Samsung Introduces New Slim Touch of Color LCD Monitors

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by Mussels

I never said that all BD movies are in 16:9. i said some.

Pros are a pretty small portion of the market. 99% of consumers dont even know there are different panel types.

The rest of this is for Weer: Thanks for calling my opinions bullshit. Thanks for saying you expect more from me. Sorry to say, but i dont give a damn. They are my opinions, and TPU's rules say i am allowed to share my opinion as much as i want so long as i dont insult other members. I've followed that rule, you just broke it.

Movies i have on hand in 1080P (REAL 1080P, no bars, no stretching) from the blu ray or HD-DVD format:

Office space
Get smart
Hellboy 2
5 Centimeters per second
paprika


Everything i'm saying is an opinion, which i can back up with facts or theories. All you're doing is offering me insults.

And just like you brush off my point about pros because they don't have a large market share, we can brush off your example of 16:9 BD's, because they are also the vast minority.

The fact of the matter is, the only thing 16:9 is better at is a select few movies. Every single other computer related task is better served by 16:10. Which puts 16:9 movies in an even bigger minority still. 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 doesn't seem like a tough choice to me, especially considering 1920x1200 DOES 1920x1080 natively.

16:9 may be all the rage right now, but it will not replace 16:10.

[a_ump]

Originally Posted by Wile E

And just like you brush off my point about pros because they don't have a large market share, we can brush off your example of 16:9 BD's, because they are also the vast minority.

The fact of the matter is, the only thing 16:9 is better at is a select few movies. Every single other computer related task is better served by 16:10. Which puts 16:9 movies in an even bigger minority still. 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 doesn't seem like a tough choice to me, especially considering 1920x1200 DOES 1920x1080 natively.

16:9 may be all the rage right now, but it will not replace 16:10.

couldn't agree more, especially with the 1920x1200 doing 1920x1080 natively, why pick 1920x1080 when you can have both? seems pretty simple choice.

[h3llb3nd4]

OMG that 21:9 screen looks way to awesome!!

Why did samsung make the back of the screen glossy? it's not like anyones gonna look at the rear....
but a nice design though...

[Mega-Japan]

Originally Posted by Wile E

And just like you brush off my point about pros because they don't have a large market share, we can brush off your example of 16:9 BD's, because they are also the vast minority.

The fact of the matter is, the only thing 16:9 is better at is a select few movies. Every single other computer related task is better served by 16:10. Which puts 16:9 movies in an even bigger minority still. 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 doesn't seem like a tough choice to me, especially considering 1920x1200 DOES 1920x1080 natively.

16:9 may be all the rage right now, but it will not replace 16:10.

I think you're one completely missing the point here. I'll put it simple. No one can argue with you that 1920x1200 > 1920x1080, too obvious. But, a big BUT, you're comparing resolutions, not aspect ratio.

Let me try that again:

16:10 > 16:9 IF
16:10 = 1920x1080 and 16:9 = 1920x1080

But

16:9 > 16:10 IF
16:10 = 1920x1080 and 16:9 = 2048x1152

"But 1200p > 1152p" is what a noob would say.

It's simple math folks.

1920x1080 = 2073600
1920x1200 = 2304000
2048x1152 = 2359296

As you can see, a 2048x1152 (16:9) resolution has 55296 more pixels than a 1920x1200 (16:10).

"Where the heck did you pull out the '2048x1152' from?" is what another noob would say.

Clickity

Of course, if you bring a 30" Monitor with a 2560x1600 resolution, than it'd be a different story. Because a 30" Monitor with a 16:9 resolution buffed up to those lines would also kill it.

It doesn't require a genious to know this.

[farlex85]

Originally Posted by Mussels

Blurring the line between monitor and TV, thats for sure.

I'll say, w/ a tv tuner the only real thing separating the 2 is a couple of HDMI inputs.

