• 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 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Laminator
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).
Click to expand...

Yes. Do not equate response time to quality. The LCD's with the lowest response times are TN panels, which are arguably the lowest quality. Your buddy's Sammy 204b is a TN panel, and I'm pretty sure that image quality on the Dell 2007FP is going to be much better and more uniform than the image on the 204b. Although, the response time of the 204b will be better.

If you're looking at cheap LCD's this might actually the be reason they are giving you headaches. Many, many monitors nowadays come from the factory WAY too bright with the colors completely over saturated. This gives me a headache too, regardless of aspect ratio.
 
WS for gaming and movies. 4:3 makes you feel boxed in. That said 16:9 is a little extreme since you are starting to feel like you are looking at a rectangle which is barely any better than being boxed--it's too bad almost everything is transitioning that way. 16:10 is closer to the IMAX screens like what they used in Dark Knight.
 
i prefer 16:10 to 4:3 though its not a huge preference.

I think 16:9 is a bit too wide for normal desktop work. its really just being forced on us because it costs less to cut TV and monitor glass at the same sizes. Sigh.
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
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😛
Click to expand...

I'll just add that natural FOV is important when peripheral vision is important. Ranging for something as trivial as enjoying the scenery when sunning on a beach to something more important like driving your car. When looking at a website or most other typical computer activities (except, FPS gaming), FOV is irrelevant. You're focused on specific words and images on a static screen. In those instances the 4:3 screen makes more sense to me and is easier to take in with the eyes.
 
if 4:3 was affordable still I would totally get 2x20in and 1x24 but unfortionally when I went to but my monitors they were too much to justify. so I got 2xsammy 23" 16x9 2048x1152 monitors
 
I didn't like WS at first, but I actually prefer it now to the 4:3 I use at work. I like multiple windows and WS allows me to have them side by side rather than just overlap.
 
the widescreen just feels more natural. I have a 24" asus wide screen coming to replace my 19" 4:3 and i cannot wait for it to show up! When I look at my 19" 4:3, the height of it is fine, but theres so much room to the left or right of it that could be utilized. Widescreen just feels right
 
Originally posted by: hans007
i prefer 16:10 to 4:3 though its not a huge preference.

I think 16:9 is a bit too wide for normal desktop work. its really just being forced on us because it costs less to cut TV and monitor glass at the same sizes. Sigh.
Click to expand...

Yeah I would say 16:10 > 4:3 >>>>> 16:9


No way I will ever get a 16:9 monitor... I spend most of the time looking at websites which are vertical!!
 
Spoiled by 16:10 1680 x 1050 and later 1920 x 1200. Will never go back to 4:3 (only for secondary monitors at most). Hoping to go 2560 x 1600 in some point in the future... 😀
 
Actually 4:3 is nice... FOR ME TO POOP ON!!! 😉

I use a 4:3 as my secondary at work and at home but widescreen for the main all the way. It's better (for me) for gaming and especially for work since I do alot of spreadsheets. Having them open several across is quite helpful and boosting productivity (which basically means I get to go home earlier).
 
1600x1200 is preferable until you hit 1920x1200. Then I'll take the extra horizontal resolution.

I run 4960x1600 at home, so I guess I'll vote widescreen.

Viper GTS
 
My S-IPS LP2065 4:3 1600x1200 is fine for what I do, no movies, turn based strategy and RPGs. For FPS I use CRT for the proper response. I guess there are more games that won't support WS resolution than games that won't support 4:3, so 4:3 wins there.

For me the screen area has nothing to do with vision, unless it gets too large to see without turning head. 20" is a big size, I see no reason for much bigger ones. Pixel size probably matters more than screen shape if we're talking about vision.

The lack of options with 1600x1200 screens makes 1920x1200 an interesting choise nowadays, I guess, as it can hold the 1600x1200 inside (hopefully without stretching).
 
I like 4:3 up till 1200 pixels high, where i am forced to get 2560x1600 to get more vertical viewing area...
 
I'm 99% certain I?ll be getting a 30" panel as an upgrade for my faulty CRT. Even on this el-cheapo 22? TN I?m using right now, I?m really starting to like widescreen.
 
Originally posted by: BFG10K
I'm 99% certain I?ll be getting a 30" panel as an upgrade for my faulty CRT. Even on this el-cheapo 22? TN I?m using right now, I?m really starting to like widescreen.
Click to expand...

I know response time and input lag have always been concerns for you with LCD's. Have you found a 30" panel that will suit your needs? IIRC 30" LCDs are are still S-IPS panels, which is a good thing for IQ, but not speed.

Originally posted by: nevbie
The lack of options with 1600x1200 screens makes 1920x1200 an interesting choise nowadays, I guess, as it can hold the 1600x1200 inside (hopefully without stretching).
Click to expand...

