NEW 2048x1536 LCD monitor wanted

[qubit]

My friend recently lent me his Dell 1600x1200 LCD monitor a little while ago. This has the old 4:3 aspect ratio, which I've always preferred over widescreen and has a great picture. Viewing web pages in particular is nice, as the extra depth really helps. Games look good too, but suffer a lot of smearing, due to the 16ms response time.

I'd like a higher resolution screen and that is my own, though. Therefore, I wonder if it's possible nowadays to buy a new 2048x1536 resolution LCD monitor, regardless of price. I've had a look around the web, but large 4:3 monitors appear to be completely discontinued, unfortunately.

[Mussels]

you can get 30" LCD's with 2560x1600 resolution - its higher than you wanted in 4:3 in every way

[qubit]

Yes, I know (and I would normally recommend these to people that want large hires monitors) but I really prefer 4:3 and having this Dell reminds me of just how much. I was hoping that it might just be possible to get them, but it seems doubtful, though.

I tell you what: I've seen 2048x1536 on several CRTs. The desktop area is fantastic and the characters are tiny, but it's quite blurred and has to run at a flickery 60Hz. Between these two effects, I find it impossible to look at it for more than a few seconds. Gaming is more acceptable though and the smoothness in resolution and animation is fantastic when there's no dropped frames from the PC. However, it still leads to eyestrain with that 60Hz flicker.

[Jstn7477]

The highest res 4:3 LCDs I have seen are 1600x1200, and the lowest response time is 8ms, and it is very expensive.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824176053

What bothers you so much about the now ubiquitous widescreens?

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Jstn7477

The highest res 4:3 LCDs I have seen are 1600x1200, and the lowest response time is 8ms, and it is very expensive.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824176053

What bothers you so much about the now ubiquitous widescreens?

Thanks for the link. I'm not surprised at the price, really.

I just prefer the shape of 4:3, as it's more comfortable to view, for me. By "widening" the picture, all that's really happening, is that the vertical resolution is lowered, which means more vertical scrolling. Think about how screen size is measured - diagonally. Therefore, for any given diagonal size, the widescreen ratio will actually give you less area.

Technically, the "ideal" ratio would be 1:1, but then that wouldn't be very comfortable to view either, because humans have two eyes, spaced horizontally. Therefore the picture does need to be wider than taller, but the question is by how much? To me, the old 4:3 ratio struck the right balance.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by qubit

Thanks for the link. I'm not surprised at the price, really.

I just prefer the shape of 4:3, as it's more comfortable to view, for me. By "widening" the picture, all that's really happening, is that the vertical resolution is lowered, which means more vertical scrolling. Think about how screen size is measured - diagonally. Therefore, for any given diagonal size, the widescreen ratio will actually give you less area.

Technically, the "ideal" ratio would be 1:1, but then that wouldn't be very comfortable to view either, because humans have two eyes, spaced horizontally. Therefore the picture does need to be wider than taller, but the question is by how much? To me, the old 4:3 ratio struck the right balance.

Widescreen doesn't diminish vertical viewing if you choose the appropriate size. 24" WS monitors weigh in at 1920x1200 in most cases. That's superior to 16x12 as it offers no losses in any direction, but gains in the horizontal. Just depends on how you want to look at things, I suppose.

Tho, 1920x1440 would be swell. lol.

[newtekie1]

Buy the 30" 2560x1600, disable scaling, set the resolution to 2048x1536. The black bars will just be a reminder of the extra space you are losing by demanding a 4:3 monitor...

And going with a Widscreen does not lower vertical resolution, in fact the 30" 2560x1600 widescreens have a higher vertical resolution than a 4:3 2048x1536.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Buy the 30" 2560x1600, disable scaling, set the resolution to 2048x1536. The black bars will just be a reminder of the extra space you are losing by demanding a 4:3 monitor...

As I explained, it's not a matter of the individual size, but the ratio that matters. So yes, with your particular example, the 2560x1600 screen would be bigger in both dimensions.

However, consider the 4:3 version: keeping the horizontal resolution the same would give you a vertical of 1920 in 4:3! That would give you an awesomely huge screen!

This issue is also about the shape of screen that you prefer looking at, too. I was only offered this Dell monitor, because I got burgled recently and the <insert expletive> made off with my Samsung 2233RZ 1680x1050 monitor, among other things, besides smashing my window. The Samsung was nice looking too, but having seen both now, I can tell you that I prefer the squarer picture. My friend likes the wider picture; there's no right or wrong here. Also, it just so happens that 1600x1200 gives you about 8.8% more resolution, too.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by qubit

As I explained, it's not a matter of the individual size, but the ratio that matters. So yes, with your particular example, the 2560x1600 screen would be bigger in both dimensions.

