Curse

I Dont Do Coke · Oct 02, 2008, 09:32 PM // 21:32

Wide screen is more appealing to me since I have wide vision^^

MisterB · Oct 02, 2008, 09:43 PM // 21:43

Wide screen for gaming, video/image editing, and video; 4:3 for applications.

liutpry · Oct 02, 2008, 09:50 PM // 21:50

thank you all for helping me in chosing the new monitor, finally i decided for this one:

http://www.asus.it/products.aspx?l1=...&m odelmenu=1

unfortunately enough my new computer has not arrived yet, and my graphic card do not support the native 1680 x 1050 resolution...
everything is foggy and ...s t r e t c h e d...i swear this is quite frustrating^^

ffs :P

Quaker · Oct 03, 2008, 04:20 AM // 04:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hissy

For a given screen size and pixel size, a widescreen monitor has less pixels than a 4:3 monitor. Hence cheaper.

Typical 20.1" 4:3 screen is 1600 x 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
Typical 22" widescreen is 1680 x 1050 = 1,764,000 pixels

ie. The 20.1" 4:3 screens have 156,000 more pixels than the 22" widescreens.

Please do a little research before your next rant, TY.

Please read my entire post before your next reply. A 20.1" 4:3 screen does not have the same pixels per inch as a 22" widescreen. You wouldn't replace a 20" 4:3 with a 22: 16:9 - you use a 24" 16:9. Again, let me point out I was comparing monitors of equivalent height, and pixels per inch, & relative font sizes, etc, etc.

At any rate, it comes down to the simple fact that there is no "usability" advantage to a 4:3 monitor. Other than price, there would be no reason to specifically want a 4:3 monitor for any purpose, mainly because of the vertical field of vision limitations coupled with increased screen real estate relative to height.

Quaker · Oct 03, 2008, 04:29 AM // 04:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by liutpry

unfortunately enough my new computer has not arrived yet, and my graphic card do not support the native 1680 x 1050 resolution...
everything is foggy and ...s t r e t c h e d...i swear this is quite frustrating^^

I can assure you that the HD4870 will support the 1680x1050 resolution just fine.
You didn't say what your current video card is, but, of course, many older cards don't support widescreen resolutions. But, did you try running any "driver" that may have come with the monitor? Or look on ASUS's site for one?

Lord Sojar · Oct 03, 2008, 04:30 AM // 04:30

Widescreen is vastly superior in all ways Hissy. 4:3 ratios on movies require pan and scan, which condenses the picture. Or, it also works another way... They can just cut the sides of the picture which makes you lose sections of the movie.

The human field of vision is enormous in a horizontal plane. Vertically, not so much. This isn't because of our eye per say, but more because of our eye socket restricting vertical viewing area when compared to horizontal.

In addition, Quaker's above post is correct. You must compare a 4:3 monitor with equivalent pixel ratios. Size cannot factor in exactly, because monitors are always measures diagonally.

Showtime · Oct 03, 2008, 04:51 AM // 04:51

Dell and probably a few other companies are making true HD panels (1920x1080 res).
That's the ideal res for a 30" or less panel imo and no wasted pixels to push.
I currently have a few 20-22" widescreens (16:10) from dell and samsung, but my next monitor will be 24" - 30" 16:9 panel. Hopefully they'll make an S-IPS version instead of TN, but that's a whole nother can of worms.

Lord Sojar · Oct 03, 2008, 04:59 AM // 04:59

Ummm, I would much rather have a 24" 1920x1200 (which I currently have from Samsung) then a 1920x1080 24". The higher the resolution is in a game, the better!

Showtime · Oct 03, 2008, 05:41 AM // 05:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

Ummm, I would much rather have a 24" 1920x1200 (which I currently have from Samsung) then a 1920x1080 24". The higher the resolution is in a game, the better!

Have you played on a true 16:9 panel?

There's a reason why movies are made in 16:9 and has to with the way our eyes work. Pixel-wise both are very close, but over all shape is better on the Dell. I am looking at a decent Samsung 21.5" 16:10 (1680x1050) panel and I can see out around the sides a bit. If I move it closer, I can't see top to bottom as well. As far as resolution goes, more is better, but higher res = needing more power to push it. Even 60" HD panels (same amount, but much bigger sized pixels) look great if you sit the right distance away. And depending on how far you sit from the screen, and good your eyes are, you don't need more than true 1080 for monitors under 30" unless you are doing autocad or some graphically intense work imo.

