous screenshots show.  However, if you expand the document to fill the entire screen width, then it needs to be zoomed in further to do that, and hence more of it gets pushed off the bottom of the screen.  But as I showed, if you don't maximize the Window, and instead leave the window at the same width that you would have on a 4:3 screen, more is displayed on a 16:10 screen then would be displayed on the 4:3.
> 
> Now here is another interesting trick, and Lemon touched on this.  If you are really into document viewing, take a 16:10 monitor and rotate it 90°.  There are a lot of monitors out on the market designed specifically for this.  The stands allow rotating on the fly, and many even come with software that automatically orient the screen properly when you physically rotate the monitor.
> 
> ...



I didn't actually say a square monitor "is best". Just that it shows you more. What's "best", depends on various factors, but mainly one's personal preference and the aspect ratio of the content being viewed.

Thanks for doing my experiment - appreciate it.  That means that you have seen how the squarer shape has more area and the effect is independent of physical resolution and physical size. This is why you saw more of the document on the low res 1024x768 4:3 screenshot than the super high res widescreen. (Doing the triangle exercise above also proves what I'm saying and is perhaps a better example.) Similarly, expanding it vertically beyond 1:1 simply means that you're actually shrinking it horizontally. You now have a screen which is 9:16, which is exactly equivalent to 16:9, rotated 90 degrees.

Comparing a maxed window with an unmaxed one isn't comparing like with like and you are again confusing physical resolution with aspect ratio. More resolution = a "bigger" monitor and hence will show more _fine detail_, just as you demonstrated, but aspect ratio isn't about resolution, but screen area, which is not the same thing - it's a constant that's physically separate from the dimensions and pixel resolution. Hence, weirdly the physically smaller, low res 4:3 screen, has a "bigger" area, simply because of it's shape!

I quite agree that it wouldn't be worth paying over the odds or looking all over for a hires 4:3 monitor, even though I like the shape and as you know, my 1680x1050 baby got stolen by some thieving <insert expletive> burglars, so I will do the same again and probably get a 1920x1200 monitor this time - once the security improvements have been made to my house.

In the end, as I've said in a couple of posts now, this is just a casual chat, so if we don't agree it's ok and no harm done. I just don't think it's worth continuing to go round in circles over this.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 6, 2009)

As I and many others have said, the 4:3 does NOT have more area, saying that is completely wrong.  Again, what you are seeing when viewing documents has to do with stretching a tall narrow document to fit a short wide screen.

Set both to 100%, and the 16:10 resolution will show more of the document.  That is because the 16:10 resolution has more area.  And, again, if you buy a 16:10 monitor and simply resize the window so the window is narrower, it will also show more of the document.  I'm not comparing anything, I'm showing you that this is fact.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 7, 2009)

Sorry newtekie et al, but a 20" 4:3 DOES have more area than a 20" 16:9. Remember, that area is measured in square cm or square inches. Also the 20" 4:3 will _typically_ have a resolution of 1600x1200, and the 20" 16:9 will _typically_ have a resolution of 1680x1050, so the 20" 4:3 also has more pixel real estate.

When we talk about a 1920x1080 display, we are now talking 24". There are no 1600x1200 24" TFTs. In the CRT world there are 24" 2048x1536. Here the CRT has a greater area cm2, and a higher pixel count than a widescreen TFT. The BEST that a widescreen TFT can do at 23" is 2048x1152. (Samsung panel). But the 4:3 at 2048x1536 is clearly the winner again.

This is what qubit is talking about: For the same DIAGONAL MEASUREMENT, 4:3 ratio monitors give you "more".  However, a 16:10 or 16:9 can give you more pixels than a 4:3 but only when you have a larger diagonal measurement.

Note that these comments are true today.  Next year this may be all wrong due to increased pixel density options and new panels.

*Appendix:*





Oh, look up the IBM T221. That is 16:10 and just win-wins.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2009)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Sorry newtekie et al, but a 20" 4:3 DOES have more area than a 20" 16:9. Remember, that area is measured in square cm or square inches. Also the 20" 4:3 will _typically_ have a resolution of 1600x1200, and the 20" 16:9 will _typically_ have a resolution of 1680x1050, so the 20" 4:3 also has more pixel real estate.
> 
> When we talk about a 1920x1080 display, we are now talking 24". There are no 1600x1200 24" TFTs. In the CRT world there are 24" 2048x1536. Here the CRT has a greater area cm2, and a higher pixel count than a widescreen TFT. The BEST that a widescreen TFT can do at 23" is 2048x1152. (Samsung panel). But the 4:3 at 2048x1536 is clearly the winner again.
> 
> ...


Except that the question was asked in reference to LCD's. CRTs have no bearing in this argument, and therefore your examples are moot.

It also doesn't take into account that 1600x1200 lcds come in 20-22" flavor, but there are now 1080p screens that come in at 21.5"


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 7, 2009)

1./ NEVER seen a 4:3 bigger than 21". Show me a 22" one.
2./ Yes, you can now get 1080 "y" 21" flavor. And a 1920x1080 has 8% more pixels than a similar diagonal 4:3. _It wins if that is your criteria_.
3./ But the 4:3 has 1200 in the "y" and wins. And it also has a greater measurement in cm and wins. _It wins if whose are your criteria_.

It seems like there are people in this thread that just didnt listen to the OP, either because they dont or cant understand the perspective as he presented it.  As they say, 'Never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience'.