However, consider the 4:3 version: keeping the horizontal resolution the same would give you a vertical of 1920 in 4:3! That would give you an awesomely huge screen!

This issue is also about the shape of screen that you prefer looking at, too. I was only offered this Dell monitor, because I got burgled recently and the <insert expletive> made off with my Samsung 2233RZ 1680x1050 monitor, among other things, besides smashing my window. The Samsung was nice looking too, but having seen both now, I can tell you that I prefer the squarer picture. My friend likes the wider picture; there's no right or wrong here. Also, it just so happens that 1600x1200 gives you about 8.8% more resolution, too.

Or 16.7% less resolution than a typical 24". Again, it all depends on the perspective you use to make your calculations.

[Jizzler]

True. I love my 16:10 24" monitor for 'everything', but a couple jobs ago I had a triple 4:3 19" setup that was great for development.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Wile E

Or 16.7% less resolution than a typical 24". Again, it all depends on the perspective you use to make your calculations.

It depends on what your baseline is. If we use the standard diagonal measurement for sizing monitors, then you lose more & more as you make it wider and wider.

However, if you say "we'll keep the surface area the same" then you don't lose anything - it's a zero sum game. Ultimately though, it's the diagonal measurement that determines optimum area, as it's the ratio of the two sides.

A good way to demonstrate what I'm saying, is to view a PDF document. Max it out to fill the screen and set the text rendering to screen width. Then, regardless of screen size or resolution, the 4:3 monitor will show you more of the document, every time. Similarly, a hypothetical 1:1 monitor would show more than the 4:3 or the 16:9 and is actually the ratio that would show you the most - think about it, the X & Y dimensions are balanced.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by qubit

It depends on what your baseline is. If we use the standard diagonal measurement for sizing monitors, then you lose more & more as you make it wider and wider.

However, if you say "we'll keep the surface area the same" then you don't lose anything - it's a zero sum game. Ultimately though, it's the diagonal measurement that determines optimum area, as it's the ratio of the two sides.

A good way to demonstrate what I'm saying, is to view a PDF document. Max it out to fill the screen and set the text rendering to screen width. Then, regardless of screen size or resolution, the 4:3 monitor will show you more of the document, every time. Similarly, a hypothetical 1:1 monitor would show more than the 4:3 or the 16:9 and is actually the ratio that would show you the most - think about it, the X & Y dimensions are balanced.

No, the amount shown has nothing to do with the physical diagonal measurement at all.

The absolute only thing that matters is resolution. 1920x1200 will show 16.7% more of the pdf than 1600x1200 100% of the time. Screen size does not matter at all.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Wile E

No, the amount shown has nothing to do with the physical diagonal measurement at all.

The absolute only thing that matters is resolution. 1920x1200 will show 16.7% more of the pdf than 1600x1200 100% of the time. Screen size does not matter at all.

That's ok, you don't have to believe me. You're making the classic mistake of thinking "wider" = "more", when it actually means less.

Simply try the experiment for yourself as I described it and the proof will be irrefutable - the squarer screen will show more of the document, regardless of screen size or resolution.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by qubit

That's ok, you don't have to believe me.

Simply try the experiment for yourself as I described it and the proof will be irrefutable - the squarer screen will show more of the document, regardless of screen size or resolution.

No, you are 100% incorrect. Sorry. That's not the way it works. The size of the screen does not matter. Images on a computer are not rendered in inches, they are rendered in pixels. 1920x1200 will display the same amount of the pdf on a 17" screen, as it would a 24" screen. It would be smaller on the 17" screen, but the same thing will be rendered on both.

This is 100% fact. 100% indisputable. The only contributing factor to how much of a specific image/document/pdf/web page/game/etc./etc. is displayed is the output resolution. Screen size has absolutely 0 to do with it. 1920x1200 will render more than 1600x1200 in 100% of all cases. Screen size does not matter.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Wile E

No, you are 100% incorrect. Sorry. That's not the way it works. The size of the screen does not matter. Images on a computer are not rendered in inches, they are rendered in pixels. 1920x1200 will display the same amount of the pdf on a 17" screen, as it would a 24" screen. It would be smaller on the 17" screen, but the same thing will be rendered on both.

This is 100% fact. 100% indisputable. The only contributing factor to how much of a specific image/document/pdf/web page/game/etc./etc. is displayed is the output resolution. Screen size has absolutely 0 to do with it. 1920x1200 will render more than 1600x1200 in 100% of all cases. Screen size does not matter.

This, and I'll give an example:

Using the original two resolutions discussed in this thread. The Black and White part shows what you would see on a 4:3 screen, and the color part shows what you would see on a 16:10 screen.


