NEW 2048x1536 LCD monitor wanted

[UbErN00b]

 

[3870x2]

Well, I would prefer a less wide one and have more height.
People would say nay to that screen all the time (they have to move their head to the left and to the right all the time). If it would have more height, we could at least see the face of the dead person in that screenshot .

Anyway I think it sucks there are still (three years later now) no 2048x1536 (4:3) or 2000x1600 (5:4) LCD's. (Well, I think there is a 2048x1536 retina iPad now?)
Simply because movies are recorded in 2.35:1 or at least closer than 16:9 than to 4:3, it's better to view movies on a wide-screen. But I think it would be better movies would be recorded on 4:3. And watching movies is only a small part of my computer time.

Because the eyes are next to each other, its logical screens are a bit wider than they are high. But I think 4:3 would be best for that - or at least better than 16:10, 16:9 or even 2.35:1. It's not like the eyes are very far away from each other. If the eyes would above each other, a 3:4 monitor would be better than a 9:16 or 10:16.
Probably even still better (for the eyes) would be a ellipse shaped monitor (with 4:3 ratio if a rectangle was drawn around it) - but that's probably not that practical.

It's indeed (also) a matter of preference; people like newtekie1 like to have two portrait papers next to each other on the screen. Not me - I never do that.

"However, no one said we have to keep the diagonal measurement the same."
True or not (me indeed thinks the diagonal is not interesting): you compare a 4:3 19.2x14.4 to a 16:10 23.04x14.4, which is of course not really fair.
Patherx12 compares a 4.3 19.2x14.4 with a 16.10 19.2x12.8, which is also not really fair.
To have a fair comparison, you'd want to compare two monitors with the same nr. of cm2 screen surface. Then, I prefer 4:3 or even 5:4 to 16:10/16:9 hands down.

Would we only have 1 eye, than indeed a square (of better: round) monitor would be best. But because we have 2 eyes next to each other, 4:3 is better.
I hear people say it all the time: 'wider is better'. Which, in itself, is totally nonsense. Than a 100.000x100 (or even 1.000.000x10) would be better than a 3651x2738 monitor (both approx. 10 million pixels).

A spherical monitor would be nice too:
http://www.umassmag.com/2009/Fall-09/images/science-world.jpg
Superb gaming, for some games. Like RISK and Civilization, and maybe a type of Settlers (maybe in combo with a normal monitor).

Thats it, you're going to Time Out for 5 minutes. Sit in the chair in the corner.

 

[qubit]

@mandelbrot

I used to prefer 4:3 hands down myself too, but not any more. Widescreen works better for human vision, because it's naturally easier and more comfortable for us to look side to side than up and down.

I've currently got a 26" 1920x1200 monitor and it's beautiful. However, I'm about to replace it with the Asus VG278HE 1080p monitor when it arrives, because of its headline feature of 144Hz and 3D Vision compatibility.

I wanted to see if I could stand the feeling of crampedness by having less height, so I set my current monitor to 1080 to test it. After the initial feeling of being slightly squashed went away, I actually found it a little bit easier to use, since the height was less and there wasn't so much vertical motion. I was quite surprised by this, but I might just end up preferring 16:9 monitors because of this alone. I'll have to wait and see.

Welcome to TPU.

 

[mandelbrot]

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

Well, compared to Beta-max VHS sucked.
Compared to mechanical (alps or cherry switches) keyboards, 99.99% of the new keyboards (=rubber dome keys) totally suck.
So, in itself, popularity doesn't say sh!t about suckability.

Anyway, as someone already posted, there _are_ some 2048x1536 TFT's (at least already available since 2006). I found one for just $5393.10:
http://www.provantage.com/eizo-gs320-cl-p-bk~9EIZL06Q.htm
Oh wait... This one is only grayscale.

Another one:
http://www.retrevo.com/search?q=Eizo+FA-2090&rt=sp&modelid=1360695
Here, it says its color. But on an old Ebay listing it says again 'medical'; I assume that means grayscale again:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Eizo-FA-2090-20-8-LCD-Monitor-2048-x-1536-Medical-/150611104836
A 2560x2048 one:
http://www.edldisplays.com/roadmap/3028.php
They also have a 2048x2048 one:

Typical applications include (for all EDL-monitors):
Air Traffic Control
Vessel Traffic Control
Shipboard Navigation
Shipboard Process Control
Industrial Process Control
Flight Simulation
Control Rooms
Command Centers
Their ISO 13406-2 allows 28 (sub)pixeldefects... I think that's alarming (to say the least) when using such monitors for air traffic control!!

About the iPad3 2048x1536: it can be used as a desktop monitor, but it's too small for such.

Welcome to TPU

Thanx!
I'm disappointed that you know too prefer widescreen... I guess you got just accustomed to it simply because there are no affordable large 4:3 TFT's.

 

[johnspack]

I'm sorry, but 1920x1200 blows away 4:3, and 1080 res equally. I can use all, and I always come back to 16:10 every time! Yes, an entry level 24" 1920x1200 comes in at 320us or more, but why not?

 

[Wile E]

I'm sorry, but 1920x1200 blows away 4:3, and 1080 res equally. I can use all, and I always come back to 16:10 every time! Yes, an entry level 24" 1920x1200 comes in at 320us or more, but why not?

That all depends. If the horizontal resolution is equal, the 4:3 would be better than both 16:9 and 16:10. Take 1920 for a horizontal resolution as an example. It would be 1920x1080, 1920x1200 and 1920x1440 for 16:9, 16:10 and 4:3, respectively. The 4:3 monitor would display both what the 16:9 and 16:10 could, with a 1:1 pixel ratio. Sure, you get bars at the top and bottom, but the picture is 100% identical. Then you still have the extra vertical resolution for those things that benefit from it.

I'd take a 4:3 monitor any day over either of the other 2, so long as the horizontal resolution is the same. If they actually made those 1920x1440 monitors, I'd have one instead of this 1920x1200 unit.

Now, on the flip side, if the vertical resolutions stay the same, wider would be better. 1600x1200, 1920x1200 and 2133x1200 for 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9 respectively.

 

[SaltyFish]

Pixel Count

Since this is an aspect ratio discussion, the fairest way to do a comparison is by pixel count. Given n pixels, how would you like them arranged?

I will use 1920 x 1080 as the base since it is currently the most common monitor resolution. That resolution has a pixel count of 2,073,600. The other ratios will list the two hypothetical resolutions whose pixel counts are closest to that, with the closer one bolded.

[b]1:1   --> 1440 x 1440 = 2,073,600[/b]

5:4   --> 1605 x 1284 = 2,060,820
[b]5:4   --> 1610 x 1288 = 2,073,680[/b]

4:3   --> 1660 x 1245 = 2,066,700
[b]4:3   --> 1664 x 1248 = 2,076,672[/b]

16:10 --> 1816 x 1135 = 2,061,160
[b]16:10 --> 1824 x 1140 = 2,079,360[/b]

[b]16:9  --> 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600[/b]

64:27 --> 2176 x  918 = 1,997,568
[b]64:27 --> 2240 x  945 = 2,116,800[/b]

I'm sure someone more talented at math than I am can work out the resolutions for all these ratios that have the same pixel count. But the basic idea is that if you had a choice between the bolded resolutions, which would you prefer?

 

[Wile E]

Unfortunately, 1920x1080, only because that's what most media is.

And this just proves it's a matter of perspective. If media weren't 1080p, we would pick something different.

But in real world selection, resolution is the more important factor over aspect ratio. I'd take a 2560x1440 display over my 1920x1200 any day. But I would not take a 1080p monitor over my 1200.

 

[cdawall]

You are all wrong buy a Viewsonic VP2290B-2 22.2"

Refurbished: ViewSonic VP2290B-2-S Black 22.2" Wid...

3840X2400 win

 

[btarunr]

The only high-res 4:3 monitors left in the market are professional/military-grade ones, and they're priced upwards of 2,000 quids. Try NEC MD211G3.

 

[PopcornMachine]

Since my Samsung 1920x1200 lcd died a few months back, I've been using my 10-year old Dell 2000fp 1600x1200. It's still a champ. Games look great, but I would like a wider view.

Only so much room on a desktop for vertical growth, but a wider image means more peripheral vision. It's ok for now, but when I have the money I will get a 1920x1200, 2560x1440, or 2560x1600 if they miraculously drop in price.

 

[Completely Bonkers]

Retina 4 teh win

Where are they?

Hopefully Apple will soon release a retina Cinema Display to go with their premium desktops. I'm OK with 2560x1800 on 21". I really don't want a bigger screen... I just want IPS and high pixel density to get über-quality font rendering. Gaming and media isnt important. Media... never watch on a PC except for youtube... that's why we have a sofa and a TV. And gaming... can be scaled.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

I enjoy my Auria 27" 2560x1440 and I bought it at Microcenter for $400. That is fairly cheap. I may overclock it(to higher refresh rates) after possibly taking it apart and adding heatsinks....... if that isn't too crazy sounding.

For some reason it looks like the tempest line. http://www.overlordcomputer.com/Default.asp

 

[SaltyFish]

Unfortunately, 1920x1080, only because that's what most media is.

And this just proves it's a matter of perspective. If media weren't 1080p, we would pick something different.

But in real world selection, resolution is the more important factor over aspect ratio. I'd take a 2560x1440 display over my 1920x1200 any day. But I would not take a 1080p monitor over my 1200.

I chose 1920x1080 as a reference because of its current pervasiveness. I could've used 720p or even some non-standard resolution as the basis for comparison.

Also, do people find letterboxing and pillarboxing annoying? I've been using 16:10 screens for almost a decade now and the boxing on both 4:3 and 16:9 didn't bother me at all.

 

[Wile E]

I chose 1920x1080 as a reference because of its current pervasiveness. I could've used 720p or even some non-standard resolution as the basis for comparison.

Also, do people find letterboxing and pillarboxing annoying? I've been using 16:10 screens for almost a decade now and the boxing on both 4:3 and 16:9 didn't bother me at all.

Boxing has no effect on me.

 

[qubit]

I chose 1920x1080 as a reference because of its current pervasiveness. I could've used 720p or even some non-standard resolution as the basis for comparison.

Also, do people find letterboxing and pillarboxing annoying? I've been using 16:10 screens for almost a decade now and the boxing on both 4:3 and 16:9 didn't bother me at all.

I'm not so bothered about letterboxing either. Watching 16:9 videos on my 16:10 monitor gives some room at the bottom for player controls with impacting on the video area too much or at all, for example.