NEW 2048x1536 LCD monitor wanted

[KieranD]

On a 4:3 aspect ratio you get a larger vertical size so you can display more up and down the way than on a wide-screen monitor. But without the large size and resolution the whole screen would mean nothing. Thats like trying to play a blu ray dvd on a 32inch chunky screen crt tv its just as blurry as the normal dvd would be you need to view it on a screen that is high resolution too.

You just cant see it all on different ratios its hidden its cut off its bigger than what can be displayed it needs to be in its native resolution and aspect ratio, that is why you get bars on things made for 4:3 if displayed on a widescreen display that is why you get bars on the opposite too.

What he is saying is that on a PDF that is taller than wider you would need to scroll to be able to see everything on 16:10 but on 4:3 you see more because it is physically taller but it may be all stretched looking or pixelated if the res is not high.

Resolution if effected by screen size because in actuality a larger res is a larger picture the pc is just zooming out or resizing to fit it on your smaller screen or stretching to fit it on a screen thats too big! A large 1980x1080 picture would be cut off on my pc screen so it changes the zoom it makes it smaller not in res but viewing size. I can see it fully it just zooms it, the detail is still there if i zoom in but it only displays part of the picture if i zoom in the rest is cut off because my display is to small to show it.

Example you walk up to a painting and look at it but your too close to see it all so you walk back to see it all, you cant make out all the definition or detail when walking out because its far away. Its like to see a mountain range you have to be far away but to see the rocks on it you have to be very close up or on the mountain itself. Pictures and screens are like this, large resolutions have detail but you need a big screen to be able to stretch it out to see it all in detail or you have to zoom in and just view part of it, it just makes it smaller to fit on a smaller screen the detail is still there you just cant see it without zooming in.

So if a widescreen monitor has a larger res than a 4:3 screen it will have a lots more detail but it will either be zoomed in and small looking or zoomed out and have part of it cut off, unless its smaller than the displays res then it is in actually smaller than the screen itself and it will be in only part of the screen then you can stretch it to make it larger but it gets pixelated. The 4:3 might be able to display it all but it will be pixelated because of the resolution.

My 32inch crt tv might be able to show me a bigger display and show me more of a document but i wont use it because it wont be as detailed as my monitor will i wouldnt be able to view it correctly on the tv. I would need to zoom in on a 16:10 monitor to read the PDF on a 4:3 monitor it can display more up the way so there is less need to zoom.


There is a larger viewing angle up the way, not an approximation just a sketch to show what he is saying.
But he fails to see that the widescreen with larger resolution would be better because it has more detail in it and it would be able to show more off due to this its just got a bit cut off at the bottom because the PDF or whatever is a different res to the screen its much larger or much smaller than the screen.
You have to shrink or stretch things depending on its resolution and your monitors viewing size.

To combat that you get a larger screen with a larger size res, keeping the same res would just stretch the picture.

LIKE that monitor that was on the news section the actual performance was shit because it was just 3 1440 x something monitors side by side.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

A 27" widescreen monitor is smaller than a 27" square monitor, measured by total area. It is a smaller screen. The manufacturing costs, as determined by area, cm^2, not by pixel count, is lower.

And completely irrelevant. usable screen area is what matters, not the physical dimensions.

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

The automatic scaling done in Windows or Word or Acrobat when reading a document is based on screen width. The higher the "x" the larger the zoom that can "fit". When zoomed, the page stretches from left to right, but typically less is shown in the vertical and you need to scroll more and fewer lines of text are shown. A squarer screen therefore "fits" a typical PORTRAIT document better. RODUCTIVITY WORKSTATION. Three screens side by side in PORTRAIT orientation.

I've forgotten why I'm even explaining all this. It's blxxdy obvious.

so what you're saying, is you'd go with a 4:3 screen because you're too lazy to set your PDF programs to 100% zoom?

has it ever occured to you that these programs run in a window, so you dont have to fullscreen them?

[DaedalusHelios]

Screen ratio is a matter of preference and what application you are using them for. Thats all that really needs to be said.

[Wrigleyvillain]

Wow.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Wrigleyvillain

Wow.

Come on now, we need more than that, muck in!

I tell you, when I started this thread the other day, all I wanted to know was about obtaining a new hires 4:3 LCD monitor. But little did I know it would turn into a long & excruciating discussion on the ins & outs of aspect ratios! That's tech for you.

[pantherx12]

Originally Posted by DaedalusHelios

Screen ratio is a matter of preference and what application you are using them for. Thats all that really needs to be said.

Winning post!

every STFU now

[Tatty_One]

The best 4:3 that has a refresh which is acceptable for gaming is an NEC but thats only 21 inch @ 1600 x 1200 and isnt cheap..............

http://www.nec-display-solutions.co....cat=LCD&e=e1s1

nice nevertheless.

[Mistral]

I must express my thanks to all involved - this is one of the most amusing threads I've read in a while.

Sorry for the one liner, but more or less everything that can be said on the original topic already was.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Mistral

I must express my thanks to all involved - this is one of the most amusing threads I've read in a while.

Sorry for the one liner, but more or less everything that can be said on the original topic already was.

I think you'll find this thread (sadly closed now) even more amusing.

[Benetanegia]

Originally Posted by Wile E

@Scrizz - Lemonadesoda is correct. Viewable area of a 27" 4:3 screen would be 349.92 in² vs 327.699 in² for a 16:10 screen.

Problem is, the viewable area does not mean it can display more. Resolution is the single most important factor in determining how much a panel can display.

Without realizing it you have demostrated what Qubit (and supporters) has been saying. The 4:3 is bigger and at same dot pitch (which is the only real resolution measurement) it will have a greater resolution and will display more. Simple.

[pantherx12]

If people disagree with that then they're obviously super high!

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Completely Bonkers

Sorry newtekie et al, but a 20" 4:3 DOES have more area than a 20" 16:9....

Originally Posted by Completely Bonkers

1./ NEVER seen a 4:3 bigger than 21". Show me a 22" one.
2./ Yes, you can now get 1080 "y" 21" flavor. And a 1920x1080 has 8% more pixels than a similar diagonal 4:3. It wins if that is your criteria.
3./ But the 4:3 has 1200 in the "y" and wins. And it also has a greater measurement in cm and wins. It wins if whose are your criteria.

It seems like there are people in this thread that just didnt listen to the OP, either because they dont or cant understand the perspective as he presented it. As they say, 'Never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience'.

Ok, going from your purely physical dimensions view...which doesn't matter since we are talking about amount of desktop area, and not actual area of screen surface...anyway, I'll go with your purely screen surface area argument for a while:

1.) That right there has completely disproved your arugment. If they don't make 4:3 monitors any bigger than 21", then my 30" 16:10 definitely has more screen area. No way around it, it has more screen area, and my 60" 16:9 destroys both in the screen area department!

2.) Who said anything about buying the same screen size either? Lets say you are looking at a 21.3" 2048x1536 LCD, because that is the biggest I've seen them in. You are looking at spending somewhere in the $4000+ range. While the 30" 2560x1600 can be had for somehwere in the $1200 range. The dimensions on the 2048x1536 monitor are 18.4 x 17.1, for a total screen area of 314.64 sq in. The 2560x1600 screen on the other hand is 27.2 x 19.3 for a total screen area of 524.96 sq in.

So the 2560x1600 wins in every way. It physically has more area, and it has more desktop area also, not to mention being extremely cheaper. The only time it seems to loose is when viewing documents, and again, we've already discussed why that is, and how simply it is to correct.

[pantherx12]

Listen just because they're not made doesn't mean your right about aspect ratio : /

Which is what we're talking about.

Aspect ratio

And how 1.1 would technically give you the most space, so 4.3 gives you more space then 16.9 or 10 thus you can potentially have more pixel real estate.

That is the only "argument" newtekie.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by pantherx12

Listen just because they're not made doesn't mean your right about aspect ratio : /

Which is what we're talking about.

Aspect ratio

And how 1.1 would technically give you the most space, so 4.3 gives you more space then 16.9 or 10 thus you can potentially have more pixel real estate.

That is the only "argument" newtekie.

I am completely right about aspect ratio, I've shown it with examples. But again, I'm not really arguing about aspect ratios. And I also agree with your theory. However, I'm arguing about reality, and how the real world is.

Besides the fact that 16:10 screens offer more desktop area, they also offer more physical screen area. There is no way to argue against that.

[pantherx12]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

is.

Besides the fact that 16:10 screens offer more desktop area, they also offer more physical screen area. There is no way to argue against that.