It doesn't matter if the screens are 17" or 30", the amount shown on the screen is greater in both directions with the 16:10 resolution.

[Jstn7477]

Originally Posted by Wile E

No, you are 100% incorrect. Sorry. That's not the way it works. The size of the screen does not matter. Images on a computer are not rendered in inches, they are rendered in pixels. 1920x1200 will display the same amount of the pdf on a 17" screen, as it would a 24" screen. It would be smaller on the 17" screen, but the same thing will be rendered on both.

This is 100% fact. 100% indisputable. The only contributing factor to how much of a specific image/document/pdf/web page/game/etc./etc. is displayed is the output resolution. Screen size has absolutely 0 to do with it. 1920x1200 will render more than 1600x1200 in 100% of all cases. Screen size does not matter.

+1.

1920*1200 = 2,304,000 pixels 16:10
1920*1080 = 2,073,600 pixels 16:9
1600*1200 = 1,920,000 pixels 4:3 (or 13.3:10 or 12:9)

Thus, the 4:3 display will only display 83% of the pixels versus a 16:10 display of the same vertical resolution.

Like Wile E said, everything is rendered in pixels. If you have a 19" 1920*1200 monitor vs. a 24" 1920*1200 monitor, the 24" displays the same amount of data. The 24" display has much larger pixels than a 19" display of the same resolution.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by qubit

A good way to demonstrate what I'm saying, is to view a PDF document. Max it out to fill the screen and set the text rendering to screen width. Then, regardless of screen size or resolution, the 4:3 monitor will show you more of the document, every time. Similarly, a hypothetical 1:1 monitor would show more than the 4:3 or the 16:9 and is actually the ratio that would show you the most - think about it, the X & Y dimensions are balanced.

Yes, if you set the document to the full width, with the window maximized, more of the document is shown on a 4:3 screen. The reason for this is obviously because the document has to be zoomed in less on a 4:3 screen than a 16:10 to fill the space horizontally.

I'll try and show what you are talking about and what we are talking about with some examples:

Here is a PDF displayed on a 1680x1050 screen:


Here is the same PDF displayed on a 1280x1024 screen:


The interesting thing to note, is obviously what you have been saying, more of the document is displayed vertically on the 4:3 resolution, despite it having a lower vertical resolution.

But lets look at one last thing.

Here is the same PDF displayed on a 1680x1050 screen, but with the PDF reader window resized to be 1280 pixels wide:


Notice how even more of the document is visable now than with a 4:3 resolution? The document is still 1280 Pixels wide, but more of the document is visable vertically because the 16:10 resolution allows for a higher vertical resolution.

But notice the zoon percentages at the bottom of each window. The 16:10 document is zoomed in to almost 200%. The 4:3 windows is only 150%. That is why more of the document is visable on the 4:3 resolution. To fill the space horizontally, the document must be zoomed in further on a 16:10 screen. Of course the simple way to avoid this is to not maximize the window, and instead manually size it to a narrower size.

[Mussels]

newtekie1's last example is where i was going to go.

While some PDF viewers may show less when fullscreened due to the fact they zoom in more, a 1600x1200 and a 1920x1200 screen will show you 100% the same amount of PDF - just that you'll have extra space on the side for another window or two, on the widescreen.

You CANNOT get less if the resolution is GREATER.

[pantherx12]

I can see where the other guy is coming from, thing is your comparing apples to oranges, they need to have the similar resolutions to be comparable.


If you had a 4.3 screen that's width was 1920 pixels then it would show more then a 16:9 also with a 1920 width.

[lemonadesoda]

Qubit. I know where you are coming from and I agree 100%.

We need more TFT options with more "y".

This is how I have solved the issue:

• Buy 3x 1600x1200 monitors that have "90 rotate" feature. Alternatively, just make sure you can VESA mount them and buy your own stand
• Rotate. And put next to each other
• Now you have 3x 1200x1600 = 3600x1600. The 1600 in the "y" is perfect for reading webpages and PDFs and writing Word documents
• You obviously need to GPUs to drive 3 screens or a modern ATI card with eyefinity
• Use www.ultramon.com to manage the three monitors

Unfortunately, one of my Samsung 204Ts blew, and so I now only use 2 monitors in this setup.

IMO, for "office work" 2 or 3 monitors in the above configuration is much much better than a massive 2560x1600 due to ability to run 2 or 3 independent applications all locking within their respective monitors. The only downside is gaming... and cleartype. Unbelieveably, Windows CE can do cleartype on 90° rotate, but regular PC Windows cant!!!!

TIP: Go to display, options, advanced and set screen to 120dpi, rather than the default 96dpi. It will make everything a lot more legible.

