Total viewing area widescreen vs. full frame?

[Kabob]

Which has more total viewing area, a 4:3 monitor or a 16:10 monitor of equal screen "size" (say the Dell 2005FP vs. the Dell 2005WFP).

Will they be equal or will one have more total area?

I know that the 4:3's are measured using the diagonal measurement, are the widescreen monitors sized using the same measurement?

 

[Ronin]

The 2005FP has a larger viewing area (1600x1200 vs 1680x1050).

 

[JAG87]

the full frame has more viewing are and more resolution.

unless you are talking about game viewing are, in which case if the game natively supports widescreen than you have a greater horizontal viewing span.

 

[Zbox]

if you're asking what can actually fit "more" on a screen it really depends on the resolution.

a 1600x1200 (4:3) has a slightly larger viewing area than a 1680x1050 resolution (16:10)

 

[Auric]

The 4:3 has 9% more pixels. 'nutha perspective is the 16:10 is a mere 5% wider but a significant 11% shorter. So it's not much of a widescreen at all. Indeed, the usual wide aspect is 16:9 which is a compromise itself in regards to film standards.

 

[Ronin]

Easy math:

4:3 @ 1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
16:10 @ 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels

 

[Peter]

Total viewing area is easy math.

However, effective viewing area may be different. Got an application that loves sidebars? Then the wider screen will leave you with a much more useful worksheet area. Does your app or game position the controls at the top and bottom? Then a higher screen aspect may be benefitial, maybe even a 5:4 1280x1024.

When watching movies, the lower height doesn't matter - that'll just be narrower black bars top and bottom. While a 1400x1050 20" is generally more useful than a 1440x900 19" widescreen, DVD movies look better on the latter because 1440 is an exact multiple of the DVD mastering resolution of 720 pixels.

Know your application, and then pick your tools wisely.

 

[betasub]

^ Nice summary.

Still @1280x1024 (5:4) for my office apps (big top & bottom task bars).

 

[zephyrprime]

The math is simple. Which ever screen is close to being a perfect square has more surface area. So 4:3 wins.

 

[vhx]

http://xtknight.atothosting.com/images/lcdsizes.gif

I prefer widescreen because I mostly game and watch movies.

 

[Kabob]

Hrm...the most intensive thing I do on my computer is play games but is there really any benefit to having widescreen on these yet?

 

[JAG87]

YES because games are starting to natively support WS and you basically get more viewing area. Like I can see an enemy on the far left and you cant. If the game is not native though, than you actually get even less area (most non native games can be hacked to chop the top and bottom to fit the screen without distorting the ratio).

usually native support is defined as Horizontal+ while a hacked widescreen games is Vertical-

you can see there are huge gains with Hor+ you simply get more viewable area.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I am going to get flamed and called an idiot for this, but here is my "theory"

The LCD companies can give you a smaller screen and still label it 20" if they put it in widescreen format versus standard. Thus, smaller screen, cheaper to make and the marketing still applies because it is still called a 20" screen even if it has less surface area than a standard display.

/takes off tin foil hat

 

[Kabob]

Hrm, if there are fewer pixels on the widescreen monitors it would seem that it would be just slightly less stressful on the video card too.

With more horizontal viewing area do you need to turn up your horizontal mouse sensitivity to get the same reaction on screen that you would with a 4:3 aspect movement??

 

[SonicIce]

thread from like 2 days ago

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I am going to get flamed and called an idiot for this, but here is my "theory"

The LCD companies can give you a smaller screen and still label it 20" if they put it in widescreen format versus standard. Thus, smaller screen, cheaper to make and the marketing still applies because it is still called a 20" screen even if it has less surface area than a standard display.

/takes off tin foil hat

Screen sizes, from what I've always known, are measured in a diagonal manner from the top corner (0,0) of the LCD to the bottom right corner, (x, y). This measurement only applies to LCDs by the way, CRTs are monitor corner to monitor corner as are CRT TVs.

 

[jiffylube1024]

If the screen is equal size, I'd generally pick the 4:3 screen (eg 20"). However, I'd much rather go for a larger widescreen (22" or 24") than a 4:3 20" or 21". It's very uncommon to find 4:3 LCD's above 20".

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: Peter
Total viewing area is easy math.

However, effective viewing area may be different. Got an application that loves sidebars? Then the wider screen will leave you with a much more useful worksheet area. Does your app or game position the controls at the top and bottom? Then a higher screen aspect may be benefitial, maybe even a 5:4 1280x1024.

When watching movies, the lower height doesn't matter - that'll just be narrower black bars top and bottom. While a 1400x1050 20" is generally more useful than a 1440x900 19" widescreen, DVD movies look better on the latter because 1440 is an exact multiple of the DVD mastering resolution of 720 pixels.

Know your application, and then pick your tools wisely.

I agree.

 

[BernardP]

You can see, compute an compare any screen size on this handy web site:

TVCalculator.com