Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by qubit, Dec 6, 2009.
It must be gorgeous! I'm so jealous.
Mussels you've completely missed the point man
He's arguing the 4.3 aspect ratio reveals more.
For example 4.3 1920 would be 1920x1440
That's more pixels then 1920 x1080 or even 1200 ( 16.9 and 16.10 )
Thus 4.3 "better"
Blurred !! 60Hz flicker !! Not on my CRT it isnt I'm still using a sony 21" crt mainly because this baby can run 2048x1536 @ 70hz.
But not many crt's can manage it. Most crt's have been dumped or recycled by now. & as for finding a 2048x1536 LCD ! Pretty sure there was never any made.
Dont work like that ! Hardly anyones monitor is going to have a high enough pixel count to show that pic in its true size. Hence windows resizes pictures to fit your resolution.
That fact that 2560x1600 dog photo wouldnt fully fit in a res of 2048x1536 is nothing to do with the aspect ratio its simply the pic is to big !
Look heres a 1920x1200 (16:10) photo shown in its full size. Fits nice on my monitor at 2048x1536 (4:3)
If you go by pure resolution, the sole determining factor of how much can fit on the screen, if you look at 1280x1024 and the closest widescreen resolution 1680x1050, the widescreen definitely has more area. 1280x1024=1,310,720 Pixels 1680x1050=1,764,000 Pixels
If you look at just the vertical area, the 4:3 resolution only has 1024 vertical pixels, and the 16:10 has 1050. The widescreen still has more.
Now I will say, if you go with a 1280x800 moniotor, keeping the horizontal number the same, then yes you loose screen area, but no one does that. That is why it is called widescreen, because the screen is made wider, not shorter. If we did that, they would be called shortscreens...
It doesn't win at showing more, as I've and others have said, how much can be shown depends entirely on the resolution. Higher resoltuion means more shown on the screen. Aspect ratio does not matter. This is true even when the aspect ration remains entirely the same. Look at 720x480(SD) and 1920x1080(HD), more is definitely shown with the higher resolution.
In reality, for document viewing, a taller screen wins at displaying more of the document. If that is what you are after, then buying a widescreen that can rotate is actually better than a 4:3. The same 16:10 aspect ration, ratated 90° will show far more of the document then 4:3 ever could.
Now you are thinking entirely of dimensions again. The dimension of the monitor has nothing to do with how much is displayed on the screen. We've gone over this.
You failed real hard at understanding the point of that example...
The picture is irrelevent(I just used it because my dog is bad ass and it was quickly available to me). The important part that you are missing is the red square showing the difference in amount of viewable area between the two resolutions we discussed. Obviously, when actually viewing a picture, it will be resized to fit any screen. In actuality, the picture was bigger than even that when I started, the original dimensions were 3072x1920...
I could have done the example with simple colors, but what fun would that be?
But if you must have it:
That is the same thing without the picture of SuperDog(no that's not his real name). Notice how the 2048x1536 resolution fits entirely inside the 2560x1600 resolution? That is because the 2560x1600 resolution has more pixels, so it can display more.
As I've said, the 4:3 aspect ratio might give the illusion of displaying more in a few instances, like displaying documents full screen displaying more of the document. However, I've already gone over why this is.
@ this entire discussion: Is it hard to calculate Width*Height?
+1 on panthers post though.
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.
The question which has more pixels is a different question. That is *only* answered by the simple calculation: Total pixels = "x pixels" x "y pixels".
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. However, the reverse is true for a LANDSCAPE document. If you do a lot of powerpoint work, or photoshop, then you want your screen LANDSCAPE.
If you do a lot of PORTRAIT work, like reading documents in Word, PDF, etc. then I thoroughly advise anyone to rotate their screen 90°, assuming your TFT can do this. This is what I have on my PRODUCTIVITY WORKSTATION. Three screens side by side in PORTRAIT orientation.
I've forgotten why I'm even explaining all this. It's blxxdy obvious. :shadedshu
And like I said, it all depends on your perspective. 4:3 is better if both screens have the same horizontal resolution. AKA: 1920x1200 vs 1920x1440. But, 16:10 is better if you have the same vertical resolution. AKA: 1920x1200 vs 1600x1200.
Again: perspective, perspective, perspective.
But, considering anything higher than 1600x1200 in a 4:3 lcd is next to impossible to find, 16:10 options end up being better in real world scenarios.
Now, don't take any of this to mean I think 16:10 is superior in every way. That's not the case. If There was a 1920x1440 monitor in the same approximate size as my 24", I would've grabbed it. Problem is, that monitor doesn't exist, so it's a moot point.
As far as the zoom argument, that's just a simple matter of turning down the zoom.