@Wile. Please check my earlier post... You might have missed some data... I edited the table to add references to some examples. They are indeed TFTs. And read the thread. The OP was *asking* are there TFTs as good (in terms of resolution) as the old 4:3 CRTs


----------



## erocker (Dec 7, 2009)

Honestly people 4:3 is dead. Welcome to the future! Meh.

All this 4:3 talk is going to make me bring my old 20" Trinitron home from work.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2009)

Completely Bonkers said:


> 1./ NEVER seen a 4:3 bigger than 21". Show me a 22" one.
> 2./ Yes, you can now get 1080 "y" 21" flavor. And a 1920x1080 has 8% more pixels than a similar diagonal 4:3. _It wins if that is your criteria_.
> 3./ But the 4:3 has 1200 in the "y" and wins. And it also has a greater measurement in cm and wins. _It wins if whose are your criteria_.
> 
> ...



You're right, it's 21.3 vs 21.5 for the 1080p. I wasn't being exact.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 7, 2009)

erocker said:


> Honestly people 4:3 is dead. Welcome to the future! Meh.


Regretably, quite true.



Wile E said:


> You're right, it's 21.3 vs 21.5 for the 1080p. I wasn't being exact.


Yep 21.3 vs. 21.5 is a 9% difference in size. Funny, that is also the same as the pixel count gain. So presumably it is the identical panel technology just "cut" into letterbox rather than squares. No win. Draw.



Wile E said:


> I wasn't being exact.


You need to be. Or I will bring you down to my level of inaccuracy, and beat you with experience.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2009)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Regretably, quite true.
> 
> 
> *Yep 21.3 vs. 21.5 is a 9% difference in size. Funny, that is also the same as the pixel count gain. So presumably it is the identical panel technology just "cut" into letterbox rather than squares. No win. Draw.
> ...


I don't see it as a draw. More pixels gives more displayable area in everything except documents. It still leans to the 1080p screen in my estimation.


----------



## Scrizz (Dec 7, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> A 27" widescreen monitor* is smaller *than a 27" square monitor, measured by total area. It is a smaller screen.



did he really just say that


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 7, 2009)

Scrizz said:


> did he really just say that


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2009)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Quoted you so you can't delete yourself! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-018.gif
> http://img.techpowerup.org/091206/Capture063571.jpg



This is the most active I've seen you in ages. lol.

@Scrizz - Lemonadesoda is correct. Viewable area of a 27" 4:3 screen would be 349.92 in² vs 327.699 in² for a 16:10 screen.

Problem is, the viewable area does not mean it can display more. Resolution is the single most important factor in determining how much a panel can display.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Dec 7, 2009)

qubit said:


> It must be gorgeous! I'm so jealous.



If you lived near me I would let you have it for $30. 

It has accurate color though, it was an IBM model made for commercial art.


----------



## MilkyWay (Dec 7, 2009)

On a 4:3 aspect ratio you get a larger vertical size so you can display more up and down the way than on a wide-screen monitor. But without the large size and resolution the whole screen would mean nothing. Thats like trying to play a blu ray dvd on a 32inch chunky screen crt tv its just as blurry as the normal dvd would be you need to view it on a screen that is high resolution too.

You just cant see it all on different ratios its hidden its cut off its bigger than what can be displayed it needs to be in its native resolution and aspect ratio, that is why you get bars on things made for 4:3 if displayed on a widescreen display that is why you get bars on the opposite too.

What he is saying is that on a PDF that is taller than wider you would need to scroll to be able to see everything on 16:10 but on 4:3 you see more because it is physically taller but it may be all stretched looking or pixelated if the res is not high.

*Resolution if effected by screen size because in actuality a larger res is a larger picture the pc is just zooming out or resizing to fit it on your smaller screen or stretching to fit it on a screen thats too big! A large 1980x1080 picture would be cut off on my pc screen so it changes the zoom it makes it smaller not in res but viewing size. I can see it fully it just zooms it, the detail is still there if i zoom in but it only displays part of the picture if i zoom in the rest is cut off because my display is to small to show it.*

Example you walk up to a painting and look at it but your too close to see it all so you walk back to see it all, you cant make out all the definition or detail when walking out because its far away. Its like to see a mountain range you have to be far away but to see the rocks on it you have to be very close up or on the mountain itself. Pictures and screens are like this, large resolutions have detail but you need a big screen to be able to stretch it out to see it all in detail or you have to zoom in and just view part of it, it just makes it smaller to fit on a smaller screen the detail is still there you just cant see it without zooming in.

So if a widescreen monitor has a larger res than a 4:3 screen it will have a lots more detail but it will either be zoomed in and small looking or zoomed out and have part of it cut off, unless its smaller than the displays res then it is in actually smaller than the screen itself and it will be in only part of the screen then you can stretch it to make it larger but it gets pixelated. The 4:3 might be able to display it all but it will be pixelated because of the resolution.

My 32inch crt tv might be able to show me a bigger display and show me more of a document but i wont use it because it wont be as detailed as my monitor will i wouldnt be able to view it correctly on the tv. I would need to zoom in on a 16:10 monitor to read the PDF on a 4:3 monitor it can display more up the way so there is less need to zoom.