Lets do this in cm to simplify things

4.3 ratio

19.2cm x 14.4cm

16.10

19.2cm x 12.8


Wide screen is just fashionable at the moment I'm sure square monitors will be around again.


Your statement about talking about reality is irrelevent though, as the OP asked if it was possible, and everyone said why would you want 4.3.

People argued with his explanation which was correct.

Everyone backing him up was doing so just out of mathematical real life principle.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by pantherx12

Listen just because they're not made doesn't mean your right about aspect ratio : /

Which is what we're talking about.

Aspect ratio

And how 1.1 would technically give you the most space, so 4.3 gives you more space then 16.9 or 10 thus you can potentially have more pixel real estate.

That is the only "argument" newtekie.

+1 pantherx12

Yeah, indeed, it's not difficult is it? A 4:3 the size of a postage stamp would show more than a 16:9 the size of a wall, as it's all about ratios, not absolute size or pixels on screen. And indeed, a 1:1 (square) would be the biggest of all. I proved it with my PDF examples and triangle exercises, too, but I think this concept is just too difficult for some people to grasp. In cases like this, it's just better to agree to disagree and leave it at that, like I did, or you just end up going round in circles. No need for animosity.

I can't believe my simple question about getting a new 4:3 monitor would spawn such a thread! I really had no idea this would happen? Don'tcha just love tech?

[pantherx12]

Originally Posted by qubit

Don'tcha just love tech?

Heck yeah, I love stupid discussion like this too

[erocker]

My 16:10 monitor can rotate vertically. Plenty of space up and down for me. I agree this discussion is pretty um.. insignificant.

[Jstn7477]

If widescreen monitors sucked, they probably wouldn't have transitioned to them and made 4:3 extinct, would they. Anyway, this concept seems to me like "Evolve or Die". I used CRTs all my life until I got my first laptop (widescreen) in 2007. I had not a single issue acclimating to it. I don't care if my document is cut off at the bottom, I just deal with it and use the scroll wheel on my mouse. Plus, variable width web pages such as forums are great in widescreen. I don't use Word or Adobe Reader for every second of every day of every year that I use the computer, so why should I care?

Since automobiles are mainstream, does that mean you still use a horse and carriage to go places?

[pantherx12]

Originally Posted by Jstn7477

If widescreen monitors sucked, they probably wouldn't have transitioned to them and made 4:3 extinct?

Neither suck wide screen just became fashionable.

More films used it ( purely for cinematic effect) so then it eventually got into peoples homes via TV and then progressed to monitors.

As has been said many times monitors with ratios closer to 1.1 have a physical advantage so have space for more pixels if people made them again. (I for one hope they do, I hate widescreen only using this 16:10 as I was sick of low res 1280x1024)


In modern games if you had a 4.3 and 16.9/10 the 16.9/10 would show you "more" of the game world.

So they do have an advantage there. ( this is due to how games scale )

4.3 is a general all rounder : ]

[Completely Bonkers]

Originally Posted by Jstn7477

I don't use Word or Adobe Reader for every second of every day of every year that I use the computer, so why should I care?

I think that's a nice comment. Because (IMO) the 4:3 camp do use Word and Acrobat every second of every woken moment... because they use their PC's for work, ie. a living, and want maximum readability and efficiency ratios.

Whereas, the 16:10/9 camp use their PC's for entertainment, and given that consumer entertainment (TV and DVD/Bluray) now comes in HD 16:9 format, then that is their preferred aspect for their use.

Both camps are right, based on what their criteria for "better" is.

Unfortunately, anyone wanting a "real cinema" experience has to get one of those very rare 21:9 monitors.

Anyway, whatever happened to 5:4 format? 1280x1024. That was much nicer and squarer. I'd love a modern 2560x2048 TFT. That's called QSXGA. It would suit my purposes exactly. Well actually, I'd want 2x or 3x of these, side by side. And hence I would want them in a 20" format and not a 30" format. I aint an owl.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by pantherx12

Lets do this in cm to simplify things

4.3 ratio

19.2cm x 14.4cm

16.10

19.2cm x 12.8


Wide screen is just fashionable at the moment I'm sure square monitors will be around again.


Your statement about talking about reality is irrelevent though, as the OP asked if it was possible, and everyone said why would you want 4.3.

People argued with his explanation which was correct.

Everyone backing him up was doing so just out of mathematical real life principle.

Correct, you can argue about the area all you want, and I can give numbers that make 16:10 come out with more area.

