2001FP OR 2005FPW POLL

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: driver
Well, obviously, if you don't play games

You can change the horizontal FOV to match the widescreen FOV and gain vertical picture.

You can't do this in all games though, and that results in a zoomed-out perspective regardless; it doesn't look as good as on a widescreen monitor since now it's just like taking a couple steps back on a regular CRT.

are willing to replace the display(s) in a couple of years, then by all means go for twin 2001FP's.

a 20.1" 4:3 UXGA screen that is only 5% less wide than a 20" 16:10 screen is not going to be obsolete any time soon.

The difference between a 20" 2001fp and a 20" 2005fpw should be 6.2% more width on the 2005fpw and 13% more height on the 2001fp; not earth shattering differences either way but enough to make them have a very discernable difference. The total surface area difference should be just under 7% in favour of the 2001fpw btw.

 

[ponyo]

- You will play games.

4:3 is still standard. Many games still don't natively support 16:9 and having to hack ini or cfg file to make it work is just extra work and hassle for most people.

- You will watch DVD's.

Probably but you'll still get black bars on widescreen. You don't lose much by running dvds wide on 4:3. Difference is small.

- You will be doing photo editing.

Probably but it should not be issue for most people. Depend on the apps too. If you're that hardcore that it matters to you, you wouldn't be using LCD to edit in the first place.

- You will be doing movie editing.

See above.

- You don't want your display to be obsolete in 2 years

4:3 is still the standard and 16:9 is still niche. You might think otherwise but sales numbers will disagree with you. Majority of TV programming is still 4:3 and looks like ass on 16:9 stretched. That's why my TV is still 4:3 and will continue to be until majority programming is 16:9.

 

[imported_driver]

Originally posted by: Naustica
4:3 is still the standard and 16:9 is still niche. You might think otherwise but sales numbers will disagree with you. Majority of TV programming is still 4:3 and looks like ass on 16:9 stretched. That's why my TV is still 4:3 and will continue to be until majority programming is 16:9.

Judging from your response, it sounds like you don't have much experience with widescreen displays (either TV or computer wise). I think this is a matter of "you don't know what you're missing unless you experience it yourself." If you're happy watching widescreen DVD"s on your 4:3 TV, then there's no way to convince you that a widescreen LCD is better.

 

[Idleuser]

have you guys actually seen Fullscreen DVD stretched on a 16:9 screen? wow does it look stretched... people say 4:3 will be obsolete but if you think about it the majority of all monitor out there still run 4:3 as with many other TV. If you want a large screen in WS try a projector you will be happy with a 90in WS screen TV thank you.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: driver
You keep making this claim. Do you have any screenshots to show how this works or looks?

First image is 4:3, standard FOV of 75, 1280x960. Second is FOV of 90. Last is 1280x768 WS.

http://www.telusplanet.net/~sulee/halflife2.jpg

Judging from your response, it sounds like you don't have much experience with widescreen displays (either TV or computer wise). I think this is a matter of "you don't know what you're missing unless you experience it yourself." If you're happy watching widescreen DVD"s on your 4:3 TV, then there's no way to convince you that a widescreen LCD is better.

Not everybody watches movie DVDs or perhaps they like classic movies which are primarily AR 1.37, many TV shows are stil 4:3. And it only takes a 2" larger 4:3 TV to match the WS picture of 16:9 TV.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
The difference between a 20" 2001fp and a 20" 2005fpw should be 6.2% more width on the 2005fpw and 13% more height on the 2001fp; not earth shattering differences either way but enough to make them have a very discernable difference. The total surface area difference should be just under 7% in favour of the 2001fpw btw.

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was referring to the pixel count. Anyways, my point is that the width dimension is close enough that there is no reason that the 2001FP will go obsolete in two years.

 

[imported_driver]

Originally posted by: Accord99
First image is 4:3, standard FOV of 75, 1280x960. Second is FOV of 90. Last is 1280x768 WS.

http://www.telusplanet.net/~sulee/halflife2.jpg

Thanks for the screenshot. It looks just like what I expected -- that the viewpoint is a few feet back from where it should be. How does this look when you run up against something, like a barrel? Does it look like you've actually run into the barrel, or does it look like the barrel is still a few feet in front of you? Can you post a shot of that?

Not everybody watches movie DVDs or perhaps they like classic movies which are primarily AR 1.37, many TV shows are stil 4:3. And it only takes a 2" larger 4:3 TV to match the WS picture of 16:9 TV.

