Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel
paulWTAMU wrote:I'm looking at upgrading my monitor sometime this year, and I'm noticing that, particularly in the larger screen sizes and higher resolutions, 16:10 is hard to find, and most things are 16:9. Should I just cave in and go with that? I was looking to upgrade to a 1900x1200 but there's only like 7 listed on newegg, several of which are out of stock. And when I buy after my birthday, I'm worried they'll all be gone.
bdwilcox wrote:The best bang for the buck in large monitors is the Asus VW266H (if you're not overly concerned with color accuracy since it's a TN panel). I paid $260 for this 1920x1200, 26" monitor (on sale) and it's gorgeous.
Krogoth wrote:Care to enlightenment me?
JustAnEngineer wrote:When you can get a 21½" to 23" 1920x1080 monitor with an e-IPS LCD panel for $200-ish, why would you tolerate a nasty TN LCD panel?
bdwilcox wrote:The best bang for the buck in large monitors is the Asus VW266H (if you're not overly concerned with color accuracy since it's a TN panel). I paid $260 for this 1920x1200, 26" monitor (on sale) and it's gorgeous.
JustAnEngineer wrote:When you can get a 21½" to 23" 1920x1080 monitor with an e-IPS LCD panel for $200-ish, why would you tolerate a nasty TN LCD panel?
grantmeaname wrote:Hann'sG's HG281D (or whatever replaced it) is much the same: it's a 27.5" TN 1920*1200 panel for like $280.
JustAnEngineer wrote:When you can get a 21½" to 23" 1920x1080 monitor with an e-IPS LCD panel for $200-ish, why would you tolerate a nasty TN LCD panel?
morphine wrote:You're in no way "screwed" if you have decent equipment and it's set up correctly. The pixels map one-to-one, and you have black bars at the top and bottom (which come in very handy for the video player controls). Just because they aren't used when the movie is playing doesn't make them "wasted."Source material, as Krogoth mentioned, is where it's at. Although a 16:10 monitor is better for viewing websites (more vertical pixels), as soon as you watch a 16:9 video, you're screwed, as all your extra pixels at the top/bottom will go to waste because of scaling 16:9->16:10.
UberGerbil wrote:You're in no way "screwed" if you have decent equipment and it's set up correctly. The pixels map one-to-one, and you have black bars at the top and bottom (which come in very handy for the video player controls). Just because they aren't used when the movie is playing doesn't make them "wasted."
UberGerbil wrote:The pixels map one-to-one, and you have black bars at the top and bottom (which come in very handy for the video player controls). Just because they aren't used when the movie is playing doesn't make them "wasted."
morphine wrote:They're black. How are they not wasted?
MethylONE wrote:I wondered from day 1 why 16:10 was ever standard at all. 16:9 makes way more sense. All of our content is 16:9 (or wider).
MethylONE wrote:I wondered from day 1 why 16:10 was ever standard at all. 16:9 makes way more sense. All of our content is 16:9 (or wider).
Our eyes are on the left and right after all, the wider the better. I'd like to see some desktop monitors that go much further wide without getting taller.
ludi wrote:Not all of them had square pixels.Displays from the early UNIX and DOS days routinely had native resolutions in the range of 1.33:1.
ludi wrote:A 16:10 monitor is 1.67:1
Krogoth wrote:Care to enlightenment me?