There is a larger viewing angle up the way, not an approximation just a sketch to show what he is saying.
But he fails to see that the widescreen with larger resolution would be better because it has more detail in it and it would be able to show more off due to this its just got a bit cut off at the bottom because the PDF or whatever is a different res to the screen its much larger or much smaller than the screen.
You have to shrink or stretch things depending on its resolution and your monitors viewing size.

To combat that you get a larger screen with a larger size res, keeping the same res would just stretch the picture.

LIKE that monitor that was on the news section the actual performance was shit because it was just 3 1440 x something monitors side by side.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 7, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> A 27" widescreen monitor* is smaller *than a 27" square monitor, measured by total area. It is a smaller screen. The manufacturing costs, as determined by area, cm^2, not by pixel count, is lower.



And completely irrelevant. usable screen area is what matters, not the physical dimensions.





lemonadesoda said:


> The automatic scaling done in Windows or Word or Acrobat when reading a document is based on screen width. The higher the "x" the larger the zoom that can "fit".  When zoomed, the page stretches from left to right, but typically less is shown in the vertical and you need to scroll more and fewer lines of text are shown.  A squarer screen therefore "fits" a typical PORTRAIT document better. RODUCTIVITY WORKSTATION. Three screens side by side in PORTRAIT orientation.
> 
> I've forgotten why I'm even explaining all this. It's blxxdy obvious. :shadedshu




so what you're saying, is you'd go with a 4:3 screen because you're too lazy to set your PDF programs to 100% zoom?

has it ever occured to you that these programs run in a window, so you dont have to fullscreen them?


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Dec 7, 2009)

Screen ratio is a matter of preference and what application you are using them for. Thats all that really needs to be said.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Dec 7, 2009)

Wow.


----------



## qubit (Dec 7, 2009)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Wow.



Come on now, we need more than that, muck in! 

I tell you, when I started this thread the other day, all I wanted to know was about obtaining a new hires 4:3 LCD monitor. But little did I know it would turn into a long & excruciating discussion on the ins & outs of aspect ratios!  That's tech for you.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 7, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Screen ratio is a matter of preference and what application you are using them for. Thats all that really needs to be said.





Winning post!

every STFU now


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 7, 2009)

The best 4:3 that has a refresh which is acceptable for gaming is an NEC but thats only 21 inch @ 1600 x 1200 and isnt cheap..............

http://www.nec-display-solutions.co.../LCD-2190UXp/LCD-2190UXp.xhtml?cat=LCD&e=e1s1

nice nevertheless.


----------



## Mistral (Dec 7, 2009)

I must express my thanks to all involved - this is one of the most amusing threads I've read in a while.

Sorry for the one liner, but more or less everything that can be said on the original topic already was.


----------



## qubit (Dec 7, 2009)

Mistral said:


> *I must express my thanks to all involved - this is one of the most amusing threads I've read in a while.*
> 
> Sorry for the one liner, but more or less everything that can be said on the original topic already was.



I think you'll find this thread (sadly closed now) even more amusing.


----------



## Benetanegia (Dec 7, 2009)

Wile E said:


> @Scrizz - Lemonadesoda is correct. Viewable area of a 27" 4:3 screen would be 349.92 in² vs 327.699 in² for a 16:10 screen.
> 
> Problem is, the viewable area does not mean it can display more. Resolution is the single most important factor in determining how much a panel can display.



Without realizing it you have demostrated what Qubit (and supporters) has been saying. The 4:3 is bigger and at same dot pitch (which is the only real resolution measurement) it will have a greater resolution and will display more. Simple.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 7, 2009)

If people disagree with that then they're obviously super high!


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 7, 2009)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Sorry newtekie et al, but a 20" 4:3 DOES have more area than a 20" 16:9....





Completely Bonkers said:


> 1./ NEVER seen a 4:3 bigger than 21". Show me a 22" one.
> 2./ Yes, you can now get 1080 "y" 21" flavor. And a 1920x1080 has 8% more pixels than a similar diagonal 4:3. _It wins if that is your criteria_.
> 3./ But the 4:3 has 1200 in the "y" and wins. And it also has a greater measurement in cm and wins. _It wins if whose are your criteria_.
> 
> It seems like there are people in this thread that just didnt listen to the OP, either because they dont or cant understand the perspective as he presented it.  As they say, 'Never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience'.



Ok, going from your purely physical dimensions view...which doesn't matter since we are talking about amount of desktop area, and not actual area of screen surface...anyway, I'll go with your purely screen surface area argument for a while:

1.) That right there has completely disproved your arugment.  If they don't make 4:3 monitors any bigger than 21", then my 30" 16:10 definitely has more screen area.  No way around it, it has more screen area, and my 60" 16:9 destroys both in the screen area department! 

2.) Who said anything about buying the same screen size either?  Lets say you are looking at a 21.3" 2048x1536 LCD, because that is the biggest I've seen them in.  You are looking at spending somewhere in the $4000+ range.  While the 30" 2560x1600 can be had for somehwere in the $1200 range.  The dimensions on the 2048x1536 monitor are 18.4 x 17.1, for a total screen area of 314.64 sq in.  The 2560x1600 screen on the other hand is 27.2 x  19.3 for a total screen area of 524.96 sq in.

So the 2560x1600 wins in every way.  It physically has more area, and it has more desktop area also, not to mention being extremely cheaper.  The only time it seems to loose is when viewing documents, and again, we've already discussed why that is, and how simply it is to correct.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 7, 2009)

Listen just because they're not made doesn't mean your right about aspect ratio : /

Which is what we're talking about.