If you look back at my original post, I said that you should get it if you intend to watch DVD's on the computer. If you don't, then this point is moot.

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: driver

Originally posted by: Naustica
4:3 is still the standard and 16:9 is still niche. You might think otherwise but sales numbers will disagree with you. Majority of TV programming is still 4:3 and looks like ass on 16:9 stretched. That's why my TV is still 4:3 and will continue to be until majority programming is 16:9.

Judging from your response, it sounds like you don't have much experience with widescreen displays (either TV or computer wise). I think this is a matter of "you don't know what you're missing unless you experience it yourself." If you're happy watching widescreen DVD"s on your 4:3 TV, then there's no way to convince you that a widescreen LCD is better.

Don't be such a snob. It's not about "you don't know what you're missing unless you experience it yourself" as you put it. Plenty of my friends and relatives own 16:9 widescreen TVs. They bought it against my recommendation. It's all about your needs. Sure watching DVDs on widescreen TV is better than using 16:9 mode on 4:3 TV to watch it. But most people don't spend majority of their time watching DVDs only. Believe it or not, majority of people watch regular 4:3 programming from cable and satellite TV. Watching DVDs on 4:3 TV via 16:9 mode doesn't look half bad as watching 4:3 programming on 16:9 wide.

I watch most of my DVDs on my Infocus X1 projector with Zenith DVB318 DVD player. Yes, X1 is 4:3 projector. But DVD movies still look very good when set to 16:9 mode on the projector and the player. I wouldn't mind getting something like 4805 which is native wide but it wasn't out at the time and X1 still does tremendous job playing DVDs and was a bargain.

 

[Rudee]

Originally posted by: driver
Go with the 2005FPW if:

- You will play games.
- You will watch DVD's.
- You will be doing photo editing.
- You will be doing movie editing.
- You don't want your display to be obsolete in 2 years

Go with the 2001FP if:

- 1680x1050 is not enough real estate for you.
- You absolutely must have the largest physical display area (in square inches).

If you can't tell already, I went with the 2005FPW.

terrible points.

 

[imported_driver]

Originally posted by: Naustica
Don't be such a snob. It's not about "you don't know what you're missing unless you experience it yourself" as you put it. Plenty of my friends and relatives own 16:9 widescreen TVs. They bought it against my recommendation. It's all about your needs. Sure watching DVDs on widescreen TV is better than using 16:9 mode on 4:3 TV to watch it. But most people don't spend majority of their time watching DVDs only. Believe it or not, majority of people watch regular 4:3 programming from cable and satellite TV. Watching DVDs on 4:3 TV via 16:9 mode doesn't look half bad as watching 4:3 programming on 16:9 wide.

I watch most of my DVDs on my Infocus X1 projector with Zenith DVB318 DVD player. Yes, X1 is 4:3 projector. But DVD movies still look very good when set to 16:9 mode on the projector and the player. I wouldn't mind getting something like 4805 which is native wide but it wasn't out at the time and X1 still does tremendous job playing DVDs and was a bargain.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like a snob, but we are getting off topic here a bit. I think NTSC TV looks like crap whether it's on a 4:3 display or a 16:9 display, so I don't care to optimize for that. What I did optimize for is DVD and HDTV. I guess if you can afford to blow $$$ on a projector just to watch DVD's, then you're in a different league than I am. For me, an investment in a TV (and a monitor, to stay somewhat on topic) is for at least several years. And I don't care to invest in something that will be sub-optimal in just a couple of years time.

 

[Rob94hawk]

Either way it's a tough choice. It's a win-win senario. It's all a matter of preference and cash flow.

I'm sure either will be a good choice.

 

[imported_driver]

Originally posted by: Rudee

Originally posted by: driver
Go with the 2005FPW if:

- You will play games.
- You will watch DVD's.
- You will be doing photo editing.
- You will be doing movie editing.
- You don't want your display to be obsolete in 2 years

Go with the 2001FP if:

- 1680x1050 is not enough real estate for you.
- You absolutely must have the largest physical display area (in square inches).

If you can't tell already, I went with the 2005FPW.

terrible points.

Oh wel, can't please everyone.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: driver
You keep making this claim. Do you have any screenshots to show how this works or looks?

First image is 4:3, standard FOV of 75, 1280x960. Second is FOV of 90. Last is 1280x768 WS.

http://www.telusplanet.net/~sulee/halflife2.jpg

Very cool. Where do you change the FOV in HL2? I'm definately going to try it with the smaller FOV once I figure out where to change it - you get more detail that way; the regular FOV is unnaturally confined for me. I do prefer widescreen though just because it's more 'cinematic' and because it more accurately represents the human viewfield.

