What are the benefits of widescreen LCDs (looking at poss getting 1680 x 1050 20") considering that you only get 80 extra pixels to make it "wide" and are missing out on 150 pixels high?
Whats the point of widescreen?
- Thread starter Job
- Start date
It's wide. Duh. If the screen's main purpose is watching movies, playing "realistic" 3D games, or applications with lots of toolbars left and right, then this is for you.
In other words, it's about choice. Just because YOU can't figure out what it's useful for, you may not conclude that it's pointless per se.
In other words, it's about choice. Just because YOU can't figure out what it's useful for, you may not conclude that it's pointless per se.
I can't figure it out because I've never seen one in action. Granted you get widescreen formatting, but the screen itself will appear smaller than a 5:4 and has slightly fewer pixels. Hence 'whats the point' - I'm not being argumentative, I actually want to know the benefits
I'm not entirely sure you could fit more on the screen with only an extra 80 pixels
I'm not entirely sure you could fit more on the screen with only an extra 80 pixels
It feels more natural to the eye. Primarily for game/movie use.
Web use on widescreen still has its quirks. Example, visiting CNN.com
Web use on widescreen still has its quirks. Example, visiting CNN.com
The point:
You can best use your screen for watching DVDs, gaming looks better and often more natural than on a square screen, and you gain screen real estate over a screen with the same height that is square.
For example, I went from 1280x1024 17" LCD to a 20" widescreen LCD at 1680x1050 - I gained 26 pixels in height and a ton more in width. I love it. DVDs in 16:9 practically fill the screen and 2.35:1 DVDs are much larger than they would be on a square screen. In fact, there's a neat site with a calculator that shows you the comparative percentage of your screen used for different DVD resolutions on 4:3, 5:4, 16:9, and 16:10 screens. I use more of my screen real estate than a 4:3 or 5:4 screen can.
See: http://www.tvcalculator.com
You can best use your screen for watching DVDs, gaming looks better and often more natural than on a square screen, and you gain screen real estate over a screen with the same height that is square.
For example, I went from 1280x1024 17" LCD to a 20" widescreen LCD at 1680x1050 - I gained 26 pixels in height and a ton more in width. I love it. DVDs in 16:9 practically fill the screen and 2.35:1 DVDs are much larger than they would be on a square screen. In fact, there's a neat site with a calculator that shows you the comparative percentage of your screen used for different DVD resolutions on 4:3, 5:4, 16:9, and 16:10 screens. I use more of my screen real estate than a 4:3 or 5:4 screen can.
See: http://www.tvcalculator.com
I'm choosing btw a 20" 5:4 screen and a 20" 16:10 screen tho.
My concerns relate to its suitability for general use as I figure that games and movies look better (I have TV-out to a 32" 16:9 TV tho, so I won't be watching many movies on it) - basically just gaming v general use
Also, whats the difference btw a Dell 2005FPW and a 2007WFP? I'd probably be picking btw the Dell 20" Widescreen or 5:4 models
My concerns relate to its suitability for general use as I figure that games and movies look better (I have TV-out to a 32" 16:9 TV tho, so I won't be watching many movies on it) - basically just gaming v general use
Also, whats the difference btw a Dell 2005FPW and a 2007WFP? I'd probably be picking btw the Dell 20" Widescreen or 5:4 models
Widescreen more closely resembles your actual field of vision. It's more immersive in gaming and movies. 5:4 is so 80's.
QFT...I just moved from a 17" 1280x1024 (4:3) edit: 5:4 CRT to a 19" widescreen LCD (1440 x 900). So I lost 124 pixels in height but gained 164 in width. I love gaming on the widescreen...tres cool.
Actually 1280x1024 is 5:4 not 4:3 and many 20in "square" displays are 4:3 and not 5:4, wierd?
Anyone getting a new monitor I will always suggest a wide screen. For one it's a LOT wider (duh!) and it's more emmersive (SP?) in games than your 4:3/5:4 counterparts are.
Best 20.1in WS out has got to be the Viewsonic VX2025wm. It's the best deal for the money.
hmmm same price as the 2007wfp (for me) - has better response time but is not as attractive and is not HDCP compliant
Looks like I'll be getting a WS monitor after all the praise - though it's difficult to pick one out of the crowd at the moment - anyone else have any recommendations?
Looks like I'll be getting a WS monitor after all the praise - though it's difficult to pick one out of the crowd at the moment - anyone else have any recommendations?
I bought a widescreen 20.1 inch NEC 20WMGX2 a couple of weeks ago (replacing a 5:4 19 inch Viewsonic VX924) and I love it. It is probably the consensus best 20.1 WS for pure quality, but not for bang for the buck--it is roughly double the cost of a Viewsonic 2025.
If you want the best bang for the buck for a WS, I'd say go for the Samsung 205BW. If you want quality and don't mind spending more, I'm with Marlowe13, go for the NEC 20WMGX2.
I bought a widescreen LCD for my computer a few weeks ago. Haven't hooked it up yet. Just wondering though, in games that only support 4:3 resolutions (think Diablo 2), will it stretch or black out the sides of the screen?
Yes, the Viewsonic VX2025wm. It's faster in gaming and HDCP compliance really doesn't matter all that much right now.
2007fpw (thats the order of the letters) has the banding issue and overall, IMO, the VX2025 is the best 20.1in WS monitor out there.
I wrote a review on AT, Link
There's also a good one on Hard Forums (that person had a dell, but got rid of it and thinks the VX2025 is better).
Both I belive are 8 bit monitors.
I like the look of the Samsung 205BW - good price, nice specs, attractive (not as nice as the dell tho) and HDCP comp. which will be nice when HDDVD/BR finally gets here
-Beats the Viewsonic on paper - anybody seen them both perform?
-Beats the Viewsonic on paper - anybody seen them both perform?
They are just cheaper. Most posters are missing your point. Obviously, almost the same size "wide format" movie or game is possible on the 1600x1200 display but it offers significanlty more vertical area than the 1680x1050. I've said it before and I'll say it again (despite it being blatantly obvious): 1680x1050 is a widescreen alternative to 1280x1024 whereas 1600x1200 is the next step up over either.
Good for gaming, good for movies, good for some programming environments.
For just surfing the web, reading, writing in word, etc. I still prefer a 4:3 CRT. I've owned both kinds...
For just surfing the web, reading, writing in word, etc. I still prefer a 4:3 CRT. I've owned both kinds...
You get more game with a game that really supports WS.
Actually, thats not always the case. In fact, as I said above, you get more game in WS.
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/screenshots/
You get much more to the sides, and lose only a little from the top and bottom.
Actually, thats not always the case. In fact, as I said above, you get more game in WS.
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/screenshots/
You get much more to the sides, and lose only a little from the top and bottom.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter