Widescreen LCD or 4:3? Advice appreciated!

[guptasa1]

Hey all,

Avid computer user - do a lot of work and play a lot on the computer too. Building a new machine and want to definitely go with an LCD this time out, but I'm rather torn between widescreen or 4:3. I always frankly planned on sticking with 4:3, but I have to say I've played with a few computers that have widescreen LCD's as of late, and they are pretty slick. Here are my questions:

1.) I'm a big stickler for maintaining the correct aspect ratio. I can't stand when anything is stretched or compressed, even a little (just a pet peeve). What happens when you have a game that simply won't accept a wide resolution - is it an option to have black bars similar to what's on an HDTV?

2.) Application wise, whether web browsing or doing office work or gaming, have those of you who've migrated to a widescreen solution found it to be helpful or a hindrance? Do you run into a lot of things that don't display quite right because you're using a widescreen display?

3.) I guess my main question, for those of you who've made this decision, is do you regret it, or are you happy with what you chose?

Thanks in advance!

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Recently found happiness in WS

Still on a CRT here.

 

[vanvock]

I got one for X-mas & so far it's been cool. No prob in UT'04 or FEAR. For web surfing etc it's great 'cause I don't have the side scroll things now. I had my doubts before I hooked it up as far as aspect & responce time but no regrets yet.

 

[KJ42]

I'm very happy with widescreen.

 

[ebeattie]

I bought a Sceptre 22" and that changed my computing life! I have since returned it; not because I was disappointed with the widescreen, but because I couldnt stand the panel type. (stupid TNs).

Once you go WS, you never go back. Im back on my 19" trinitron waiting for my funds to clear before I order the BenQ 24" LCD and its (the Trinitron) bad. really bad. Feels so small and cramped on the screen.

Cant wait till I plop my lazy butt in front of the Q! I hope that helped you answer some of your questions.

-btw, you should think about adding a poll to this thread.

 

[Captante]

Adjusting to WS took a little time, but is 100% worth it & I wouldn't go back unless I had no choice. As for aspect ratio, most newer games (& many older ones too) have at least one WS resolution available that'll look decent.

Some WS LCD's can handle 1:1 pixel mapping themselves & Nvidia has aspect ratio control that works very well (except for us 8800 owners at the moment) at preventing weird stretched or squished images.

The only other "gotcha" in WS moniters right now is the 6-bit TN panel in every 22 inch panel on the market that I'm aware of... the problem is that there are very few attractive choices between 20.1 & 24 inch sizes in LCD's at the moment unless you are willing to sacrifice color accuracy, viewing angle & backlight bleed which are all real problems with even the best of the TN's like NEC's newest.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I am very dissatisfied with the widescreen that was forced onto me with my notebook (could not find a Geforce 7900GS GO without one). The reason? Most of the games that I play do not support widescreen, therefore my 17" display gets black bars on the sides to preserve the aspect ratio. Maybe if all of the games I played had native support for it, I would be ok with it.

Normal displays give you a little more surface area for their inch size than their equivalent widescreen counterparts (A 21" standard has more surface area than a 21" widescreen), something to think about for me since I can have more screen area for Visual Studio and office applications.

The LCD companies benefit due to them being able to sell a smaller display and still market it as a 21" monitor. To solve the widescreen problem, I have a Dell 2001FP that I hookup to my notebook when I am not on the road.

 

[Zebo]

I don't know anyone unhappy with a widescreen because FOV is naturally wider horizontal one rather than vertical due to location and positioning of eye balls in your head, who would'nt want more of it?

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't know anyone unhappy with a widescreen because FOV is naturally wider horizontal one rather than vertical due to location and positioning of eye balls in your head, who would'nt want more of it?

Exactly. People cite the higher surface area of a 4:3, but that is a moot point. A widescreen is more useable. This is especially true if you run programs with menus and bars on the sides. Wide is a lot better for ArcGIS because it allows a table of contents pane, another pane, and then a square map area.

 

[BernardP]

Widescreen is the wave of the future. Except for the 19-icnh budget/office category, most new monitors being launched are widescreen.

Would you buy a new 4:3 TV set today? With video broadcast and production moving to an all-widescreen world, it seems prudent to assume that computer screens are also going widescreen.

The choice between 4:3 and 16:10 is becoming less a question of preference and more a question of avoiding premature obsolescence.

 

[BassBomb]

a down point for me was I had to increase my mouse sensitivity alot, with the windows driver its complete crap.... install my logitech driver and my 3dsmax doesn't like logitech :S

my biggest down point is games that do not support widescreen... im happy i can black bar them , but i wish i could play it at full res without distortion

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Go widescreen. I did and I've never regretted it. Many new game are coming out with WS support, and there are a lot od workarounds for older games to be found here:

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com

 

[cdmccool]

I prefer 4:3, but I have a very specific reason. I could use 1:1 to keep the aspect ratio when viewing 4:3 resolutions, but I'm not happy about doing this on anything less than a 24" widescreen.

I would say, 90% of everything I use the computer for is 4:3. So, for me, a widescreen is pointless when there are black bars on the side 90% of the time.

Think about what YOU will be viewing on your monitor. Don't get caught up in the "widescreen is the future" crowd, it doesn't matter if you're not going to use it.

And no, I wouldn't buy a 4:3 TV today, but that's only because the content I would be viewing is mostly widescreen.

 

[dawza]

I have used 20" standard aspect and widescreen monitors, and definitely prefer the standard aspect for working on. The WS is nice for movies and games, but I really miss the extra vertical real-estate the 4:3 offers when dealing with spreadsheets and PDFs. I also prefer the 4:3 for surfing.

