• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1920x1080 monitors ..... why?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
0roo0roo said:
yea but 1600x1200 resolution on a 19" crt is hardly clear, at that point you are blurring pixels.
Click to expand...

I still remember the display I had on my old tablet pc.

12.1" - 1440x1050 resolution
I loved that display. Too bad you don't see resolutions like that on small screens... and if you do, they're pretty expensive.
 
0roo0roo said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4196/nec-pa301w-review-the-baddest-30-inch-display
good god that is a monster
Click to expand...

Glad Anandtech reviewed that. :thumbsup:

On to the hardware itself - the PA301w is seriously a beast. It's the biggest, baddest monitor around in terms of just sheer size. I don't usually start off talking about boxes, but there's just no other way to really demonstrate the magnitude of the PA301w's size without doing so.
Click to expand...



Resolution - 2560 x 1600 D:

Price - $2300 to $2500! D:
 
Since so many people are watching TV/Movies on their PC, it makes sense to use a standard HDTV resolution for your computer monitor.
1080P -> 1080P. 16:9 all the way.

BTW, the next great thing is not 1200P, its 2560x1440 or 1440P... and yes... it will be 16:9.
 
sao123 said:
Since so many people are watching TV/Movies on their PC, it makes sense to use a standard HDTV resolution for your computer monitor.
1080P -> 1080P. 16:9 all the way.

BTW, the next great thing is not 1200P, its 2560x1440 or 1440P... and yes... it will be 16:9.
Click to expand...
It's not as if 16:9 monitors are actually wider though, they're merely shorter. A movie looks the same on either monitor. The shorter monitor is merely less useful.
 
AstroManLuca said:
Actually, ever since we switched to new Windows 7 boxes a few months ago, people seem to be getting better about this. They seem to have discovered the ability to make text and interface elements larger without dropping the resolution.
Click to expand...

That makes up for a lot of the other campy stuff they have put on 7 to make it more "user friendly".

Amazing that nobody simply came up with a universal theme scaling tool....
 
Anubis said:
😕 mine were always clear

hell i still have a 17in CRT that will do 1600x1200 @ 85HZ it looks steller
Click to expand...

Same here. At one of my last jobs, I kept my monitor over the 1280x1024 LCD monitors they were replacing everything with.

Somehow the coolness of an LCD was heavily outweighed by the lost desktop space....
 
ViRGE said:
It's not as if 16:9 monitors are actually wider though, they're merely shorter. A movie looks the same on either monitor. The shorter monitor is merely less useful.
Click to expand...

Made this real quick

169.jpg



If both monitors are actually 24" viewable (not 23.6 viewable like some that are sold as 24" are, the 16:9 will be wider

And the difference in size between a 16:9 video on a matching monitor vs a shrunk 16:9 with bars on a 16:10 should be 9/16" horizontal and 5/16 vertical, or 5/8 diag.
 
The question is not area, but desktop space. Pixels.

Also, the outer dimensions get more economical the closer you get to a square. You get more area for smaller actual out-to-out dimensions

Here's the breakdown:

16x10 @24" - 20.35" x 12.72" A=258.9in^2
16x9 @24" - 20.91" x 11.76" A=246in^2

So you lose 1/2" in width on a 16x10 and gain 1" in height, 13in^2 in area and 230,400 pixels.
 
I would agree 100% that 1920x1200 is much better for productivity work. That said for gaming I think 16:9 is perfectly fine. Whether 16:9, or 16:10 is technically better depends entirely on the specific title. But, because most games today are merely console ports, they are mostly designed with 16:9 in mind. Personally I wouldn't mind having a 1200p monitor, but cost makes it pretty restrictive. Not to mention if you want to have a 120Hz monitor good luck finding one that's 1200p.
 
Ninjahedge said:
The question is not area, but desktop space. Pixels.

Also, the outer dimensions get more economical the closer you get to a square. You get more area for smaller actual out-to-out dimensions

Here's the breakdown:

16x10 @24" - 20.35" x 12.72" A=258.9in^2
16x9 @24" - 20.91" x 11.76" A=246in^2

So you lose 1/2" in width on a 16x10 and gain 1" in height, 13in^2 in area and 230,400 pixels.
Click to expand...

Visualized

1692.jpg
 
Just replaced monitor.

Similar reaction to OP..."where's the bottom half?"

Took two days to get used to it.

Everybody lived.
 
So did your avatar after losing a bit of his own...


I don't think he was too happy with it though. He knew that hot chick with the bow would NEVER like him now.
 
FelixDeKat said:
Dont forget the other direction. 😡
Click to expand...

There isn't anything else to show, except physical size. That GIF is intended to show the considerable differences in horizontal FOV. The vertical FOV doesn't change, you don't see anything more. Its just that what you see is rendered across more pixels. With 16:9, you do see more.
 
yh125d said:
There isn't anything else to show, except physical size. That GIF is intended to show the considerable differences in horizontal FOV. The vertical FOV doesn't change, you don't see anything more. Its just that what you see is rendered across more pixels. With 16:9, you do see more.
Click to expand...

Depends on the game. Some older games created a widescreen mode by just chopping off the top and bottom (the first Halo game did this).
 
That SC2 image has been shown repeatedly on this forum, and it proves nothing except how it is implemented for that specific game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top