Aspect ratio

And how 1.1 would technically give you the most space, so 4.3 gives you more space then 16.9 or 10 thus you can potentially have more pixel real estate.

That is the only "argument" newtekie.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 7, 2009)

pantherx12 said:


> Listen just because they're not made doesn't mean your right about aspect ratio : /
> 
> Which is what we're talking about.
> 
> ...



I am completely right about aspect ratio, I've shown it with examples.  But again, I'm not really arguing about aspect ratios.  And I also agree with your theory. However, I'm arguing about reality, and how the real world is.

Besides the fact that 16:10 screens offer more desktop area, they also offer more physical screen area.  There is no way to argue against that.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 7, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> is.
> 
> Besides the fact that 16:10 screens offer more desktop area, they also offer more physical screen area.  There is no way to argue against that.




Lets do this in cm to simplify things

4.3 ratio

19.2cm x 14.4cm

16.10

19.2cm x 12.8


Wide screen is just fashionable at the moment I'm sure square monitors will be around again.


Your statement about talking about reality is irrelevent though, as the OP asked if it was possible, and everyone said why would you want 4.3.

People argued with his explanation which was correct.

Everyone backing him up was doing so just out of mathematical real life principle.


----------



## qubit (Dec 7, 2009)

*+1*



pantherx12 said:


> Listen just because they're not made doesn't mean your right about aspect ratio : /
> 
> Which is what we're talking about.
> 
> ...



+1 pantherx12

Yeah, indeed, it's not difficult is it? A 4:3 the size of a postage stamp would show more than a 16:9 the size of a wall, as it's all about ratios, not absolute size or pixels on screen. And indeed, a 1:1 (square) would be the biggest of all. I proved it with my PDF examples and triangle exercises, too, but I think this concept is just too difficult for some people to grasp. In cases like this, it's just better to agree to disagree and leave it at that, like I did, or you just end up going round in circles. No need for animosity. 

I can't believe my simple question about getting a new 4:3 monitor would spawn such a thread! I really had no idea this would happen? Don'tcha just love tech?


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 7, 2009)

qubit said:


> Don'tcha just love tech?



Heck yeah, I love stupid discussion like this too


----------



## erocker (Dec 7, 2009)

My 16:10 monitor can rotate vertically. Plenty of space up and down for me.  I agree this discussion is pretty um.. insignificant.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Dec 7, 2009)

If widescreen monitors sucked, they probably wouldn't have transitioned to them and made 4:3 extinct, would they. Anyway, this concept seems to me like "Evolve or Die". I used CRTs all my life until I got my first laptop (widescreen) in 2007. I had not a single issue acclimating to it. I don't care if my document is cut off at the bottom, I just deal with it and use the scroll wheel on my mouse. Plus, variable width web pages such as forums are great in widescreen. I don't use Word or Adobe Reader for every second of every day of every year that I use the computer, so why should I care?

Since automobiles are mainstream, does that mean you still use a horse and carriage to go places?


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 7, 2009)

Jstn7477 said:


> If widescreen monitors sucked, they probably wouldn't have transitioned to them and made 4:3 extinct?





Neither suck  wide screen just became fashionable.

More films used it ( purely for cinematic effect) so then it eventually got into peoples homes via TV and then progressed to monitors.

As has been said many times monitors with ratios closer to 1.1 have a physical advantage so have space for more pixels if people made them again. (I for one hope they do, I hate widescreen only using this 16:10 as I was sick of low res 1280x1024)


In modern games if you had a 4.3 and 16.9/10 the 16.9/10 would show you "more" of the game world.

So they do have an advantage there. ( this is due to how games scale )

4.3 is a general all rounder : ]


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 7, 2009)

Jstn7477 said:


> I don't use Word or Adobe Reader for every second of every day of every year that I use the computer, so why should I care?



I think that's a nice comment. Because (IMO) the 4:3 camp *do* use Word and Acrobat every second of every woken moment... because they use their PC's for *work*, ie. a living, and want maximum readability and efficiency ratios.

Whereas, the 16:10/9 camp use their PC's for entertainment, and given that consumer entertainment (TV and DVD/Bluray) now comes in HD 16:9 format, then that is their preferred aspect for their use.

Both camps are right, based on what their criteria for "better" is.

Unfortunately, anyone wanting a "real cinema" experience has to get one of those very rare 21:9 monitors.

Anyway, whatever happened to 5:4 format? 1280x1024. That was much nicer and squarer. I'd love a modern 2560x2048 TFT. That's called QSXGA.  It would suit *my *purposes exactly. Well actually, I'd want 2x or 3x of these, side by side. And hence I would want them in a 20" format and not a 30" format. I aint an owl.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 7, 2009)

pantherx12 said:


> Lets do this in cm to simplify things
> 
> 4.3 ratio
> 
> ...



Correct, you can argue about the area all you want, and I can give numbers that make 16:10 come out with more area.

The fact is that 16:10(or 9) is called Widescreen for a reason.  That is because it is wider.

So when comparing screens, you don't keep the width the same and increase the height to get a 4:3.  You increase the width and keep the height the same to get a widescreen.

So using your numbers as a base, for simplicity:

4:3

19.2cm x 14.4cm

16:10

23.04cm x 14.4cm


Yes, if you keep the diagonaly measurement the same, 16:10 gives less physical area(ignoring actual desktop area due to resolution).  However, no one said we have to keep the diagonal measurement the same.