I just feel too scrunched up on a 20" WS height-wise. I currently run a 4:3 20" with a 24" widescreen, and when going from the 24" to the 20" I do not feel as if I lost all that much space. On the other hand, going from my 4:3 20" to my WS 20", I definitely feel the loss of pixels. This is, of course, purely subjective, but that has been my experience. If I were to buy another 20" monitor today, I would go for a 4:3 without any hesitation.

In the end, it is really a personal preference. Do bear in mind that there is much less of a selection of 20" 4:3 vs. widescreen, and you will pay more.

 

[Mem]

3.) I guess my main question, for those of you who've made this decision, is do you regret it, or are you happy with what you chose?

Thanks in advance!

Go WS,this is a no brainer since WS is great for everything IMHO,gaming looks great.

I would never go back to a 5.4 LCD.

 

[guptasa1]

Thanks all. Keep 'em coming. =oP Still haven't decided for sure yet...but WS seems to be winning so far.

 

[Ackmed]

WS, easy choice. More game when properly supported. Looks better for movies to me. WS is the future, no matter if people want to admit it or not.

 

[BernardP]

Originally posted by: dawza
I just feel too scrunched up on a 20" WS height-wise. I currently run a 4:3 20" with a 24" widescreen, and when going from the 24" to the 20" I do not feel as if I lost all that much space. On the other hand, going from my 4:3 20" to my WS 20", I definitely feel the loss of pixels. This is, of course, purely subjective, but that has been my experience. If I were to buy another 20" monitor today, I would go for a 4:3 without any hesitation.

Even as a WS proponent, I have to concede that a 20-inch 4:3 can't be compared to a 20-inch widescreen. The surface area of the WS is smaller.

The true debate is 19-inch 5:4 vs 22-inch wide or 20-inch 4:3 vs 23 (almost obsolete) or 24 inch wide. Then the question becomes: Do I want to pay $ xx more to have a wider screen with about the same height/number of pixels as non-wide. For me, the answer is Yes

Just in case you have not seen this handy site for comparing screen sizes:

http://www.tvcalculator.com/

 

[VooDooAddict]

Depending on what you are working on the 6-bit TNs can still be a great improvement over a CRT on general office tasks (unless it was a really high end CRT).

With the current cost of 20"/22" LCDs, it seems a no brainier that it's the value point right now for gaming. For the stretching issue, just be sure to get a unit that uses DVI, that way you can use 1:1 pixels with black bars to keep crisp picture and proper aspect (the there are a few models out there with just VGA which makes this near impossible).

The Battlefield Series (1942 / Vietnam / 2 / 2142) is the big offender in lack wide screen support ... though it seems that popularity in the series is waining, I'm hoping in some part due to the refusal to support wide screen.

 

[chizow]

I recently made the switch to wide screen after seeing how much of a difference it was in games and movies and I'll never go back. There are some things to be wary of though when making the switch. Its harder to balance GPU requirements with games once you hit 1680+ resolutions compared to the standard 1280. Good thing is that the performance of mid-level cards available today are much better than the mid-level cards 3-4 years ago.

But ya there are some valid points here. Its harder to adjust if you're on a 19"-20" 4:3 going to a 19"-20" wide screen. Typically you'll make a move to a bigger panel simultaneously though so 19" > 22" or 20" > 24" will offer the extra horizontal real estate without giving up any of the vertical space.

Also, businesses are actually flocking to wide screen as well because of the whole 2 x A4 sheets side-by-side. Anyone who does a lot of work with spreadsheets, word documents, code, graphic design etc. can tell you how much nicer it is to get work done with 2+ monitors. Businesses can now get 1 panel instead of 2 and any extras are just bonus.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: BernardP

Even as a WS proponent, I have to concede that a 20-inch 4:3 can't be compared to a 20-inch widescreen. The surface area of the WS is smaller.

Except you get more game, with a 20" WS LCD, if a game supports WS.

http://home.comcast.net/~aquacomputer/2005FPW/FS-1.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~aquacomputer/2005FPW/WS-1.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~aquacomputer/2005FPW/FS-2.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~aquacomputer/2005FPW/WS-2.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~aquacomputer/2005FPW/FS-3.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~aquacomputer/2005FPW/WS-3.jpg

Its pretty easy to see which gives you more game.

 

[BernardP]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Except you get more game, with a 20" WS LCD, if a game supports WS.

Of course I agree with you, but that is not what I was writing about. You will even get "more game" on a 17-inch widescreen then

I was talking about total surface area and pixel count, not necessarily about visible gaming environment.

Anyway, it is predictable that in the near future, all games will have a widescreen option, so "more game" will be as good a reason as "more widescreen video" to get a 16:10 monitor.

There are some uses for which widescreen is not optimal. My parents recently got a new computer and I got them a 19-inch 5:4 good-quality PVA panel. They only surf the net and e-mail, so the 5:4 format is ideal for their use.

But for anyone who has interests in gaming and video, widescreen is optimal.

 

[imported_Imp]

Anything 5:4 or 4:3 over 17" just seems too tall and thin to me. I'm planning on going widescreen soon, just need to decide on a good monitor (i.e. wait till hell freezes over for a 22" non-TN). Also, maybe someone could fill this in; how well does a WS scale in terms of resolutions? A 5:4 with 1280x1024 native actually displays 1024x768 pretty well. I'm not too familiar with the WS resolutions, but do scaled down resolutions look ok or is it native or nothing?

 

[cdmccool]

But for anyone who has interests in gaming and video, widescreen is optimal.

Agreed, not all of us are into gaming and video though.

 

[JayMassive]

i have (never never never never : ever ever ever) regretted going widescreen.