whats with wide screen computer LCDs?

[Red Squirrel]

All OSes and other computer software is designed for 4:3, why is it that its getting harder and harder to find 4:3 monitors and everything is going wide screen, causing to stretch out everything? I just find that odd. I just bought a new LCD for my parent's computer and it looks like crap because I can't set it to the native resolution since its totally non standard, windows does not list it. I was unable to find a decent 4:3 screen.

 

[pbroussard]

I'm with you there. It isn't until you get to the 24's with 1920x1200 res that I get more usable, for me, viewing area. I've compromised and run a 22" WS as a main monitor, and a 19" 4:3 lcd turned sideways for email and other apps that do well opened taller instead of wider.

I don't watch movies on my PC, and have no need for a widescreen, give me more height not width.

 

[themisfit610]

widescreen resolutions aren't 'totally standard'.

If your PC can't drive that resolution - that's its fault, not the LCD.

There's nothing inherently "wrong" with a widescreen LCD. I agree they're a little impractical at sizes under 24", but when watching 16x9 content they can be nice. I also find it very useful to have more horizontal real estate for things like video editing. Things shouldn't display stretched, unless you can't run the native resolution.

Try power strip, or an updated driver for your video card. Native FTW, or at least the correct aspect ratio (1440x900 / 1680x1050 / 1920x1200)

_worst_ case scenario, run at 1:1 with black bars.

-MiSfit

 

[alfa147x]

I love my widescreen LCD and a Widescreen Laptop i hate using the 4:3 screen at school

 

[Auric]

They are cheaper and coincide with the TV aspect fad. Hence pop.

As such I reck they are generally silly. Just say no to shortscreen.

 

[destrekor]

4:3 is essentially non-existent in the LCD world.
They all tend to be 5:4.

Now, I'd prefer a widescreen display, of which they almost all happen to be 16:10... which is another note. WTH?! What is with these fucked up aspect ratios? How did they become standard in the computer monitor industry? But like I said, I'd prefer one because it'd be nice for gaming, because I almost always run games in 16:10 as it is, and since my LCD is 5:4, of course I have black bars. But I prefer the view, unless you get games where it just doesn't work with widescreen resolutions or, like Bioshock, the FOV is no different.

+

 

[themisfit610]

They chose 16:10 because 16:9 was thought to be "just a little too wide". You loose a lot of vertical space on a 19 or 20 inch widescreen as is. If it was 16x9, it would be a serious pain to use for browsing etc...

As for 5:4 I don't know...

Different needs

~MiSfit

 

[shortylickens]

I've got an HP L2335 and its wonderful for office work.
Still not good enough for games though, I've kept my 22" CRT for that.

Have seen plenty of people with 17" widescreens and it always makes me wonder.
Do they not know that a square has more surface area than a rectangle?
You really do need to go into the 22 inch and above range before widescreens get useful.

 

[BassBomb]

4:3 1600x1200 20"
5:4 1280x1024 19"
5:4 1280x1024 17"

As stated if you cannot output the resolution from the computer that isn't the LCD's fault.

20" and higher widescreen is fine for me. 19 and 17 widescreen makes me go wtf?

 

[jtvang125]

Update your video drivers. I'm sure with the popularity of widescreen monitors now video card manufacturers should have new drivers to support widescreen resolutions.

At my work we recently purchased a few 22" widescreen monitors. Many of the people using them had cheap Intel integrated video. We had these computers set up with old drivers so they didn't support the native resolutions of the screen. I thought we were SOL because the integrated video was so cheap but low and behold Intel actually had new drivers that supported widescreen.

 

[RandomFool]

Originally posted by: jtvang125
Update your video drivers. I'm sure with the popularity of widescreen monitors now video card manufacturers should have new drivers to support widescreen resolutions.

At my work we recently purchased a few 22" widescreen monitors. Many of the people using them had cheap Intel integrated video. We had these computers set up with old drivers so they didn't support the native resolutions of the screen. I thought we were SOL because the integrated video was so cheap but low and behold Intel actually had new drivers that supported widescreen.

It drives me nuts when companies don't set the monitors to the right resolution. A lot of the guys at work are using 1024x768 on their laptops which just looks horrid.

 

[Red Squirrel]

We ended up returning it, it was actually for my parents and they could not stand it either. Problem is, the native res on those is really weird and nothing supports it. Maybe vista does, but I wont go that far... Ended up finding one on tiger that has normal proportions but from looks of it, it will get harder and harder to find. Think the one I got was overstock as it was exact same make and model of the two I have in my room.

But if its a video card thing then yeah maybe finding updated drivers would of added more resolution choices in the menu, never even thought of that, figured it was an OS thing. Since I could see widescreen being nice if it could be set at a resolution that actually keeps vertical and horizontal pixel size the same rather then stretch.

 

[gramboh]

I agree on 17 and 19in that widescreen is dumb. 1680x1050 is the minimum in my mind (I used 1280x1024 on a 19in CRT for around 10 years, so I have trouble with less than 1024 vert).

I now use a 24in WS at home (1920x1200) which is amazing for everything and a 1280x800 14in notebook at work. Coming from a 1024x768 15in 4:3 notebook I now prefer the 1280x800 (obviously, since more pixels). It's fine in Excel etc. The only situation in which I would consider non-WS would be triplehead'ing 3x20in 1600x1200 LCDs for working, but since my job doesn't really demand it I will just use this

 

[Red Squirrel]

Yeah I can see widescreen being nice if the OS/PC can support a rightful proportioned resolution to actually take advantage of the wideness. I read lot of log files, that alone would be nicer on a wide screen, less wraping on those long lines (like mail logs)

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Yeah I can see widescreen being nice if the OS/PC can support a rightful proportioned resolution to actually take advantage of the wideness. I read lot of log files, that alone would be nicer on a wide screen, less wraping on those long lines (like mail logs)

I don't know of any graphics card released within the last 5 years minimum that can't support widescreen resolutions.