Just make sure you get a 1920x1200 panel that does 1:1 scaling, and you'll be all set. This is essential also if you plan on playing back 1080p content or using a console with your monitor. For instance, an Xbox 360 can display 1920x1080, but no higher, so if your monitor is bigger it will need 1:1 scaling or your screen will be stretched.
 
Originally posted by: nitromullet

I know response time and input lag have always been concerns for you with LCD's. Have you found a 30" panel that will suit your needs? IIRC 30" LCDs are are still S-IPS panels, which is a good thing for IQ, but not speed.
Click to expand...
Yes, after extensive research I believe the HP LP3065 offers the best balance available in a 30? panel. It has no video processor and no overdrive, and based on what I?ve researched, input lag is as low as TN panels?.

I?d have preferred a 120 Hz device but I simply cannot justify a 1680x1050 TN as my primary display; the resolution is simply too low. I also can?t wait for OLED and/or 120 Hz to hit 30? because that?ll take years, and I need a good display now.

The HP isn?t ideal, but I think it?s the best available right now, and I should still be happy with it.
 
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...

Doesn't your CRT have adjustment buttons (expand & shift vert. & horiz.) to fill the display 'right to all the edges' at any resolution? Every CRT I've ever used (including the lovely CTX orange monochrome) had this feature.

Oh, and widescreen for me. If I'm running a 4:3 app/game, just use 1:1 or Aspect mode. If I need vertical space, rotate it. Granted, I'm a little spoiled by my WUXi, but a lot of non-TN panels can be found that do this very well.
 
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Originally posted by: nitromullet

I know response time and input lag have always been concerns for you with LCD's. Have you found a 30" panel that will suit your needs? IIRC 30" LCDs are are still S-IPS panels, which is a good thing for IQ, but not speed.
Click to expand...
Yes, after extensive research I believe the HP LP3065 offers the best balance available in a 30? panel. It has no video processor and no overdrive, and based on what I?ve researched, input lag is as low as TN panels?.

I?d have preferred a 120 Hz device but I simply cannot justify a 1680x1050 TN as my primary display; the resolution is simply too low. I also can?t wait for OLED and/or 120 Hz to hit 30? because that?ll take years, and I need a good display now.

The HP isn?t ideal, but I think it?s the best available right now, and I should still be happy with it.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt you'll be happy with it.

The ACD (Apple Cinema Display) 30" & my Dell 3007WFP are another couple olders ones (buddy owns ACD; i've had 3007 for years) that have no input delay/ghosting, but the HP has the higher color gamut, plus more DVI ports, so i'd agree it's a better option.
 
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Originally posted by: nitromullet

I know response time and input lag have always been concerns for you with LCD's. Have you found a 30" panel that will suit your needs? IIRC 30" LCDs are are still S-IPS panels, which is a good thing for IQ, but not speed.
Click to expand...
Yes, after extensive research I believe the HP LP3065 offers the best balance available in a 30? panel. It has no video processor and no overdrive, and based on what I?ve researched, input lag is as low as TN panels?.

I?d have preferred a 120 Hz device but I simply cannot justify a 1680x1050 TN as my primary display; the resolution is simply too low. I also can?t wait for OLED and/or 120 Hz to hit 30? because that?ll take years, and I need a good display now.

The HP isn?t ideal, but I think it?s the best available right now, and I should still be happy with it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I had originally planned on waiting until OLED until I got my next display, but it turned out the lack of 1:1 scaling on my Dell 2407FPW was going to cut it anymore. I'm very satisfied with my EIZO. Definitely the best LCD I've ever owned. Good luck with the HP. I'm curious to see how you feel about it when you get it.
 
1680x1050 is the lowest widescreen resolution i would use. Otherwise, I'd just rather have my good old 1280x1024 resolution back....
 
For the most part, I prefer widescreen displays. However, for my workstation, I prefer dual screens over a single no matter what aspect ratio.
 
Originally posted by: Hadsus
I'll just add that natural FOV is important when peripheral vision is important. Ranging for something as trivial as enjoying the scenery when sunning on a beach to something more important like driving your car. When looking at a website or most other typical computer activities (except, FPS gaming), FOV is irrelevant. You're focused on specific words and images on a static screen. In those instances the 4:3 screen makes more sense to me and is easier to take in with the eyes.
Click to expand...

This is exactly my view on this issue.
 
I am positive that the 16:9 trend is part of a greater scheme in order the new world order to inure the human brain of the good people into focus dearth state.

Just kidding.


I guess it all depends where do you like the black bars.

No just kidding again.


I really don't know for sure. I guess one of the good things about 4:3 is that in many sites you cannot see the freakin advertisments unless you scroll.

But if the discussion was about CRT vs LCD monitor picture quality, no contest I prefer CRT's picture quality much more overall.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top