• 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.

Am I the only one who like the old standard (4:3)?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Yes, absolutely. Widescreen is only useful for movies, otherwise I'd rather have the extra vertical space. My biggest gripe right now is that the only practical upgrade from a 20" 16x12 monitor is a 19x12 monitor, which in spite of the cost and larger size doesn't give me any more vertical room to work with.
 
That's why I opted for a monitor that can rotate. At 90 degrees a 1920x1200 mon will give you all the vertical space you need. Great for surfing the web among other things. The rotate function just gives you the best of both worlds. Maybe that's what you should look for next time.
 
I love widescreen.

Went from a 19" 1280x1024 LCD to a 24" 1920x1200 and have never looked back. Display size may have distorted my view a bit.
 
Originally posted by: Blazer7
That's why I opted for a monitor that can rotate. At 90 degrees a 1920x1200 mon will give you all the vertical space you need. Great for surfing the web among other things. The rotate function just gives you the best of both worlds. Maybe that's what you should look for next time.
Click to expand...

Problem is most LCDs look horrible when rotated...TN panels just dont have good enough viewing angles...and theres not really anything in between the 200$ and under catagory and the 800$ and above catagory. Nothing thats consistently and noticably better that would warrent the extra cost anyway. You get panel lotteries and terrible quality control uneven picture/color and other problems between 200$ and 800$. I dont get it.

So for now, my CRT is FTW!
 
Originally posted by: EliteRetard

Problem is most LCDs look horrible when rotated...TN panels just dont have good enough viewing angles...and theres not really anything in between the 200$ and under catagory and the 800$ and above catagory. Nothing thats consistently and noticably better that would warrent the extra cost anyway. You get panel lotteries and terrible quality control uneven picture/color and other problems between 200$ and 800$. I dont get it.

So for now, my CRT is FTW!
Click to expand...

This is somewhat true for LCDs. Wasn't this thread about 16:10 vs. 4:3, and not LCD vs. CRT? That battle is over, even if the debate isn't.
 
Originally posted by: EliteRetard
Originally posted by: Blazer7
That's why I opted for a monitor that can rotate. At 90 degrees a 1920x1200 mon will give you all the vertical space you need. Great for surfing the web among other things. The rotate function just gives you the best of both worlds. Maybe that's what you should look for next time.
Click to expand...

Problem is most LCDs look horrible when rotated...TN panels just dont have good enough viewing angles...and theres not really anything in between the 200$ and under catagory and the 800$ and above catagory. Nothing thats consistently and noticably better that would warrent the extra cost anyway. You get panel lotteries and terrible quality control uneven picture/color and other problems between 200$ and 800$. I dont get it.

So for now, my CRT is FTW!
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. It is true that TN panels are still horrible when it comes to vertical viewing angles (horizontal when rotated) but still even TNs have improved.

This is my 3rd LCD and like the previous 2 (Viewsonic VP171B 17?, LG L1980Q 19?) it has a TN panel and is able to rotate. Although the viewing angles are not very good when rotated, this last one is definitely better. That?s a sign that even TNs improve.

Anyways, it won?t be too long before we see affordable S-IPS monitors below the 700$ mark and the rotate feature can come in handy for some that need the vertical space. OTOH rotation is not an option when it comes to CRTs so if anyone needs the vertical space he is stuck with either an LCD that can rotate or a really big monitor and I can?t think of anyone that would go for a big CRT. As nitromullet pointed out the LCD vs CRT battle is over.
 
For games and movies, sure, widescreen is great...
But for regular desktop usage it somehow feels weird. Also, in Visual Studio I haven't really figured out how to make the layout work for me. Generally you'll want a bigger text editor, but it only gets wider, while you would really want it to be taller, so more lines fit on the screen at once. You can now rearrange your windows so that all the other tool windows and things are on the side of the text editor, rather than below... but it really takes getting used to. I guess just a 4:3 with higher res would feel more natural to me. Not sure if I ever get used to widescreen for programming.
 
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Originally posted by: EliteRetard

Problem is most LCDs look horrible when rotated...TN panels just dont have good enough viewing angles...and theres not really anything in between the 200$ and under catagory and the 800$ and above catagory. Nothing thats consistently and noticably better that would warrent the extra cost anyway. You get panel lotteries and terrible quality control uneven picture/color and other problems between 200$ and 800$. I dont get it.

So for now, my CRT is FTW!
Click to expand...

This is somewhat true for LCDs. Wasn't this thread about 16:10 vs. 4:3, and not LCD vs. CRT? That battle is over, even if the debate isn't.
Click to expand...

Yes the thread is about aspect ratios, but since I didnt upgrade to LCD when they were being made in 4:3 Im pretty much stuck on my CRT unless they can make an LCD look good rotated or build me a new 4:3 version. I really cant use widescreen, it actually does give me migraines. FTW really meant: oh well, I gotta live with it.

Fortunately my CRT was top of the line, 22" Sony Trinitron with DVI input capable of up to 2048x1536@75Hz. So compared to most of the LCDs out there I can still hold my own. I mostly game at 16x12 though because my rig is getting to old and slow (single core AMD 64).

Like I said, I dont mind my friends LCD, a 20" 4:3. Its not quite as nice (but acceptable for what I do), but it was also built a few years ago. I expected LCDs to improve from there...they didnt. If my CRT blows up though Ill be angry (and its like 10 years old now).

I would love to get a 24" 4:3 LCD with even the same quality as my freinds old LCD, any better would be super. I think 1920x1440 would be a good resolution for that size, would be acceptable to anyone wanting to display 1080P (only a small bar on top and bottom and no stretching) and make people like me happy.