And as related to something else .265 isn't used in very many movies. There are 3 standard variations of widescreen, w/ most falling in between 16:9 and .265:1.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by Mega-Japan

I think you're one completely missing the point here. I'll put it simple. No one can argue with you that 1920x1200 > 1920x1080, too obvious. But, a big BUT, you're comparing resolutions, not aspect ratio.

Let me try that again:

16:10 > 16:9 IF
16:10 = 1920x1080 and 16:9 = 1920x1080

But

16:9 > 16:10 IF
16:10 = 1920x1080 and 16:9 = 2048x1152

"But 1200p > 1152p" is what a noob would say.

It's simple math folks.

1920x1080 = 2073600
1920x1200 = 2304000
2048x1152 = 2359296

As you can see, a 2048x1152 (16:9) resolution has 55296 more pixels than a 1920x1200 (16:10).

"Where the heck did you pull out the '2048x1152' from?" is what another noob would say.

Clickity

Of course, if you bring a 30" Monitor with a 2560x1600 resolution, than it'd be a different story. Because a 30" Monitor with a 16:9 resolution buffed up to those lines would also kill it.

It doesn't require a genious to know this.

Yeah, and if they put the 2048 monitor into a 16:10 format, it would be 2048x1280. 2048x1280 > 2048x1152.

16:10 is always > 16:9 when the horizontal resolutions are the same.

It doesn't require a genius to know this.

[Mega-Japan]

Originally Posted by Wile E

Yeah, and if they put the 2048 monitor into a 16:10 format, it would be 2048x1280. 2048x1280 > 2048x1152.

16:10 is always > 16:9 when the horizontal resolutions are the same.

It doesn't require a genius to know this.

*facepalm*

With your logic, why don't we keep using 4:3 monitors while we're at it?

[farlex85]

Originally Posted by Mega-Japan

*facepalm*

With your logic, why don't we keep using 4:3 monitors while we're at it?

Hmm, good question. I suppose b/c of HDTV, which attempts to mimic movies, which tend to be in widescreen b/c that fits a theater style room the best. I still like 4:3 quite a bit, but it's all wide these days.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by Mega-Japan

*facepalm*

With your logic, why don't we keep using 4:3 monitors while we're at it?

How so? Widescreen offers numerous advantages over 4:3. 16:9 does not offer any advantages over 16:10.

And you can keep your facepalms and smart ass "genius" comments to yourself, thank you.

[Mega-Japan]

Originally Posted by Wile E

How so? Widescreen offers numerous advantages over 4:3. 16:9 does not offer any advantages over 16:10.

And you can keep your facepalms and smart ass "genius" comments to yourself, thank you.

I'm not trying to be a genius, however, you're just being dumb.

According to you, as long as the horizontal resolutions are the same, 16:10 > 16:9, which in reality is true, but why do you think we've been going "wide" for the past couple of decades?

2048xx1536 (4:3) > 2048x1280 (16:10) > 2048x1152 (16:9)

A 4:3 with that resolution can support 1080p videos any day of the week. The problem is how WILL the 1080p video look in there. HUGE ANNOYING black sides on top and bottom of the monitor. Bluray movies are NEVER released in a 16:10 ratio, it's either Widescreen (16:9) or Ultra-Widescreen (21:9), or 4:3 if they're from the 80's.

Put simply, 16:10 should have never existed in the first place. As someone mentioned above, only reason we even got to see them is because it was cheaper for manufacturers to make them.

Put even simpler, wider = better (for Monitors and TVs anyways).

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by Mega-Japan

I'm not trying to be a genius, however, you're just being dumb.

According to you, as long as the horizontal resolutions are the same, 16:10 > 16:9, which in reality is true, but why do you think we've been going "wide" for the past couple of decades?

2048xx1536 (4:3) > 2048x1280 (16:10) > 2048x1152 (16:9)

A 4:3 with that resolution can support 1080p videos any day of the week. The problem is how WILL the 1080p video look in there. HUGE ANNOYING black sides on top and bottom of the monitor. Bluray movies are NEVER released in a 16:10 ratio, it's either Widescreen (16:9) or Ultra-Widescreen (21:9), or 4:3 if they're from the 80's.