[qubit]

Thanks for the screenshots newtekie1. But unfortunately, as pantherx12 said, you aren't comparing like with like, as the widescreen shot just had more pixels in it, which simply shows a finer picture and hence the 1280 unmaxed shot fits inside it - the widescreen still has less area. These monitors would be more accurately described as "shallow depth", but then nobody would buy them...

What I'm talking about is the ratio of width & height, which is completely independent of resolution and physical screen size. This is why it's called the Aspect Ratio and the squarer monitor wins in showing more.

It all comes down to Pythagoras Theorem, which is explained in this Wikipedia article.

Also, to prove this to yourself, take a pencil, paper and ruler and draw two triangles. One with the hypotenuse (the diagonal) at about 45 degrees from the horizontal and length, say, 5cm (it could actually be anything convenient). Then draw another triangle with a 5cm diagonal at say, 20 degrees to the diagonal.

Measure the horizontal & vertical lengths of both triangles and multiply them to get the area of a box ie the monitor (divide by 2 for a triangle). You'll find that the 45 degree triangle has more area. There's your proof. I would draw this to make the illustration easier to understand, but I don't know how to do this on the computer, unfortunately.

Another way to think about it, is to consider what happens when you reduce that angle, to say 5 degrees - you now have a "super widescreen" shape and hardly any area. To show any level of detail in it, you'd have to jack up the resolution a great deal and sit about 2 inches away from it to see it.

Of course, the marketing guys all want us to think that widescreen gives us "more", because it helps their sales, doesn't it?

[qubit]

lemonadesoda, that's a really creative solution. Nice.

Thanks for the dpi tip.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by qubit

Thanks for the screenshots newtekie1. But unfortunately, as pantherx12 said, you aren't comparing like with like, as the widescreen shot just had more pixels in it, which simply shows a finer picture and hence the 1280 unmaxed shot fits inside it - the widescreen still has less area. These monitors would be more accurately described as "shallow depth", but then nobody would buy them...

What I'm talking about is the ratio of width & height, which is completely independent of resolution and physical screen size. This is why it's called the Aspect Ratio and the squarer monitor wins in showing more.

It all comes down to Pythagoras Theorem, which is explained in this Wikipedia article.

Also, to prove this to yourself, take a pencil, paper and ruler and draw two triangles. One with the hypotenuse (the diagonal) at about 45 degrees from the horizontal and length, say, 5cm (it could actually be anything convenient). Then draw another triangle with a 5cm diagonal at say, 20 degrees to the diagonal.

Measure the horizontal & vertical lengths of both triangles and multiply them to get the area of a box ie the monitor (divide by 2 for a triangle). You'll find that the 45 degree triangle has more area. There's your proof. I would draw this to make the illustration easier to understand, but I don't know how to do this on the computer, unfortunately.

Another way to think about it, is to consider what happens when you reduce that angle, to say 5 degrees - you now have a "super widescreen" shape and hardly any area. To show any level of detail in it, you'd have to jack up the resolution a great deal and sit about 2 inches away from it to see it.

Of course, the marketing guys all want us to think that widescreen gives us "more", because it helps their sales, doesn't it?

seriously... if you cannot comprehend that 1920x1200 = more than 1600x1200, you really have some issues.

There is simply no way, none that you can explain otherwise. you're making some really weird examples, but they dont prove anything.

how is aspect ratio even related to this?

If you put a PDF or webpage on a screen with the two resolutions i listed above, you get the exact same image just on the widescreen you have more space on the sides

anything you say other than that, is pure delusion

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Mussels

seriously... if you cannot comprehend that 1920x1200 = more than 1600x1200, you really have some issues.

There is simply no way, none that you can explain otherwise. you're making some really weird examples, but they dont prove anything.

how is aspect ratio even related to this?

If you put a PDF or webpage on a screen with the two resolutions i listed above, you get the exact same image just on the widescreen you have more space on the sides

anything you say other than that, is pure delusion

You obviously don't understand my explanation. Perhaps it's a little too deep for you? Delusional my ass.

[DaedalusHelios]

Originally Posted by qubit

My friend recently lent me his Dell 1600x1200 LCD monitor a little while ago. This has the old 4:3 aspect ratio, which I've always preferred over widescreen and has a great picture. Viewing web pages in particular is nice, as the extra depth really helps. Games look good too, but suffer a lot of smearing, due to the 16ms response time.

I'd like a higher resolution screen and that is my own, though. Therefore, I wonder if it's possible nowadays to buy a new 2048x1536 resolution LCD monitor, regardless of price. I've had a look around the web, but large 4:3 monitors appear to be completely discontinued, unfortunately.

I have one sitting right next to me in CRT 2048x1536. I used it for CAD 12 years ago.