Lets just take a 21.3" 4:3 LCD's actual measurements:

41.91 x 34.21(roughly in cm)

If I was looking for a widescreen of that, all I would change is the width:

54.73 x 34.21

That gives us a widescreen diagonal measurement of almost exactly 25.5".

Now here is where it gets really interesting!  When you look at the standard resolution for a 21.3" 4:3 LCD, it is 1600x*1200*.  And can you guess the standard resolution on a 25.5" widescreen?  Yep, 1920x*1200*.  Funny how that works out...

Another interesting fact, only because it pertains back to the question why anyone would want a 4:3 screen:  The 25.5" 16:10, which physically give more screen area, and more desktop area, is half the price of a 21.3" 4:3...

So again, I must go back to my original statement from WAAAAAY back on the first page:



newtekie1 said:


> Buy the 30" 2560x1600, disable scaling, set the resolution to 2048x1536.





Completely Bonkers said:


> I think that's a nice comment. Because (IMO) the 4:3 camp *do* use Word and Acrobat every second of every woken moment... because they use their PC's for *work*, ie. a living, and want maximum readability and efficiency ratios.
> 
> Whereas, the 16:10/9 camp use their PC's for entertainment, and given that consumer entertainment (TV and DVD/Bluray) now comes in HD 16:9 format, then that is their preferred aspect for their use.
> 
> ...



Interestingly, I do use my 16:10 monitor at work almost entirely for reading PDFs.  As I've said, if that is your primary use, a 16:10(or even better 9) monitor rotated 90° can't be beat.  And because I use it like this at work is exactly why I could get the screenshot that I did.  So I think your assesment might be slightly wrong, though probably generally correct.

Though I've also found that Win7's function to automatically snap a window to take up exactly half left of right of the screen far more useful for document work on a widescreen.  Especially if you are doing a lot of comparing of documents, or copying and pasting from one to the other.  Having a research window open on one side, and the paper I'm working on on the other is also extremely nice.  This is something that I find doesn't really work on a 4:3(or 5:4) monitor.  The windows end up too narrow, and hard to work with...


----------



## qubit (Dec 7, 2009)

erocker said:


> My 16:10 monitor can rotate vertically. Plenty of space up and down for me.  I agree this discussion is pretty um.. insignificant.



... but my explanation of aspect ratios were friggin' awesome!  The fact some people just don't understand it and just repeat the same old misconceptions over and over is ironically funny, too. lol


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 7, 2009)

Anyone following this thread will understand this:

We need a "new standard" TFT aspect. 4:5. Yep. Taller than wider. This is to be used in the corporate environment. It would have a high pixel density and would achieve QSXGA 2048x2560 on 20" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. WOW. nice. The massive "y" would make an A4 page shown fullscreen actually legible! At last! Perfect for word. Email. PDFs.

And we could place two together, side by side, without completely taking over the whole desk and requiring necks like owls.

Moreover, the consumer model could be cut at 29.5" and offer a 16:10 ratio.





Oh look, the 29.5" is the same as two 20" side by side. Well whaddayaknow?! We've been duped. A 30" widescreen is actually a 20" 4:5 format x 2! LOL


----------



## qubit (Dec 7, 2009)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Anyone following this thread will understand this:
> 
> We need a "new standard" TFT aspect. 5:4. Yep. Taller than wider.



Surely you mean 4:5, as 5:4 is wider than taller, just like 4:3, 16:9 etc? 

EDIT: Completely Bonkers's post fixed.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 7, 2009)

Oohps. Yes I did mean 4:5. LOL. Sorry.


----------



## runnin17 (Dec 7, 2009)

Tatty_One said:


> The best 4:3 that has a refresh which is acceptable for gaming is an NEC but thats only 21 inch @ 1600 x 1200 and isnt cheap..............
> 
> http://www.nec-display-solutions.co.../LCD-2190UXp/LCD-2190UXp.xhtml?cat=LCD&e=e1s1
> 
> nice nevertheless.



That same monitor can be had for $179 over at NEC right now. Granted it is a manufacturer refurb, but it still comes with a three year warranty.


----------



## erocker (Dec 7, 2009)

qubit said:


> ... but my explanation of aspect ratios were friggin' awesome!  The fact some people just don't understand it and just repeat the same old misconceptions over and over is ironically funny, too. lol



Well, I understand. For things like spreadsheets (Excel), widescreen is sooo much nicer for me. No horizontal scrolling to bother with


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 7, 2009)

erocker said:


> Well, I understand. For things like spreadsheets (Excel), widescreen is sooo much nicer for me. No horizontal scrolling to bother with



yeah now with the windows 7 'snap' feature where you just press windows key and then left or right makes it a godsend to work with the accounting system and excel at the same time.

widescreen ftw.

I used to also be part of the crowd that didn't like wide-screen at first.. but honestly, I think it was more resistance to change more than anything..


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Dec 8, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> yeah now with the windows 7 'snap' feature where you just press windows key and then left or right makes it a godsend to work with the accounting system and excel at the same time.
> 
> widescreen ftw.
> 
> I used to also be part of the crowd that didn't like wide-screen at first.. but honestly, I think it was more resistance to change more than anything..



What converted me was movie viewing. Thats why I prefer 16:9.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 8, 2009)

the 'snap' thing as you call it is great - i find myself viewing two pics/two documents at once quite often.

and movies is what moved me to 16:9 - i had one screen of each aspect ratio, and kept going back to the 16:9


----------



## DirectorC (Dec 8, 2009)

qubit said:


> NEW 2048x1536 LCD monitor wanted



http://www.google.com/products


----------



## erocker (Dec 8, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> yeah now with the windows 7 'snap' feature where you just press windows key and then left or right makes it a godsend to work with the accounting system and excel at the same time.



Super awesome!  I'm putting 7 on all my rigs at work then. I just hope the machine with the single core Pentium and the 512mb of rambus can run it well. Rambus ram isn't cheap at all...


----------



## Mussels (Dec 8, 2009)

you can also just click and drag the windows


drag to the top, it maximises

drag to left/right and it takes up 50% of the screen, on those sizes - the keyboard shortcuts seem clumsier to me


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 8, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, if you keep the diagonaly measurement the same, 16:10 gives less physical area(ignoring actual desktop area due to resolution).  However, no one said we have to keep the diagonal measurement the same.



So you wouldn't compare a 17 " to a 17" , 30 to 30?

If not then it's a completely pointless comparison because that's how monitors are measured.


----------



## qubit (Dec 8, 2009)

erocker said:


> Well, I understand. For things like spreadsheets (Excel), widescreen is sooo much nicer for me. No horizontal scrolling to bother with



Indeed, widescreen monitors can certainly be "better". It all depends on the application and your personal preference. But what I was explaining wasn't about that, simply about how aspect ratios work.


----------



## qubit (Dec 8, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> I used to also be part of the crowd that didn't like wide-screen at first.. but honestly, I think it was more resistance to change more than anything..



Well, guess wot? I'm wanna dem oddballs that still prefers 4:3 even after trying out widescreen for quite some time. lol 

There's no right or wrong on this one.


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 8, 2009)

that is all.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 8, 2009)

^no good for shopping lists and email inbox. You need to rotate that 90°. LOL


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 8, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> http://machinesthatgobing.com/images/alienware-arc-monitor.jpg
> 
> that is all.




Huge screens of any ratio could be made : ]


----------



## Mussels (Dec 8, 2009)

pantherx12 said:


> Huge screens of any ratio could be made : ]



even triangles?


----------



## qubit (Dec 8, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> http://machinesthatgobing.com/images/alienware-arc-monitor.jpg
> 
> that is all.



That reminds me of an ultra wide I saw in a shop a while back. It looked similar to this one, but was flat and was designed to show 2.35:1 aspect ratio movies just as they would be shown in the cinema. It was something like 50" across.

It used LCD technology I think and I can't remember the brand.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 8, 2009)

Mussels said:


> even triangles?



Especially triangles


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 8, 2009)

pantherx12 said:


> So you wouldn't compare a 17 " to a 17" , 30 to 30?
> 
> If not then it's a completely pointless comparison because that's how monitors are measured.



No, I wouldn't, because going by diagonal measurement alone has always been a completely idiotic way to measure and judge monitors.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 8, 2009)

diagonal measurements just don't work when the aspect ratio changes.


----------



## Scrizz (Dec 8, 2009)

plus can't we just rotate the screen?
widescreen monitors are great in portrait mode for viewing docs.
on a 30" 2560x1600 you can have 2 documents sided by side fully visible
not to mention the availability of a 30" 2048x1536 4:3 monitor


----------



## Wile E (Dec 9, 2009)

qubit said:


> That reminds me of an ultra wide I saw in a shop a while back. It looked similar to this one, but was flat and was designed to show 2.35:1 aspect ratio movies just as they would be shown in the cinema. It was something like 50" across.
> 
> *It used LCD technology I think and I can't remember the brand.*



Phillips 21:9


----------



## qubit (Dec 9, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Phillips 21:9



Yeah, could be.


----------



## mandelbrot (Oct 22, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> http://machinesthatgobing.com/images/alienware-arc-monitor.jpg
> 
> that is all.



Well, I would prefer a less wide one and have more height.
People would say nay to that screen all the time (they have to move their head to the left and to the right all the time). If it would have more height, we could at least see the face of the dead person in that screenshot .

Anyway I think it sucks there are still (three years later now) no 2048x1536 (4:3) or 2000x1600 (5:4) LCD's. (Well, I think there is a 2048x1536 retina iPad now?)
Simply because movies are recorded in 2.35:1 or at least closer than 16:9 than to 4:3, it's better to view movies on a wide-screen. But I think it would be better movies would be recorded on 4:3. And watching movies is only a small part of my computer time. BTW, talking about watching movies: most IMAX-screens are 1.375:1, and the largest projection screen (IMAX Sydney) has a 1.21:1 ratio; both closer to 4:3 than to 16:10.

Because the eyes are next to each other, its logical screens are a bit wider than they are high. But I think 4:3 would be best for that - or at least better than 16:10, 16:9 or even 2.35:1. It's not like the eyes are very far away from each other. If the eyes would above each other, a 3:4 monitor would be better than a 9:16 or 10:16.
Probably even still better (for the eyes) would be a ellipse shaped monitor (with 4:3 ratio if a rectangle was drawn around it) - but that's probably not that practical.

It's indeed (also) a matter of preference; people like newtekie1 like to have two portrait papers next to each other on the screen. Not me - I never do that.

