• 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.

Just got a 19 inch monitor

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Howard
Originally posted by: Ornery
Get the fvck out of here. We've got screwballs on this forum who say they get used to the stretched image of an HDTV viewing 4:3 material, yet 1.33 res. on a 1.25 monitor is unbearable... puhlease! You could EASILY adjust that out with the screen's vertical size adjustment IF it really were noticeable. :roll:
Why mess around with the settings if you can just use the correct resolution?
Here's the "correct" resolutions:
  • 1 640 x 480 31.47 - 60.0 - 25.175 VGA
    2 640 x 480 43.27 - 85.0 36.00 VESA
    3 720 x 400 31.47 - 70.0 + 28.322 VGA
    4* 800 x 600 53.67 + 85.0 + 56.25 VESA
    5* 1024 x 786 68.68 + 84.99 + 94.50 VESA
    6 1280 x 1024 79.98 + 75.0 + 135.00 VESA
    7* Primary1280 x 1024 91.15 + 85.0 157.50 VESA
    8 1600 x 1200 93.750 + 75.000 + 202.50 VESA
    9* 1600 x 1200 106.25 + 85.0 + 229.50 VESA
    10 1920 x 1440 90.00 _ 60.0 234.00 VESA
I don't think the industry is any more concerned about a few pixels than I am. If you draw a perfect circle in PhotoShop, you'll need a precision caliper to measure the difference in height & width!
 
Originally posted by: Supercharged
CRT, yuck!
CRT vs LCD Comparison
  • Size and Weight: LCD's get the big win. Their small footprint makes them extremely adaptable to just about any surface. Many even have special mounts so you can hang them on walls.

    Who gives a flying fvck? Are you doing your browsing in a GD closet, or what?


    Picture Quality: In a few years this category could very well be a tie. Right now, LCD's still lag somewhat due to less than true colors, brightness, and lack of flexibility with resolutions.


    Real Estate: While there are 24" CRT's, none are recommended. The best models are 21". Also remember when choosing a CRT, your screen size is roughly the whole size of the next smaller monitor. This works backwards for LCD's, another bonus when choosing them. A 19" LCD is actually closer to 20", which explains their pricing.

    Ah pricing, bummer about that!


    Price: The number one factor! After all this, if you are still stuck trying to decide, look at your budget. Take the best monitor from both categories, then compare them to each other. If indecision still reigns, let us help you decide. Got a real tight budget? 17"-19" CRT's can be had at your local Best Buy, Office Max, or Office Depot for under $100 after rebate. And don't be afraid to buy refurbished! Vendors like Azatek and Surplus Computers both have incredible deals, just make sure you buy the "A" grade refurbs.

    Bingo! I snagged three 19" Flat screen Aperture Grill monitors for less than $250.00 each shipped! No problem with desktop space here...[/b]
 
Originally posted by: Ornery
I don't think the industry is any more concerned about a few pixels than I am. If you draw a perfect circle in PhotoShop, you'll need a precision caliper to measure the difference in height & width!
I can tell a difference on a frickin DVD (hardly "critical" viewing material), so please quit being ignorant and recognize that there are some people (probably more than you give credit to) out there who can definitely tell a difference. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: Ornery
Prove it! I just drew a circle in PhotoShop and it was exactly 7.125" in both directions using a tape measure! WTF!

Edit: Here's my proof!
Measuring with the ruler in PS shows that that is not a perfect circle. I notice a difference of not quite 0.5 inch (maybe 1/3") in a 6 inch object on my 19" CRT with both resolutions stretched to fill the screen (squashing 1280x1024 to make it closer and wasting space as a result is not acceptable). In other words, there IS a difference. That this doesn't bother some people I don't deny. However, that doesn't mean that nobody can tell a difference.
 
(squashing 1280x1024 to make it closer and wasting space as a result is not acceptable).

Yet, stretching a 4:3 picture to fill a 16:9 TV is perfectly acceptible these days? WHAT... THE... FUCK?!

I posted a GD picture, where's the difference? Where's yours? The difference is between your ears apparently!
 
Originally posted by: Ornery
Yet, stretching a 4:3 picture to fill a 16:9 TV is perfectly acceptible these days? WHAT... THE... FUCK?!
I never said it was.
I posted a GD picture, where's the difference? Where's yours? The difference is between your ears apparently!
I made a perfectly square object in PS (shift+select, fill) and then viewed it in the Windows viewer at 1280x960 and 1280x1024. At the former, it measured 122x122mm, while at the latter, it measured 122x115mm. I'm very sorry, but that's not just "between my ears."

Edit: if you really want to be an ass about this, I'll dig out my digicam later and post a picture (edit 2: make that two pictures in a side-by-side comparison), but right now I have other things that are more important than to waste my time arguing with somebody on the intarweb. :roll:
 
Ok, I have a crappy digicam - my monitor is flat, but the macro performance of the lens sucks. Regardless, this fairly accurately represents what I see. It is a side-by-side comparison of the same circle; the left side shows the circle at 1280x960, while the right side shows it at 1280x1024.

My circle comparison
 
Originally posted by: bootymac
What have you been using all this time? We have a 21" CRT for gaming and a 15" LCD 🙂()for normal use

I had an old 17 incher that was getting dim. . . 15.9 viewable . . .
 
Back
Top