LG IPS277L, Catleap or Crossover.
Dont buy the Dell U2412M. To small and dont buy a new monitor bellow 27". You will regret it. Also U2412M is 16:10 which is being phased out. Thats the reason why they try to sell them off atm. Nobody will want to buy them in the future because from 8 Windows...
I see one or two who says that you should buy the 16:10 resolution 1920x1200 because it offers you more pixels than the 16:9 resolution 1920x1080.
Seriously. If 1920x1080 isnt enough pixels for you the obvious buy is 2560x1440.
In that way you get more pixels and also dont get a reduction in...
I am surprised anyone run in 16:10 resolutions. You loose Field of view!
16:9 is much better for games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games
FOV is bigger in 16:9!!! and yes. I dont count old games from 2004 or something like that! 16:9 is the way to go for gaming!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games
In Witcher 2 and Assassins Creed the 16:10 users get black bars...
Great article on this subject.
"Field of view in video games (FOV in games, or field of vision in video games) is the extent of the observable game world that is seen at any given moment.[1]
The field of view (FOV) in a video game could change dependent of monitor aspect ratio and resolution...
Not many would buy such monitor because it would be really poor for multimedia.
You will never get more vertical FOV than with 16:9. It would just cause the gamedevelopers problems.
16:9, 16:10 or 4:3?
-edit
Read following article. It explains why 16:9 is the best aspect ratio for games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games
I would never even consider a 16:10 monitor 2011. That aspect ratio belongs to the history. Basically everybody buy 16:9 monitors nowadays and it is the standard. Therefor you will get alot of problems using 16:10 monitors. I have a 16:10 monitor my self and I am so tired of it.
You can only...
U2311H every day of the week!
16:9 is much more suitable for gaming and when you get higher resolution and bigger size with 16:9 as well this question is a nobrainer!
I am out for a new rather BIG non TN-panel.
I am currently looking at BenQ 2730 and LG E2770V.
Which one should I choose and are there any other options?
I will browse the web, watch TV-shows and play some games. Maybe one or two movies.
You are definitely right that it would be good for productioncost if most TV:s had the same size as the monitors. Still as taltamir talks about there are monotor size TV:s made. I dont know but I could guess that the smaller TV:s are sold more to developing countries?
I also believe that the...
It is abit insane yes. :)
What you now claim isnt what you claimed in your earlier post. It is true that 1920*1200 has more pixels than 1920*1080 but it is false to say that 16:10 has more pixels than 16:9 because amount of pixels have nothing to do with ratio.
I think most people would like...
No, you dont get more pixels with 16:10.
1680*1050 (16:10) is in the same pricerange as 1920*1080 (16:9). 1920*1200 is far more expensive than 1920*1080.
Yep, but it is also why it isnt relevant. You buy the size you like.
16:10 bigger screenarea than 16:9 for any given diagonal??? Who cares. It doesnt have anything to do with which format you prefer.
You cant claim it is better. It is your personal opinion.
Many people dont browse the web in full screen? If you dont then your comment is irrelevant.
And todays games are made for 16:9 and 1920*1080. If you run new games in 16:10 you will see less of the gaming world.
Well, you are correct...
scaled content looks crappy? well, I dont really agree but it is an argument. Still even with a 1980*1080 or 1920*1200 monitor most of the stuff will be scaled and because there are more pixels per area in 27" 1256+*1400 the scaled monitor will look better on that one.
The prices on 2560*1440...
I cant see the disadvantage you mention. I suppose people buy the size they like. Unless you like a bigger screen than 27" this aint a problem. If you still want that and a higher resolutions than 2560*1440 it is just a matter of time before you get it in 16:9.
Why they should be 16:9?
*...
Well, thats not really true. 16:9 monitors are more cheap to produce because it has the same format as TV:s. They can produce bigger numbers. Thats the reason why 16:9 monitors are cheaper than 16:10 and why you get more pixels/$ if you buy 16:9.
So it is true that you "get" more pixels with 16:9.
More intresting should be to compare monitors in similar pricerange and 1680*1050 is similarly priced as 1920*1080 while 1920*1200 soon will have the similar prices as 2560*1440 monitors.
For that reason I cant really understand the comparisons cause if you buy a 16:9 you get far more pixels/$...
But it isnt neccessary a good thing to have more screen area for any given diagonal length.
As you mention if that would be the case we should dump both 16:9 and 16:10 for 1:1.
But why should 1920*1080 be comparable with 1920*1200 for inastance? Obviosly 16:10 screens will have more pixels than 16:9 screens if you choose to compare 16:10 screens with 16:9 screens with lower resolution. But you could choose 16:9 with higher resolutions than 16:10 as well and get the...
1. 16:9 is TV standard but nowadays also PC standard. 16:10 is basically an earlier standard that is on the way out. It is just a matter of time before basically everyone use 16:9 monitirs. Most monitors thats are on sale are 16:9 allready and the number of 16:10 screens just get smaller and...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.