Put simply, 16:10 should have never existed in the first place. As someone mentioned above, only reason we even got to see them is because it was cheaper for manufacturers to make them.

Put even simpler, wider = better (for Monitors and TVs anyways).

First off, wider only = better, when it is not at the expense of vertical resolution as well. If the vertical resolution remains the same, then yes, wider is better. But the fact is, the vertical resolution is usually sacrificed to achieve a wider angle, while keeping the same horizontal resolution. That's a loss of functionality in my book. Anybody can see that a 1920x1200 monitor is better than a 1920x1080 monitor.

And we are talking LCDs here. Show me a 4:3 LCD with those resolutions that doesn't cost 4 digits. The highest you see an LCD in 4:3 is 1600x1200.

You can bet your ass that if a 1920x1440 monitor existed around the same size and price as my current monitor, I would have it. For computer use 1920x1440 is a lot better than both 1920x1200 and 1080.

No, not so great for movies, and I agree, but guess what, computer monitors are used for much more than movies.

This is what both you and Mussels are failing to see. I understand your viewpoint perfectly, I just find it flawed. 4:3 and 16:10 are much more productive for computer uses. 16:9 is not the way to go on a computer, unless it's primary purpose is widescreen movie watching.

[Mega-Japan]

Originally Posted by Wile E

First off, wider only = better, when it is not at the expense of vertical resolution as well. If the vertical resolution remains the same, then yes, wider is better. But the fact is, the vertical resolution is usually sacrificed to achieve a wider angle, while keeping the same horizontal resolution. That's a loss of functionality in my book. Anybody can see that a 1920x1200 monitor is better than a 1920x1080 monitor.

And we are talking LCDs here. Show me a 4:3 LCD with those resolutions that doesn't cost 4 digits. The highest you see an LCD in 4:3 is 1600x1200.

You can bet your ass that if a 1920x1440 monitor existed around the same size and price as my current monitor, I would have it. For computer use 1920x1440 is a lot better than both 1920x1200 and 1080.

No, not so great for movies, and I agree, but guess what, computer monitors are used for much more than movies.

This is what both you and Mussels are failing to see. I understand your viewpoint perfectly, I just find it flawed. 4:3 and 16:10 are much more productive for computer uses. 16:9 is not the way to go on a computer, unless it's primary purpose is widescreen movie watching.

Oh, now that's easy to understand. Gotcha.
But as you can probably tell from my avatar, I watch a lot of animes, as well as tons of videos and movies on my 1920x1200 monitor and I don't appreciate the black bars when watching 720p and 1080p stuff. Though now that you have explained, I understand your point and can't argue with you on that.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by Mega-Japan

Oh, now that's easy to understand. Gotcha.
But as you can probably tell from my avatar, I watch a lot of animes, as well as tons of videos and movies on my 1920x1200 monitor and I don't appreciate the black bars when watching 720p and 1080p stuff. Though now that you have explained, I understand your point and can't argue with you on that.

I do too, as you might be able to tell from my avatar. lol. But I just learned to deal with the black bars. I was the only one in my family that would buy widescreen dvds, despite having a 4:3 TV. lol.

[1c3d0g]

I don't get it. People go up in arms for what, a measly 120 pixels (1200 -1080 = 120)?

Gimme a break! There are far more important things to discuss than arguing like little brats.

[farlex85]

Originally Posted by 1c3d0g

I don't get it. People go up in arms for what, a measly 120 pixels (1200 -1080 = 120)?

Gimme a break! There are far more important things to discuss than arguing like little brats.

Well, technically it's more like 230,400 pixels(2,304,000 (1920x1200)-2,073,600(1920x1080)) since the product is the number of pixels, not the factor. But yes it isn't an enormous difference.

[DanishDevil]

The thing people have trouble with is that some games don't support 1920x1080, but support 1920x1200. I had to play a game at 1280x1024 on my 1080P television, and that really pissed me off.

[denice25]

wow! so stylish and elegant..