One thing that I notice is that people complain about 1280 x 1024 resolution on a 17" monitor making everything too small. However, reviews generally say that a 19" monitor's dot pitch is too big. Both 17" and 19" monitors generally come in 1280 x 1024 resolution. So I was thinking, what about a 18" monitor? Would you actually go for an 18" monitor over a 17" or a 19" (assuming the cost is in the middle of both and all other features like contrast and response time are the same)?
Let's note some specs first:
15" monitor:
1024 x 768 resolution
dot pitch: 0.297 mm
304 mm wide by 228 mm high
(12" wide by 9" high)
17" monitor:
1280 x 1024 resolution
dot pitch: 0.264 mm
338 mm wide by 270 mm high
(13.3" wide by 10.6" high)
19" monitor:
1280 x 1024 resolution
dot pitch: 0.294 mm
376 mm wide by 301 mm high
(14.8" wide by 11.9" high)
As you can see, a 19" monitor and a 15" monitor has essentially the same dot pitch -- so it's basically the same thing but more area. A 17" monitor, however, basically tries to squeeze a 19" monitor's pixels into a smaller size -- hence complaints that it makes things too small. On the other hand, 19" monitors then get complaints that images look pixellated -- because the pixels are big enough that the corners are noticeable.
But what if there were an 18" monitor? The specs would look something like this:
18" monitor (5:4):
1280 x 1024 resolution
dot pitch: 0.280 mm
358 mm wide by 287 mm high
(14.1" wide by 11.3" high)
Or, because I never cared much for the 5:4 ratio:
18" monitor (4:3):
1280 x 960 resolution
dot pitch: 0.286 mm
366 mm wide by 275 mm high
(14.4" wide by 10.8" high)
As a side note, I could never figure out why 1280 x 1024 is used. Monitors had a nice progression of 4:3, from 640 x 480 to 800 x 600 to 1024 x 768. Then it returns to 4:3 for 1600 x 1200. But in the middle, they decided to use 1280 x 1024 instead of 1280 x 960. This causes all sorts of stretching issues since circles now appear as ovals -- a circle 6 inches in diameter has gained 0.4 inches vertically. Worse, not that many monitors allow for scaling, leaving users to hope that their video cards support it if they're doing graphics or CAD work where a 1:1 aspect ratio is important. Above that, it goes into 16:9 but that's fine in my opinion since that's more TV stuff not monitor stuff. But 1280 x 1024 is kind of an awkward resolution. Not to mention, if it were 1280 x 960, our 640 x 480 games would be perfect because there would be no need for interpolation at all.
Anyway, this is probably idle speculation because I'm sure there's a reason why there's no 18" monitors (why are there no 16" monitors either?), but was wondering if people would actually go for one, especially since 17" and 19" are already out there. Or what size do you think is ideal? (No jokes about 15-feet monitors necessary.)
Let's note some specs first:
15" monitor:
1024 x 768 resolution
dot pitch: 0.297 mm
304 mm wide by 228 mm high
(12" wide by 9" high)
17" monitor:
1280 x 1024 resolution
dot pitch: 0.264 mm
338 mm wide by 270 mm high
(13.3" wide by 10.6" high)
19" monitor:
1280 x 1024 resolution
dot pitch: 0.294 mm
376 mm wide by 301 mm high
(14.8" wide by 11.9" high)
As you can see, a 19" monitor and a 15" monitor has essentially the same dot pitch -- so it's basically the same thing but more area. A 17" monitor, however, basically tries to squeeze a 19" monitor's pixels into a smaller size -- hence complaints that it makes things too small. On the other hand, 19" monitors then get complaints that images look pixellated -- because the pixels are big enough that the corners are noticeable.
But what if there were an 18" monitor? The specs would look something like this:
18" monitor (5:4):
1280 x 1024 resolution
dot pitch: 0.280 mm
358 mm wide by 287 mm high
(14.1" wide by 11.3" high)
Or, because I never cared much for the 5:4 ratio:
18" monitor (4:3):
1280 x 960 resolution
dot pitch: 0.286 mm
366 mm wide by 275 mm high
(14.4" wide by 10.8" high)
As a side note, I could never figure out why 1280 x 1024 is used. Monitors had a nice progression of 4:3, from 640 x 480 to 800 x 600 to 1024 x 768. Then it returns to 4:3 for 1600 x 1200. But in the middle, they decided to use 1280 x 1024 instead of 1280 x 960. This causes all sorts of stretching issues since circles now appear as ovals -- a circle 6 inches in diameter has gained 0.4 inches vertically. Worse, not that many monitors allow for scaling, leaving users to hope that their video cards support it if they're doing graphics or CAD work where a 1:1 aspect ratio is important. Above that, it goes into 16:9 but that's fine in my opinion since that's more TV stuff not monitor stuff. But 1280 x 1024 is kind of an awkward resolution. Not to mention, if it were 1280 x 960, our 640 x 480 games would be perfect because there would be no need for interpolation at all.
Anyway, this is probably idle speculation because I'm sure there's a reason why there's no 18" monitors (why are there no 16" monitors either?), but was wondering if people would actually go for one, especially since 17" and 19" are already out there. Or what size do you think is ideal? (No jokes about 15-feet monitors necessary.)
Facebook
Twitter