The fact is that 16:10(or 9) is called Widescreen for a reason. That is because it is wider.

So when comparing screens, you don't keep the width the same and increase the height to get a 4:3. You increase the width and keep the height the same to get a widescreen.

So using your numbers as a base, for simplicity:

4:3

19.2cm x 14.4cm

16:10

23.04cm x 14.4cm


Yes, if you keep the diagonaly measurement the same, 16:10 gives less physical area(ignoring actual desktop area due to resolution). However, no one said we have to keep the diagonal measurement the same.

Lets just take a 21.3" 4:3 LCD's actual measurements:

41.91 x 34.21(roughly in cm)

If I was looking for a widescreen of that, all I would change is the width:

54.73 x 34.21

That gives us a widescreen diagonal measurement of almost exactly 25.5".

Now here is where it gets really interesting! When you look at the standard resolution for a 21.3" 4:3 LCD, it is 1600x1200. And can you guess the standard resolution on a 25.5" widescreen? Yep, 1920x1200. Funny how that works out...

Another interesting fact, only because it pertains back to the question why anyone would want a 4:3 screen: The 25.5" 16:10, which physically give more screen area, and more desktop area, is half the price of a 21.3" 4:3...

So again, I must go back to my original statement from WAAAAAY back on the first page:

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Buy the 30" 2560x1600, disable scaling, set the resolution to 2048x1536.

Originally Posted by Completely Bonkers

I think that's a nice comment. Because (IMO) the 4:3 camp do use Word and Acrobat every second of every woken moment... because they use their PC's for work, ie. a living, and want maximum readability and efficiency ratios.

Whereas, the 16:10/9 camp use their PC's for entertainment, and given that consumer entertainment (TV and DVD/Bluray) now comes in HD 16:9 format, then that is their preferred aspect for their use.

Both camps are right, based on what their criteria for "better" is.

Unfortunately, anyone wanting a "real cinema" experience has to get one of those very rare 21:9 monitors.

Anyway, whatever happened to 5:4 format? 1280x1024. That was much nicer and squarer. I'd love a modern 2560x2048 TFT. That's called QSXGA. It would suit my purposes exactly. Well actually, I'd want 2x or 3x of these, side by side. And hence I would want them in a 20" format and not a 30" format. I aint an owl.

Interestingly, I do use my 16:10 monitor at work almost entirely for reading PDFs. As I've said, if that is your primary use, a 16:10(or even better 9) monitor rotated 90° can't be beat. And because I use it like this at work is exactly why I could get the screenshot that I did. So I think your assesment might be slightly wrong, though probably generally correct.

Though I've also found that Win7's function to automatically snap a window to take up exactly half left of right of the screen far more useful for document work on a widescreen. Especially if you are doing a lot of comparing of documents, or copying and pasting from one to the other. Having a research window open on one side, and the paper I'm working on on the other is also extremely nice. This is something that I find doesn't really work on a 4:3(or 5:4) monitor. The windows end up too narrow, and hard to work with...

[qubit]

Originally Posted by erocker

My 16:10 monitor can rotate vertically. Plenty of space up and down for me. I agree this discussion is pretty um.. insignificant.

... but my explanation of aspect ratios were friggin' awesome! The fact some people just don't understand it and just repeat the same old misconceptions over and over is ironically funny, too. lol

[Completely Bonkers]

Anyone following this thread will understand this:

We need a "new standard" TFT aspect. 4:5. Yep. Taller than wider. This is to be used in the corporate environment. It would have a high pixel density and would achieve QSXGA 2048x2560 on 20" . WOW. nice. The massive "y" would make an A4 page shown fullscreen actually legible! At last! Perfect for word. Email. PDFs.

And we could place two together, side by side, without completely taking over the whole desk and requiring necks like owls.

Moreover, the consumer model could be cut at 29.5" and offer a 16:10 ratio.


Oh look, the 29.5" is the same as two 20" side by side. Well whaddayaknow?! We've been duped. A 30" widescreen is actually a 20" 4:5 format x 2! LOL

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Completely Bonkers

Anyone following this thread will understand this:

We need a "new standard" TFT aspect. 5:4. Yep. Taller than wider.

Surely you mean 4:5, as 5:4 is wider than taller, just like 4:3, 16:9 etc?

EDIT: Completely Bonkers's post fixed.