Thanks newtekie1. Unfortunately, you are still confusing the resolution the monitor is built with, with the aspect ratio. I don't really know what else I can do to clarify it.
Perhaps you could try this variation on my PDF experiment:
Set your monitor to 1:1 pixel mapping (I have a feeling it is already )
Set a screen res of 1024x768 (4:3 ratio) on that big monitor of yours
Max out the PDF and not how much of it you can see (set viewer to screen width)
Do a print screen (screenshot)
Now set your monitor to native res (2560x1600 widescreen, I believe)
Max out that PDF
Compare the 4:3 screenshot with what you see now.
The result? You see more of the document in the low res 4:3 screenshot. This is because aspect ratio is independent of physical resolution and screen size.
And here, I've just found this wikipedia article while writing this, explaining why widescreen gives you less, not more. While it's not as thorough as my first principles explanation, it does explain it briefly. Please scroll down to the section called Conversion. Here's the relevant part of it:
For word processing and office type applications, vertical measurement can be more important than diagonal measurement when determining size requirements. When monitors are sold the quoted size is the diagonal measurement of the display area. Because of the different ratio, a 16:10 monitor will have a smaller vertical size than a 4:3 monitor of the same advertised size. [Qubit's emphasis]
If you still don't agree, then perhaps it's best we leave this one here. This is only an informal discussion, after all and somewhat off-topic for this thread.
What difference does the inches measurement of the screen make? Informed buyers don't go by screen size alone, they also factor in resolution. You can't take one without the other. a 22" 1600x1200 screen will display exactly the same thing as a 20" 1600x1200 screen.
Again, the size doesn't matter, only resolution.
WileE is correct.
Do you really want to spend thousands of dollars on a 2048x1536 monitor?
Yeah this is widescreen, you you get a great pixel/money ratio here:
If you truly want a 4:3 ratio monitor, don't bother with LCD. Get a used CRT and be done with it. Or, just go drop a couple grand + on what you really want. That being said, what is the purpose? Why don't you just get what you want to get suited to your opinion?
Disagree. 4:3 = 1600x1200 / 16:10 = 1920x1200. Same "vertical size."
I already did that, and like I said, the phenomenon you are decribing is related to the aspect ration. But more importantly it has to do how much the page has to be zoomed to fill the screen.
A piece of paper it taller than wider. Ideally, if you are viewing documents constantly, you want a monitor that is also taller than wider. The issue comes down to the aspect ratio of the screen vs. the aspect ratio of the document/image you are viewing.
Now, the 16:10 aspect ratio gives more screen real estate. So more can be shown on the screen, as my previous screenshots show. However, if you expand the document to fill the entire screen width, then it needs to be zoomed in further to do that, and hence more of it gets pushed off the bottom of the screen. But as I showed, if you don't maximize the Window, and instead leave the window at the same width that you would have on a 4:3 screen, more is displayed on a 16:10 screen then would be displayed on the 4:3.
Now here is another interesting trick, and Lemon touched on this. If you are really into document viewing, take a 16:10 monitor and rotate it 90°. There are a lot of monitors out on the market designed specifically for this. The stands allow rotating on the fly, and many even come with software that automatically orient the screen properly when you physically rotate the monitor.
The result is this:
Notice how, not only is there more visable, but a lot more of the document is visable. You can see the entire first page, and some of the second.
You are wrong, in saying a square monitor would be best. For the one instance where a widescreen lacks, a square monitor would not be ideal, but instead a tall narrow monitor would be best.
I've done your PDF experiment, and shown what it does. You are correct in saying that when the window is maximized and the document is set to display at the full with, less of the document is visable. However, you are wrong in saying a 16:10 resolution displays less area. That simply isn't true. More resolution means more display area, there is no way around that. And as I've already shown on the first page of this thread, when the window isn't maximized, not only is the document taking up the same horizontal area, but it has more vertical area, and more of the document is shown.
So the simple solution to your problem is not to spend outragous amounts of money on a 4:3 hi res monitor, but instead spend far less on a 16:10 monitor with a higher res, and simply not maximize the window, or buy one that rotates.
No, I just wondered if it was at all possible to still get them. I didn't think so and this thread has confirmed that, so thanks everyone. I don't want a CRT for general desktop use any more, but a large 4:3 LCD would have been nice, as I like the shape better. I wouldn't drop stupid money on any monitor, either.
Of course 1920x1200 will display more detail than 1600x1200 and I never said it didn't. However, yourself, Wile E & Newtekie1 are all missing the point of what I'm trying to say. I've explained it several times over now, in a lot of detail, so I can't see the point in going round in circles any more. This is a casual chat anyway, so it doesn't matter that much if we don't agree. No harm done.