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
The difference between a 20" 2001fp and a 20" 2005fpw should be 6.2% more width on the 2005fpw and 13% more height on the 2001fp; not earth shattering differences either way but enough to make them have a very discernable difference. The total surface area difference should be just under 7% in favour of the 2001fpw btw.

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was referring to the pixel count. Anyways, my point is that the width dimension is close enough that there is no reason that the 2001FP will go obsolete in two years.

I agree 100% - there's no way in hell the 2001fp will be obsolete in two years - that's an absurd statement. Heck it's a bigger screen than the 2005fpw in terms of area, and barely less wide.

I really do like driver's photo editing images though and I can definately see widescreen being better for photo editing - the toolbars do get in the way of viewing a picture because the picture is usually similar dimensions to the screen (so in this case, being abnormally wide for a monitor helps).

Not everybody watches movie DVDs or perhaps they like classic movies which are primarily AR 1.37

That's a stretch (no pun intended). I seriously doubt there are that many fans of old movies compared to new ones; I'm a fan of old movies but I would still say the ratio is something like 100:1 in favor of new movies I watch (if not larger).

many TV shows are stil 4:3.

Yup, tv shows are better on non-widescreen for sure (until they start broadcasting/making them in widescreen. Over in Europe they're already doing widescreen TV but not here).

And it only takes a 2" larger 4:3 TV to match the WS picture of 16:9 TV.

It would depend on the size. A 100" 4:3 screen (ie. projected onto a wall via an HDTV projector) would need a heck of a lot more than 2" diagonally to match a 100" 16:9 widescreen image (assuming it is a widescreen image being reproduced, of course).

I can understand your 2" comment, but it is misleading. Looking at an average case, a 32" 4:3 TV is only 2.3" less wide than a 32" 16:9 widescreen TV, but regardless the widescreen will look considerably better running a movie: widescreen TV's will display the DVD (or widescreen TV show) taking up the entire screen while the 4:3 TV will have those notorious black bars on the top and bottom and it becomes "wasted" space and looks smaller because of this alone (let alone the actual size difference).


Accord, you are extremely against widescreen for some reason. Some of your arguments are very valid but at other times it seems like you're reaching to great (sometimes extreme) lengths to discredit widescreen as the format of the future. Why is this? Do you own a 2001fp btw?

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: driver

Originally posted by: Naustica
4:3 is still the standard and 16:9 is still niche. You might think otherwise but sales numbers will disagree with you. Majority of TV programming is still 4:3 and looks like ass on 16:9 stretched. That's why my TV is still 4:3 and will continue to be until majority programming is 16:9.

Judging from your response, it sounds like you don't have much experience with widescreen displays (either TV or computer wise). I think this is a matter of "you don't know what you're missing unless you experience it yourself." If you're happy watching widescreen DVD"s on your 4:3 TV, then there's no way to convince you that a widescreen LCD is better.

Ok, your points are correct widescreen is nice, but your claim that 4:3 will be obsolete in 2 yrs is false. How long have widescreen TV's been out? They are still not obsolete. Even if is Longhorn is widescreen "native", that doesn't mean that it won't support 4:3. Games will be the same way. It will be a long time before games have to be tweaked to run at 4:3 the way that they have to be to run 16:10 now. That being said, I will probably be picking up a 2005FPW myself in the new year (you convinced me in another thread), but that doesn't mean you should spread FUD to convince others.

 

[imported_driver]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Ok, your points are correct widescreen is nice, but your claim that 4:3 will be obsolete in 2 yrs is false. How long have widescreen TV's been out? They are still not obsolete. Even if is Longhorn is widescreen "native", that doesn't mean that it won't support 4:3. Games will be the same way. It will be a long time before games have to be tweaked to run at 4:3 the way that they have to be to run 16:10 now. That being said, I will probably be picking up a 2005FPW myself in the new year (you convinced me in another thread), but that doesn't mean you should spread FUD to convince others.

I guess "obsolete" is too strong. How about "sub-optimal"?

 

[imported_kaneda]

If you have spare cash laying around ...what about this setup

http://www.9xmedia.com/pages-B...em/X-Top---5over5.html

 

[imported_driver]

Holy crap. Wonder how HL2 looks on that.

Here's a poor man's version of that: http://www.widescreengamingfor...um/viewtopic.php?t=481.