I Dont Do Coke · Oct 03, 2008, 06:34 AM // 06:34

Of course you'd want a 16:9 panel for 1080p movies because they're... 1080p. 16:10 for games won't make me QQ since the game will support a 16:10 res'.

The statement on 4:3 is true. I am browsing Guru at the moment with my window shaped in a 4:3 kind of way. I know that Guru can stretch but I get irritated at reading things in 16:10... way too horizontally long.

liutpry · Oct 03, 2008, 06:40 AM // 06:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaker

You didn't say what your current video card is (...)

integrated

so no chance at all

Lord Sojar · Oct 04, 2008, 06:51 AM // 06:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Showtime

Have you played on a true 16:9 panel?

There's a reason why movies are made in 16:9

Yes, on a 40" and 70", the 40" being my Samsung that exploded. and the 70" being my Sony which I no longer have...

I haven't bothered to connect my PC to my new Samsung 52".

Movies are actually not filmed in 16:9. They are filmed in 2.35:1, and digitally adjusted to 16:9 for current widescreen TVs. OLED technology will update for dynamic adjustment of widescreen. Oh, I can't wait.

And 16:9 monitors are ok I guess... but 16:10 is superior for the price, considering they are putting a premium on the 16:9 monitors because of lower production numbers. Supply and demand baby!

liutpry · Oct 04, 2008, 08:46 AM // 08:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

And 16:9 monitors are ok I guess... but 16:10 is superior for the price, considering they are putting a premium on the 16:9 monitors because of lower production numbers. Supply and demand baby!

here in Italy 16:9 are way easyer to find than 16:10 so prices are just the same

Quaker · Oct 04, 2008, 09:30 PM // 21:30

There seems to be some confusion going on here. 1680x1050 is 16:10 - so is 1920x1200 - do the math. Most computer monitors are 16:10 for some reason. It's usually only when you get to larger sizes (32"+) that are meant to be part of an "entertaiment system" that you get into true 16:9 (1920x1080 usually).
Of course, this is subject to change without notice (or reason)

lakatz · Oct 04, 2008, 10:20 PM // 22:20

fyi, 16:9 is the aspect ratio of the present and the future. 4:3 is the aspect ratio of the past.

There are many other aspect ratios... 5:3, 1.85, 2.35:1 to name just a few. 16:9 is a compromise between 4:3 (TV) and 2.35:1 (the widest cinema screen). It's been in development for many years with a premature push into the consumer market around 1995 or 1996 (I forget exactly when).

Consequently, 16:9 is the base aspect ratio that post production houses use now to create masters of television and film content for release in ancillary markets. From that 16:9 master, submasters with other aspect ratios still in use, such as 4:3, are created.

4:3, however, is now antiquated and increasingly more content is being broadcast in 16:9. You can see that if you're still using a 4:3 box and see a lot of letter boxing on your content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hissy

For a given screen size and pixel size, a widescreen monitor has less pixels than a 4:3 monitor. Hence cheaper.

Useless information since 4:3 is antiquated technology (just like 1080i is). And I don't believe the number of pixels has anything to do with price. Supply and demand does, and there's no demand for 4:3 any more.

Chthon · Oct 05, 2008, 05:30 PM // 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hissy

There's two ways to look at widescreen:
a) it's a 4:3 screen with extra at the sides
b) it's a 4:3 screen with the top and bottom removed
So really, whether you consider widescreen to be better/worse than 4:3 is a matter of personal perspective and/or how influenced you are by fashion.

Actually, it depends on how a given app has been written to handle widescreen. Some add horizontal data they wouldn't display on a 4::3 screen; some chop off vertical data that they would display on a 4::3 screen; and some do something different altogether

Here is a detailed listing of how a lot of games implement widescreen support, courtesy of widescreengamingforum.com.

In the case of GW, a hybrid method is used that both removes some vertical data and adds some horizontal data. Here's the full write up. And here's a picture showing what you gain and what you lose: