If buying today which of these resolutions would you choose?

[EliteRetard]

Ive seen many format threads as well as created my own. It seems pretty clear that most people are totally glued to the widescreen format but that one size doesnt fit all. I think part of the big debate is due to the fact that widescreen is nearly the only option nowadays. Imagine if trucks were the only vehicles you could buy...or only cars. There would be a lot of noise made about it. According to my last poll 30% of people said they would use the old 4:3. 2/3 of those said they liked 4:3 better than the widescreen options. It looks like there could be a good market for a few 4:3 products.

It seems with the prices of 22-24" monitors today its pretty much what people are buying. That said, there are currently two options you can go for, the standard HD format 19x10 or the bigger 19x12. But what if there were a third option in the same price range, 19x14?

Lets say all three monitors are 24" and are of similarly good quality. No discussion of panel types...doesnt matter theyre all the same. And lets say they can all correctly scale HD content 1:1 (black bars on top and bottom for 1080p content).

Id like to see what option people would choose. Heres a link to the other poll if anyone is interested: please vote

And Ill be the first to admit, I am biased toward 4:3, but I tried to make the polls as fair as possible. Please no flame wars...this isnt a discussion on the format, just the resolution, consider it a coincidence that they are different shapes. If youd like to discuss the format types use the thread I linked. Thank you.

 

[crazylegs]

1920x1200... more screen space, for windows + games, if watching a 1920x1080 movie, i can live with a black margin - merges in with monitor edge

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

1920x1200

I imagine I'd like 1920x1200 for a larger area to edit in Premiere Pro.

Edit: i currently have 2 19" 1280x1024 monitors for both of my rigs

 

[alcoholbob]

1080 in case I connect a console system to the monitor for a little bit of gaming.

 

[faxon]

1920x1200. i currently own a 27.5" Hanns-G and a 22" LG monitor, both of which are 16:10. the 22 inch panel is to small to fill up my FOV @ a few feet away (i have a deep desk and i lean back), but the 27.5" panel fills it up nicely. if it were 16:9 this wouldnt be the case however. i dont mind black bars on the top and bottom, and with such a large panel for my primary, even when watching 4:3 TV shows on DVD it still fills up my vertical FOV just fine, something a 16:9 wouldnt do as well unless i sat closer and sacrificed the longevity of my eyes a bit.

 

[vj8usa]

I'd go with the 19x14 screen hands down, because it's higher resolution. That being said, this isn't a realistic poll - there's no way a 1920x1440 monitor would cost the same as a 1920x1080 monitor of the same size/quality.

 

[EliteRetard]

1920x1200... more screen space, for windows + games, if watching a 1920x1080 movie, i can live with a black margin - merges in with monitor edge

Wouldnt the higher resolution 1920x1440 give you even more space? Or would the bars be to big for you with 1080p?

I imagine I'd like 1920x1200 for a larger area to edit in Premiere Pro.
Edit: i currently have 2 19" 1280x1024 monitors for both of my rigs

Same here, the highest resolution 1920x1440 gives the most space.

1080 in case I connect a console system to the monitor for a little bit of gaming.

And what if it could scale 1:1 like I mentioned? It would display your console games fine, but you would have a bar on top and bottom (which might not be acceptable to you, just asking).

1920x1200. i currently own a 27.5" Hanns-G and a 22" LG monitor, both of which are 16:10. the 22 inch panel is to small to fill up my FOV @ a few feet away (i have a deep desk and i lean back), but the 27.5" panel fills it up nicely. if it were 16:9 this wouldnt be the case however. i dont mind black bars on the top and bottom, and with such a large panel for my primary, even when watching 4:3 TV shows on DVD it still fills up my vertical FOV just fine, something a 16:9 wouldnt do as well unless i sat closer and sacrificed the longevity of my eyes a bit.

Again, what are your thoughts on 1920x1440? I would think the higher resolution on the large screen would be nice and the 4:3 resolution would work better with your normal DVDs (no bars).

I'd go with the 19x14 screen hands down, because it's higher resolution. That being said, this isn't a realistic poll - there's no way a 1920x1440 monitor would cost the same as a 1920x1080 monitor of the same size/quality.

Why do you think its impossible for a higher resolution screen to cost about the same? As far as I can see from many online retailers the 1080 and 1200 displays are very closely priced. Sure, the even higher 1440 screen would cost a bit more, but not much more so than the step from 1080 to 1200. I guess if your skiping that step though and compare 1080 to 1440 it would probably be noticeably more expensive but only 20% or so. I dont think that takes it out of comparison range.

 

[taltamir]

more =! better

 

[BFG10K]

What 1920x1440 monitors are there that aren't CRTs? Do they even exist?

(Note: 2560x1600 displays don?t count in this instance, even though they can technically do 1920x1440).

 

[Virtual Conan]

I would pick the 1920x1440. It seems to me that a LOT of people don't understand that 1920x1200/1080 offers less screen space - they just think "HD!!"

 

[Xentropy]

Keeping in mind size a constant, a 1920x1440 24" screen would be narrower but taller (19.2"x14.4", approx) than a 1920x1080 24" screen (20.92"x11.77"). You're not ONLY adding height to the monitor, you are by-necessity removing width, unless you're going up in diagonal size, regardless of what the resolution list "sounds" like. That means the total size of a black-barred 1920x1080 picture on the 1920x1440 monitor would be smaller (19.2"x10.8" instead of 20.92"x11.77" as above). Each pixel would be smaller (10k pixels per square inch vice 8.4k). More pixels in the same space isn't automatically a good thing. Yes, you'd get more screen real-estate, but at the cost of a given point font appearing smaller. If you watch a lot of widescreen movies on that monitor, you're literally *better off* with the "smaller" resolution and the same diagonal size. Also, personally, I like the increased peripheral vision of a widescreen for gaming as well, so I'd go with 1920x1200. (Currently I'm using a 2560x1600 30" Dell and loving it.)

Bottom line, it depends on how much black-bar content you'd be watching, and how much you care about more side peripheral vision in games at the cost of some upward/downward peripheral vision (usually less important since threats tend to be in a narrow altitude band). On the other side, it depends on how much productivity software you're using, as the larger real-estate would come in handy particularly well in basic Office tasks, programming, and the like.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan
I would pick the 1920x1440. It seems to me that a LOT of people don't understand that 1920x1200/1080 offers less screen space - they just think "HD!!"

You are not taking into account aesthetics. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan
I would pick the 1920x1440. It seems to me that a LOT of people don't understand that 1920x1200/1080 offers less screen space - they just think "HD!!"

they are only 19-21" CRTs FOR 19X14
- are there ANY "oddball" 19x14 LCDs

Lets say all three monitors are 24" and are of similarly good quality. No discussion of panel types...doesnt matter theyre all the same. And lets say they can all correctly scale HD content 1:1 (black bars on top and bottom for 1080p content).

that leaves only 19x12 and 19x10 in a 24-incher
- pick 19x12

OOPS .. i actually found one:
http://en.kioskea.net/guide/4582-lacie-electron-24
24" CRT = 19x14

and one 19" LCD at 19x14 .. better have great near vision
http://en.kioskea.net/guide/lc...19.9%20inch/1920x1440/

 

[Virtual Conan]

Originally posted by: apoppin
they are only 19-21" CRTs FOR 19X14
- are there ANY "oddball" 19x14 LCDs

This is a hypothetical poll, as in, actually products available are not the topic. The question was, if you have three LCDs all being identical in every way outside of resolution, which would you choose?

 

[AzN]

With so much HD content, movies, tv shows, console etc. It just makes sense to go with 1080p. 1920x1200 might have few more vertical lines but you also losing more real estate when you do hd content, movies, tv shows, consoles, etc... AND 1920x1440 is probably out of the question considering it doesn't really exist or too expensive compared to 1080p or 1920x1200 screens.

 

[yh125d]

19x10

 

[n7]

1920x1440.