Matching the aspect ratio to the content is a sensible idea, agreed there. Hence, 16:9 TV programs look better on a 16:9 TV, as the picture fits exactly, without black bars. No-ones arguing that and isn't what I was saying.
It does not. There's the crux of your misunderstanding. The answer to this question is in my previous posts, even the Wikipedia article explained it, in a simplified way. So I won't repeat myself here.
I didn't actually say a square monitor "is best". Just that it shows you more. What's "best", depends on various factors, but mainly one's personal preference and the aspect ratio of the content being viewed.
Thanks for doing my experiment - appreciate it. That means that you have seen how the squarer shape has more area and the effect is independent of physical resolution and physical size. This is why you saw more of the document on the low res 1024x768 4:3 screenshot than the super high res widescreen. (Doing the triangle exercise above also proves what I'm saying and is perhaps a better example.) Similarly, expanding it vertically beyond 1:1 simply means that you're actually shrinking it horizontally. You now have a screen which is 9:16, which is exactly equivalent to 16:9, rotated 90 degrees.
Comparing a maxed window with an unmaxed one isn't comparing like with like and you are again confusing physical resolution with aspect ratio. More resolution = a "bigger" monitor and hence will show more fine detail, just as you demonstrated, but aspect ratio isn't about resolution, but screen area, which is not the same thing - it's a constant that's physically separate from the dimensions and pixel resolution. Hence, weirdly the physically smaller, low res 4:3 screen, has a "bigger" area, simply because of it's shape!
I quite agree that it wouldn't be worth paying over the odds or looking all over for a hires 4:3 monitor, even though I like the shape and as you know, my 1680x1050 baby got stolen by some thieving <insert expletive> burglars, so I will do the same again and probably get a 1920x1200 monitor this time - once the security improvements have been made to my house.
In the end, as I've said in a couple of posts now, this is just a casual chat, so if we don't agree it's ok and no harm done. I just don't think it's worth continuing to go round in circles over this.
As I and many others have said, the 4:3 does NOT have more area, saying that is completely wrong. Again, what you are seeing when viewing documents has to do with stretching a tall narrow document to fit a short wide screen.
Set both to 100%, and the 16:10 resolution will show more of the document. That is because the 16:10 resolution has more area. And, again, if you buy a 16:10 monitor and simply resize the window so the window is narrower, it will also show more of the document. I'm not comparing anything, I'm showing you that this is fact.
Sorry newtekie et al, but a 20" 4:3 DOES have more area than a 20" 16:9. Remember, that area is measured in square cm or square inches. Also the 20" 4:3 will typically have a resolution of 1600x1200, and the 20" 16:9 will typically have a resolution of 1680x1050, so the 20" 4:3 also has more pixel real estate.
When we talk about a 1920x1080 display, we are now talking 24". There are no 1600x1200 24" TFTs. In the CRT world there are 24" 2048x1536. Here the CRT has a greater area cm2, and a higher pixel count than a widescreen TFT. The BEST that a widescreen TFT can do at 23" is 2048x1152. (Samsung panel). But the 4:3 at 2048x1536 is clearly the winner again.
This is what qubit is talking about: For the same DIAGONAL MEASUREMENT, 4:3 ratio monitors give you "more". However, a 16:10 or 16:9 can give you more pixels than a 4:3 but only when you have a larger diagonal measurement.
Note that these comments are true today. Next year this may be all wrong due to increased pixel density options and new panels.
Oh, look up the IBM T221. That is 16:10 and just win-wins.
Except that the question was asked in reference to LCD's. CRTs have no bearing in this argument, and therefore your examples are moot.
It also doesn't take into account that 1600x1200 lcds come in 20-22" flavor, but there are now 1080p screens that come in at 21.5"
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'.
@Wile. Please check my earlier post... You might have missed some data... I edited the table to add references to some examples. They are indeed TFTs. And read the thread. The OP was asking are there TFTs as good (in terms of resolution) as the old 4:3 CRTs
Honestly people 4:3 is dead. Welcome to the future! Meh.
All this 4:3 talk is going to make me bring my old 20" Trinitron home from work.
You're right, it's 21.3 vs 21.5 for the 1080p. I wasn't being exact.
Regretably, quite true.
Yep 21.3 vs. 21.5 is a 9% difference in size. Funny, that is also the same as the pixel count gain. So presumably it is the identical panel technology just "cut" into letterbox rather than squares. No win. Draw.
You need to be. Or I will bring you down to my level of inaccuracy, and beat you with experience.
I don't see it as a draw. More pixels gives more displayable area in everything except documents. It still leans to the 1080p screen in my estimation.
did he really just say that
This is the most active I've seen you in ages. lol.
@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.
If you lived near me I would let you have it for $30.
It has accurate color though, it was an IBM model made for commercial art.
Separate names with a comma.