Part of the reason I havent upgraded my PC is that I can also use lower resolutions...so if I had an LCD I would be upgrading my PC more frequently. I could now, but I dont HAVE to 😛
 
It?s interesting this topic has come around now, because my CRT has started dying so I need a replacement.

I?m using a cheap 22? LCD (1680x1050) as a temporary replacement, and because I?ve been ?forced? to use it for the last week or so, I?m starting to like widescreen. I think I?m going to upgrade to a 30? LCD.
 
I still use a small flat screen 13" 4:3 CRT monitor. And it's been great. It fit's a human natural field of view a lot better than widescreen. I don't want to have to look left and right on my screen.

Also, about the CRT image not covering the entire screen space. I find placing the resolution at an in between resolution makes it cover the whole screen. Put my resolution to 1152x864 and now it goes right to all the edges.
 
Originally posted by: Kakkoii
I still use a small flat screen 13" 4:3 CRT monitor. And it's been great. It fit's a human natural field of view a lot better than widescreen. I don't want to have to look left and right on my screen.

Also, about the CRT image not covering the entire screen space. I find placing the resolution at an in between resolution makes it cover the whole screen. Put my resolution to 1152x864 and now it goes right to all the edges.
Click to expand...

With a 13" screen you won't have to look right/left no matter what the aspect ratio is.
 
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Originally posted by: Kakkoii
I still use a small flat screen 13" 4:3 CRT monitor. And it's been great. It fit's a human natural field of view a lot better than widescreen. I don't want to have to look left and right on my screen.

Also, about the CRT image not covering the entire screen space. I find placing the resolution at an in between resolution makes it cover the whole screen. Put my resolution to 1152x864 and now it goes right to all the edges.
Click to expand...

With a 13" screen you won't have to look right/left no matter what the aspect ratio is.
Click to expand...

It's all relative to how far you sit from the screen.
 
I used to have a 19" ( 1440*900) Dell LCD as my secondary monitor, but switched back to my old 17" Dell LCD ( 1280*1024) because I find the extra vertical height useful when viewing PDF articles on the secondary display while I type up my assignment with Word on my primary ( 24") widescreen monitor.
 
i have an old samsung syncmaster 997df(beautiful 19in gaming monitor) but when i got my hannsg hg281d, it just feels so much larger and better. i may just be used to my 16:10 laptop screen, but using a 16:10 is much easier on my eyes for some reason.
 
I have a 22" widescreen at home and a 19" 4:3 at work....the home monitor is just easier on the eyes. Natural vision is more left to right than up and down.
 
Originally posted by: EliteRetard
Originally posted by: nitromullet
They still make 4:3 LCDs.

http://accessories.us.dell.com...dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4687
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc...0-3884471-1815933.html

These are both 20" 1600x1200 LCDs. I don't think anyone ever made a higher resolution 4:3 LCD, so you didn't miss out on anything.
Click to expand...

Ouch...those appear to be quite a bit lower quality and quite a bit more expensive than the one my freind has (his was in the 200$ range). 16ms response time?!
Click to expand...
It's because they use S-IPS panels. When I first started using a Dell 2001FP (20" 4:3 LCD @ 1600x1200) a few years ago, the picture quality blew me away. Note that I knew nothing about LCD's at the time and thus wasn't evaluating the monitor or trying to look for anything about its performance. The picture was that incredible. The response time seemed to be adequate for most games, although there may have been some input lag in Quake IV (can't remember).
 
i use a 22" 1680x1050 as my secondary (off to the left a bit) with a 27.5" 1920x1200 as my primary. i have to say that coming from a 20" viewable trinitron and a 16 inch viewable trinitron at 2048x1536 and 1600x1200 respectively, it makes a huge difference in easily viewable work space. i do a lot of work with virtual machines, and when both my CRTs failed on me almost at exactly the same time, i was hindered horribly in how much of my class work i could work on at home when i needed to because i simply didnt have enough screen space for 4-6 virtual machines open at the same time (viewably) anymore. i only just finally got the money for a 19x10 monitor saved up (girlfriend's a money sink lol), and ooh my god, 1920x1200@27.5" is bliss by itself when working with VMs. i have enough space for 4 on one monitor and 2 on the other now, or space for a browser window and a performance monitor.
 
I use a 4:3 at work and prefer it for most work apps. WS is just awkward for reading. It's nice though to see more columns in spreadsheets. For gaming, WS hands down. People see landscape anyway and for FPSs it is great.
 
I have two of the Samsung 204B's OP referenced and I prefer 4:3. I've had widescreen laptops for the last few years at work now, but when I had a chance to buy an upgraded laptop of my own, I went 4:3 again (Thinkpad X61). Voted 4:3 as I agree the widescreen is awkward to me.
 
natural fov as said.
wide has its issues at really small sizes yes. but with 24"+ cheap..its not a biggie.
video is now wide.
playing fps games 4:3 feels like u got blinders on after u've used wide.

Originally posted by: Melted Rabbit
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Seeing as our natural FOV is widescreen, I don't see why people resist it.
Click to expand...

There is our entire FOV, our visual acuity and processing power used as a function of the distance from the fovea, and what our brains process and integrate into an image. You do not process your entire FOV as an image, you can notice motion in your peripheral vision, but good luck trying to process accurately what the motion is with no other information. As to the ideal aspect ratio for a monitor, that depends highly on its intended use, but for an FPS, 4:3 isn't that bad.
Click to expand...



not exactly, eyes don't stay glued to the \center of the screen. eyes flit around. motion detection and general heightened awareness/immersion from a wider view are significant benefits in fps. you dont need to process the entire fov the same way for there to be a benefit. try walking around looking through a cardboard tube sometime😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top