I don't like widescreen for desktop displays till you hit very high resolutions like my 2560x1600, since vertical pixels get castrated by the silly 16:10/16:9 formats.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

Originally posted by: apoppin
they are only 19-21" CRTs FOR 19X14
- are there ANY "oddball" 19x14 LCDs

This is a hypothetical poll, as in, actually products available are not the topic. The question was, if you have three LCDs all being identical in every way outside of resolution, which would you choose?

then my answer is also hypothetical

pick 25x16

 

[Winterpool]

I chose 1920x1440 as my desired resolution: as a computer monitor, the more vertical resolution the better. We still read top-down, and there's no shortage of vertically oriented images and websites out there. Realistically, though, I'd have to buy a 1920x1200 IPS display (are there any 1920x1440?).

Video is another matter. HD files mostly top out at 1920x1080. In fact, given cinematic aspect ratios, even 16:9 results in significant 'letterboxing' and wasted space on a panel. One of the reasons I eventually ordered 50 and 40-inch HDTVs was the realisation how much vertical space would essentially be a black bar when viewing cinematic content. (You can compute dimensions here: a 32-inch diagonal HDTV has about 15 inches of vertical viewing area, but only 12 inches are used with 2.35:1 content).

If you'd like to reduce the amount of wasted screen property when viewing 16:9 or 'wider' video, then obviously you should get a screen with the widest aspect ratio. For myself, the primary role of my computer monitor is for viewing computer content, and so I very much regret the movement towards 16:9 displays.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

Originally posted by: apoppin
they are only 19-21" CRTs FOR 19X14
- are there ANY "oddball" 19x14 LCDs

This is a hypothetical poll, as in, actually products available are not the topic. The question was, if you have three LCDs all being identical in every way outside of resolution, which would you choose?

The thing is you really don't have to go hypothetical with this, just move down a resolution. There are already 1600x900, 1680x1050, and 1600x1200 LCDs for sale, and the widescreen variants are more popular.

 

[nafhan]

I'd go 1920 x 1080. I feel like that's where things are headed long term, and that resolution would therefore be more compatible with future content.

 

[BassBomb]

If they are all the same I would take the 1440 assuming the price difference is nil or really small

Price differences would really change my outcome alll else euqal

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: nafhan
I'd go 1920 x 1080. I feel like that's where things are headed long term, and that resolution would therefore be more compatible with future content.

Same here. But thats cause for me thats about the right vertical height I'm used to based on the distance I sit from the monitor, and extra width is nice to have too.

I do agree though that for lower res 16:9 or 16:10 vertically is a bit too narrow. Like laptop 1440 x 900 screens for office use.

 

[EliteRetard]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

Originally posted by: apoppin
they are only 19-21" CRTs FOR 19X14
- are there ANY "oddball" 19x14 LCDs

This is a hypothetical poll, as in, actually products available are not the topic. The question was, if you have three LCDs all being identical in every way outside of resolution, which would you choose?

then my answer is also hypothetical

pick 25x16

Except that 25x16 isnt even remotely close to the same price. You can literally get 4 19x12 monitors for the same cost as a 25x16. At this point in time those monitors are really for the rich and the extreme. Untill they get below 500$ 90% of people will never be able to get one. Even on the chance they can afford it many dont have the room for it. Unless it replaced your TV (and then you still have the problem of hiding your computer somewhere and interfacing with it).

One of the most retarded things is that even at the price they still seem to have significant quality issues as well...major turn off.

 

[EliteRetard]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

Originally posted by: apoppin
they are only 19-21" CRTs FOR 19X14
- are there ANY "oddball" 19x14 LCDs

This is a hypothetical poll, as in, actually products available are not the topic. The question was, if you have three LCDs all being identical in every way outside of resolution, which would you choose?

The thing is you really don't have to go hypothetical with this, just move down a resolution. There are already 1600x900, 1680x1050, and 1600x1200 LCDs for sale, and the widescreen variants are more popular.

Not really true, the 16x9 and 16x12 products are much more rare. Thats like saying hybrid cars are far more popular than full electrics. When they were available they were very popular, whos to say they wouldnt be popular now? Thats what this post was attempting to look at.