"However, no one said we have to keep the diagonal measurement the same."
True or not (me indeed thinks the diagonal is not interesting): you compare a 4:3 19.2x14.4 to a 16:10 23.04x14.4, which is of course not really fair or at least not a good comparison.
Patherx12 compares a 4.3 19.2x14.4 with a 16.10 19.2x12.8, which is also not really fair or a good comparison.
To have a fair comparison, you'd want to compare two monitors with the same nr. of cm2 screen surface. Then, I prefer 4:3 or even 5:4 to 16:10/16:9 hands down.

Would we only have 1 eye, than indeed a square (of better: round) monitor would be best. But because we have 2 eyes next to each other, 4:3 is better.
I hear people say it all the time: 'wider is better'. Which, in itself, is totally nonsense. Than a 100.000x100 (or even 1.000.000x10) would be better than a 3651x2738 monitor (both approx. 10 million pixels).

A spherical monitor would be nice too:




Superb gaming, for some games. Like RISK and Civilization, and maybe a type of Settlers (maybe in combo with a normal monitor).


----------



## johnspack (Oct 22, 2012)

Love my 16:10 monitor,  expensive compared to 1080,  but extra real estate is worth it.  I came from 19" at 1600x1200,  and didn't see the point in going lower to 1080.  Just wish I could afford a 2nd one.....


----------



## UbErN00b (Oct 22, 2012)




----------



## 3870x2 (Oct 22, 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> Well, I would prefer a less wide one and have more height.
> People would say nay to that screen all the time (they have to move their head to the left and to the right all the time). If it would have more height, we could at least see the face of the dead person in that screenshot .
> 
> Anyway I think it sucks there are still (three years later now) no 2048x1536 (4:3) or 2000x1600 (5:4) LCD's. (Well, I think there is a 2048x1536 retina iPad now?)
> ...



Thats it, you're going to Time Out for 5 minutes.  Sit in the chair in the corner.


----------



## qubit (Oct 22, 2012)

@mandelbrot

I used to prefer 4:3 hands down myself too, but not any more. Widescreen works better for human vision, because it's naturally easier and more comfortable for us to look side to side than up and down.

I've currently got a 26" 1920x1200 monitor and it's beautiful. However, I'm about to replace it with the Asus VG278HE 1080p monitor when it arrives, because of its headline feature of 144Hz and 3D Vision compatibility.

I wanted to see if I could stand the feeling of crampedness by having less height, so I set my current monitor to 1080 to test it. After the initial feeling of being slightly squashed went away, I actually found it a little bit easier to use, since the height was less and there wasn't so much vertical motion. I was quite surprised by this, but I might just end up preferring 16:9 monitors because of this alone. I'll have to wait and see.

Welcome to TPU.


----------



## mandelbrot (Oct 23, 2012)

Jstn7477 said:


> If widescreen monitors sucked, they probably wouldn't have transitioned to them and made 4:3 extinct, would they.



Well, compared to Beta-max VHS sucked.
Compared to mechanical (alps or cherry switches) keyboards, 99.99% of the new keyboards (=rubber dome keys) totally suck.
So, in itself, popularity doesn't say sh!t about suckability.

Anyway, as someone already posted, there _are_ some 2048x1536 TFT's (at least already available since 2006). I found one for just $5393.10:
http://www.provantage.com/eizo-gs320-cl-p-bk~9EIZL06Q.htm
Oh wait... This one is only grayscale.

Another one:
http://www.retrevo.com/search?q=Eizo+FA-2090&rt=sp&modelid=1360695
Here, it says its color. But on an old Ebay listing it says again 'medical'; I assume that means grayscale again:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Eizo-FA-2090-20-8-LCD-Monitor-2048-x-1536-Medical-/150611104836
A 2560x2048 one:
http://www.edldisplays.com/roadmap/3028.php
They also have a 2048x2048 one:




Typical applications include (for all EDL-monitors):
Air Traffic Control
Vessel Traffic Control
Shipboard Navigation
Shipboard Process Control
Industrial Process Control
Flight Simulation
Control Rooms
Command Centers
Their ISO 13406-2 allows 28 (sub)pixeldefects... I think that's alarming (to say the least) when using such monitors for air traffic control!!

About the iPad3 2048x1536: it can be used as a desktop monitor, but it's too small for such.


> Welcome to TPU


Thanx!
I'm disappointed that you know too prefer widescreen... I guess you got just accustomed to it simply because there are no affordable large 4:3 TFT's.


----------



## johnspack (Oct 23, 2012)

I'm sorry,  but 1920x1200 blows away 4:3,  and 1080 res equally.  I can use all,  and I always come back to 16:10 every time!  Yes,  an entry level 24" 1920x1200 comes in at 320us or more,  but why not?


----------



## Wile E (Oct 24, 2012)

johnspack said:


> I'm sorry,  but 1920x1200 blows away 4:3,  and 1080 res equally.  I can use all,  and I always come back to 16:10 every time!  Yes,  an entry level 24" 1920x1200 comes in at 320us or more,  but why not?



That all depends. If the horizontal resolution is equal, the 4:3 would be better than both 16:9 and 16:10. Take 1920 for a horizontal resolution as an example. It would be 1920x1080, 1920x1200 and 1920x1440 for 16:9, 16:10 and 4:3, respectively. The 4:3 monitor would display both what the 16:9 and 16:10 could, with a 1:1 pixel ratio. Sure, you get bars at the top and bottom, but the picture is 100% identical. Then you still have the extra vertical resolution for those things that benefit from it.