It's all in the graphics drivers. Because most companies drivers still apply to their very old cards, so do the resolutions.

Now that doesn't mean that the card will be able to handle that resolution for FS3D but for desktop work it shouldn't matter.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
All OSes and other computer software is designed for 4:3, why is it that its getting harder and harder to find 4:3 monitors and everything is going wide screen, causing to stretch out everything? I just find that odd. I just bought a new LCD for my parent's computer and it looks like crap because I can't set it to the native resolution since its totally non standard, windows does not list it. I was unable to find a decent 4:3 screen.

Once you use a widescreen, there's simple no going back to 4:3.

Otherwise, from what you say, the computer is integrated intel graphics and 1440x900 monitor? The computer can do it, intel is just too lazy to add a single line to the driver configuration file.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Well that PC has like a 16meg video card, not sure what type but nothing high end, so maybe why. I also noticed that its a bit blurry at 1280*1024 so hard to tell if its the video card or maybe the connection (goes through a manual KVM)

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Well that PC has like a 16meg video card, not sure what type but nothing high end, so maybe why. I also noticed that its a bit blurry at 1280*1024 so hard to tell if its the video card or maybe the connection (goes through a manual KVM)

KVM's usually work poorly with lcd monitors.

Post in the fs/ft forum for like a Geforce 4MX or Radeon 7000 video card, I'm sure you can get one super-cheap and then won't have to worry about resolutions.

 

[ther00kie16]

yea, 16mb video card would do it. i've still got a radeon 7000 lying around gathering dust.
ws lcd's are 16:10 to allow better compatibility with 4:3 aspect ratio so 24" can do 1600x1200 where as 16:9 24" (1920x1080) would only be able to do 1440x1080, which is 19% fewer pixels.

 

[TerryMathews]

What's the big fad with widescreen? Simple, it allows manufacturers to adverise a screen with a smaller viewing area as the same size as a standard AR screen, due to the way they measure.

Eg: 19"
4:3 would be roughly 15" x 11" for an area of 165"
16:10 would be roughly 16" x 9" for an area of 144"

11" per screen adds up, and that number gets larger the larger the screen you're talking about.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews
What's the big fad with widescreen? Simple, it allows manufacturers to adverise a screen with a smaller viewing area as the same size as a standard AR screen, due to the way they measure.

Eg: 19"
4:3 would be roughly 15" x 11" for an area of 165"
16:10 would be roughly 16" x 9" for an area of 144"

11" per screen adds up, and that number gets larger the larger the screen you're talking about.

While it is true that the 4:3 will work out larger, you are skewing the results of the 16:10 a bit there.

It's pretty obvious that a screen that's 16 x 9 in. is not a 16:10 screen. The actual dimensions are much closer to 16 in. x 10 in, resulting in a 5 square inch difference approximately. Which I doubt is a big reason manufacturers are cranking out widescreen monitors.

 

[ther00kie16]

Widescreen is great for movies that have aspect ratio of 2.35:1. If you are watching that on 4:3 or 5:4, you have >50% black space.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

It's pretty obvious that a screen that's 16 x 9 in. is not a 16:10 screen. The actual dimensions are much closer to 16 in. x 10 in, resulting in a 5 square inch difference approximately. Which I doubt is a big reason manufacturers are cranking out widescreen monitors.

In a day and age where companies are shrinking their product across the boards (up to and including fewer sheets on toilet paper rolls), I think you are underestimating the extent that companies will go to, to advertise a smaller item as the same.

And you're right, I forgot about (most) computer displays being 16:10. OTOH, they are also 5:4 usually instead of 4:3 so neither number is 100% accurate. There aren't computer screen calculators on the web like there are TV calculators.

 

[Javichal]

Actually...the area difference is not a small reason why companies are going toward widescreen. It results in better use of the mother substrates that the LCD panels are cut from.

For example, your typical 5th generation substrate measures 1100 mm x 1300 mm...if you make traditional 19" (5:4) monitors, you end up only able to fit 9 such panels on each substrate. But if you make those newfangled 19"W (16:10) monitors, you can magically fit 12 such panels on each substrate (try fitting the panels in, you'll see what I mean), thus getting three more panels for basically the same amount of work, and can advertise them as 19".

Now there's talking of doing 18.4"W (16:9) panels. Why? It allows you to fit an 24 panels per 6th generation substrate (1500 mm x 1850 mm), compared with 20 panels for a 19"W (16:10) panel on the same substrate. The recent development in weird sizes, such as 15.6", also stem from the same reason. A 5th generation substrate can be cut into 15 15.4"W (16:10) panels. But if you use 15.6"W (16:9), from the same substrate, you can squeeze 18 panels in, and advertise a higher size to boot (the area is about the same for both).

Basically the reason for the sizes that you see are due to the sizes of the mother substrates that the LCD panel manufacturers chose when they built the factories. Why did we jump from 17" to 19", with no 18" in between? Because it's not cost effective to make panels in the 18" range, as there'll be a lot of unused (hence wasted) real estate on each substrate if that size is chosen. Hence, before the widescreen trend, it was either make 12 17" panels or 9 19" panels from a 5th generation substrate; an 18" panel would've been too big to fit 12 panels per substrate, yet result in a lot of wasted space if fitting 9 panels per substrate, so (mostly) no 18" monitors.

 

[Calculator83]

Get the wfp3007, U"LL NEVER LOOK BACK...............