 

[imported_kaneda]

this one is probably fake... looks good nonetheless

http://www.go-l.com/monitors/athens/features/index.htm

 

[imported_driver]

The latest Maximum PC has a very poor review of Go-L, and here is Go-L's response: http://www.go-l.com/home/.

 

[housecat]

read this this thread and like nearly everyone in that thread.. you'll go with the 2005.

i am using my 2005 right now and i'd never trade it for a 4:3 of the same size... or even a bit bigger. its just the way to go with longhorn being designed to work optimally with widescreens.

you'll notice if you ever buy one how much more natural it feels to work on a WS than FS. it just feels like it works better with your eyes.. less up/down... and no, there isnt any "side to side" with the 2005. the 16:9/10 aspect is just right for humans.. or at very least, much closer to what our eyes use (2:1 aspect).

if you dont do photo work like driver, say you do programming.. there is nothing like rotating the 2005 for over 17inches of space for code. and games.. just let me tell you that HL2 widescreen or WoW widescreen is absolutely beautiful. there are links to HL2 and WoW shots in my link.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: housecat
read this this thread and like nearly everyone in that thread.. you'll go with the 2005.

i am using my 2005 right now and i'd never trade it for a 4:3 of the same size... or even a bit bigger. its just the way to go with longhorn being designed to work optimally with widescreens.

you'll notice if you ever buy one how much more natural it feels to work on a WS than FS. it just feels like it works better with your eyes.. less up/down... and no, there isnt any "side to side" with the 2005. the 16:9/10 aspect is just right for humans.. or at very least, much closer to what our eyes use (2:1 aspect).

No I think that surround gaming (linked above) is just right for humans . WS is a start though; a step in the right direction .

if you dont do photo work like driver, say you do programming.. there is nothing like rotating the 2005 for over 17inches of space for code. and games.. just let me tell you that HL2 widescreen or WoW widescreen is absolutely beautiful. there are links to HL2 and WoW shots in my link.

I didn't see any link to your pics (plus your rig seems to go to the wrong place for me ... I have to manually type in your user ID number into the address bar).

 

[kmmatney]

I'm trying to get my work to approve a purchase of one of these monitors for me. I do engineering and programming work for fab tools. I currently use a 15.4" widescreen laptop, and 17" and 19" LCD panels.
I'm having a tough time decidingon which one. The way modern programming languages are starting to look, I believe that a widescreen will be a little better - so many docked windows on the sides.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: driver

Thanks for the screenshot. It looks just like what I expected -- that the viewpoint is a few feet back from where it should be. How does this look when you run up against something, like a barrel? Does it look like you've actually run into the barrel, or does it look like the barrel is still a few feet in front of you? Can you post a shot of that?

http://www.telusplanet.net/~sulee/halflife2B.jpg

I have no problems with positioning, perhaps it's even better since you can see the edge of objects better.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Very cool. Where do you change the FOV in HL2? I'm definately going to try it with the smaller FOV once I figure out where to change it - you get more detail that way; the regular FOV is unnaturally confined for me. I do prefer widescreen though just because it's more 'cinematic' and because it more accurately represents the human viewfield.

To change the FOV in HL2, you need to use the console (add -console to the HL2 shortcut if you haven't already). Then type:
1) sv_cheats 1
2) default_fov 90
3) fov 90

I really do like driver's photo editing images though and I can definately see widescreen being better for photo editing - the toolbars do get in the way of viewing a picture because the picture is usually similar dimensions to the screen (so in this case, being abnormally wide for a monitor helps).

It depends on the app, newer apps seem to allow auto-hiding toolbars (similar to those in Visual Studio 2002/2003) which would would help the width usage for photo-editing and allow for larger 1.33 and 1.5 AR pictures.

Accord, you are extremely against widescreen for some reason. Some of your arguments are very valid but at other times it seems like you're reaching to great (sometimes extreme) lengths to discredit widescreen as the format of the future. Why is this? Do you own a 2001fp btw?

I have the VP201s. I have nothing against widescreen but I guess I find some arguments made in favor of WS irks me, especially considering the physical dimensions are not that different. But thanks for letting me know, I try not to reach in the future.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: driver
It can rotate clockwise 90 degrees to portrait orientation, if that's what you mean.

Yes, that's what "pivot" means in monitors. Thanks. (I know that Dell's flat panel monitors from 19" upward all can do that, but they weren't explicitly saying so for the 2005W.)