I'd take a 4:3 monitor any day over either of the other 2, so long as the horizontal resolution is the same. If they actually made those 1920x1440 monitors, I'd have one instead of this 1920x1200 unit.

Now, on the flip side, if the vertical resolutions stay the same, wider would be better. 1600x1200, 1920x1200 and 2133x1200 for 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9 respectively.


----------



## SaltyFish (Oct 24, 2012)

*Pixel Count*

Since this is an aspect ratio discussion, the fairest way to do a comparison is by pixel count. Given n pixels, how would you like them arranged?

I will use 1920 x 1080 as the base since it is currently the most common monitor resolution. That resolution has a pixel count of 2,073,600. The other ratios will list the two hypothetical resolutions whose pixel counts are closest to that, with the closer one bolded.


```
[b]1:1   --> 1440 x 1440 = 2,073,600[/b]

5:4   --> 1605 x 1284 = 2,060,820
[b]5:4   --> 1610 x 1288 = 2,073,680[/b]

4:3   --> 1660 x 1245 = 2,066,700
[b]4:3   --> 1664 x 1248 = 2,076,672[/b]

16:10 --> 1816 x 1135 = 2,061,160
[b]16:10 --> 1824 x 1140 = 2,079,360[/b]

[b]16:9  --> 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600[/b]

64:27 --> 2176 x  918 = 1,997,568
[b]64:27 --> 2240 x  945 = 2,116,800[/b]
```

I'm sure someone more talented at math than I am can work out the resolutions for all these ratios that have the same pixel count. But the basic idea is that if you had a choice between the bolded resolutions, which would you prefer?


----------



## Wile E (Oct 24, 2012)

Unfortunately, 1920x1080, only because that's what most media is.

And this just proves it's a matter of perspective. If media weren't 1080p, we would pick something different.

But in real world selection, resolution is the more important factor over aspect ratio. I'd take a 2560x1440 display over my 1920x1200 any day. But I would not take a 1080p monitor over my 1200.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 24, 2012)

You are all wrong buy a Viewsonic VP2290B-2 22.2"

Refurbished: ViewSonic VP2290B-2-S Black 22.2" Wid...

3840X2400 win


----------



## btarunr (Oct 24, 2012)

The only high-res 4:3 monitors left in the market are professional/military-grade ones, and they're priced upwards of 2,000 quids. Try NEC MD211G3.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Oct 24, 2012)

Since my Samsung 1920x1200 lcd died a few months back, I've been using my 10-year old Dell 2000fp 1600x1200. It's still a champ.  Games look great, but I would like a wider view.

Only so much room on a desktop for vertical growth, but a wider image means more peripheral vision.  It's ok for now, but when I have the money I will get a 1920x1200, 2560x1440, or 2560x1600 if they miraculously drop in price.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Oct 24, 2012)

Retina 4 teh win

Where are they?

Hopefully Apple will soon release a retina Cinema Display to go with their premium desktops.  I'm OK with 2560x1800 on 21". I really don't want a bigger screen... I just want IPS and high pixel density to get über-quality font rendering. Gaming and media isnt important.  Media... never watch on a PC except for youtube... that's why we have a sofa and a TV. And gaming... can be scaled.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Oct 24, 2012)

I enjoy my Auria 27" 2560x1440 and I bought it at Microcenter for $400. That is fairly cheap. I may overclock it(to higher refresh rates) after possibly taking it apart and adding heatsinks....... if that isn't too crazy sounding. 

For some reason it looks like the tempest line. http://www.overlordcomputer.com/Default.asp


----------



## SaltyFish (Oct 24, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Unfortunately, 1920x1080, only because that's what most media is.
> 
> And this just proves it's a matter of perspective. If media weren't 1080p, we would pick something different.
> 
> But in real world selection, resolution is the more important factor over aspect ratio. I'd take a 2560x1440 display over my 1920x1200 any day. But I would not take a 1080p monitor over my 1200.



I chose 1920x1080 as a reference because of its current pervasiveness. I could've used 720p or even some non-standard resolution as the basis for comparison.

Also, do people find letterboxing and pillarboxing annoying? I've been using 16:10 screens for almost a decade now and the boxing on both 4:3 and 16:9 didn't bother me at all.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 24, 2012)

SaltyFish said:


> I chose 1920x1080 as a reference because of its current pervasiveness. I could've used 720p or even some non-standard resolution as the basis for comparison.
> 
> Also, do people find letterboxing and pillarboxing annoying? I've been using 16:10 screens for almost a decade now and the boxing on both 4:3 and 16:9 didn't bother me at all.



Boxing has no effect on me.


----------



## qubit (Oct 24, 2012)

SaltyFish said:


> I chose 1920x1080 as a reference because of its current pervasiveness. I could've used 720p or even some non-standard resolution as the basis for comparison.
> 
> Also, do people find letterboxing and pillarboxing annoying? I've been using 16:10 screens for almost a decade now and the boxing on both 4:3 and 16:9 didn't bother me at all.



I'm not so bothered about letterboxing either. Watching 16:9 videos on my 16:10 monitor gives some room at the bottom for player controls with impacting on the video area too much or at all, for example.


----------

