20 or 22'' widescreen 1680x1050 or 20' square (4:3) 1400X1050 or 1600x1200??? or 5:4?

[TheRapture]

Why? A "widescreen" is only 80 pixels wider. I would much rather have a 16x12 than 16x10.

Because the human eye is better designed for side to side vision than it is up and down. To me, and many others, a "square" screen just is irritating once you have used a WS display for a short time. Have you even owned a widescreen display? Widescreen movies simply own a plain jane 4:3 version....and being able to have two full pages of text open at the same time on a display is something to behold. MOST people will find a widescreen to be a better overall display once they actually try one.

If you want widescreen, I suggest you go all the way and get a 1920x1200 23"+.

The cost jump from a 21/22" to a 23" is absolutely ridiculous for the miniscule gain in real estate, at least at this time, until prices get closer.

 

[TNT13]

The cost jump from a 21/22" to a 23" is absolutely ridiculous for the miniscule gain in real estate, at least at this time, until prices get closer.

I absolutely agree. I was looking at 23" and 24" but you bould have to pay double for that extra inch and resolution. Plus I don't even know if my current card will handle 1920x1200.

 

[Kryogen]

The more I read the more I think the 22'' is the best right now.

What about the VX2235WM? I think that's the best choice overall right now, right?

 

[Snowdog]

Because the human eye is better designed for side to side vision than it is up and down. To me, and many others, a "square" screen just is irritating once you have used a WS display for a short time. Have you even owned a widescreen display? Widescreen movies simply own a plain jane 4:3 version....and being able to have two full pages of text open at the same time on a display is something to behold. MOST people will find a widescreen to be a better overall display once they actually try one.

First: I asked Isaac. Second. that is absurd nonsense. Your eyes see in a pattern much closer to 16:12 than 16:10. Especially when you consider you are going to want both eyes on the target. The overlap region is not much wider than tall.

I have owned a Dell 2405 (16:10) 1920x1200, and there is nothing magical about the aspect. I have no problem with it either. But I prefer more pixels to to wider shape. A 1600x1200 has 1.92Million pixels. A 1680x1050 is only 1.76 Million. And a 20" 16x12 displays 2 pages side by side just as well as 1680x1050.

http://ct.pbase.com/o4/04/606404/1/59792622.facing.png

If you notice there is more space left over on the sides than on the top and bottom. Put this on 1050 pixel high 16x10 and it would be much less readable. So IMO it fits better. I doubt you ever owned a 1600x1200 LCD either. Thus my question was directed at the owner of same, as he didn't miss anything by going 16x12, as 16x10 is actually smaller and anything you can do with 16x10 20" you can do with a 16x12 version.

 

[aznx]

The cost jump from a 21/22" to a 23" is absolutely ridiculous for the miniscule gain in real estate, at least at this time, until prices get closer.

The resolution gain from going from 20/21/22" to 23/24" LCDs is pretty freaking huge.

 

[TNT13]

I just recently went from a 19" 1600x1200 CRT to a 22"1680x1050 LCD. Only considering geometry, I like 1680 x 1050 especially when I surf the internet, and Photoshop. When surfing the internet, I find I can have my favorites toolbar to the side and still display the full width of a page. In Photoshop, with all the toolbars up, I find that the remaining space is closer to 4:3 as opposed to a square which I had at 1600x1200. I'm happy with it and haven't had an instance where I've missed 1600x1200. Just my 2cents.

 

[TheRapture]

First: I asked Isaac. . But I prefer more pixels to to wider shape. A 1600x1200 has 1.92Million pixels.

1. I can reply to anyone I want, it's a free forum.

2. YOU prefer more pixels, not everyone does. I don't. I prefer the wider screens, in fact, I will take a 19 widescreen over a 19" plain display ANYDAY....

Nobody is bashing your choice, just don't be so "my way is the best and other ways suck" attitude-ish.


And YES, the human eye DOES indeed see motion better to the horizontal periphery better than up and down. It's called evolution and the hunting aspect, we are predators...

 

[TheRapture]

The resolution gain from going from 20/21/22" to 23/24" LCDs is pretty freaking huge.

Lots more pixels yes, and ALOT more cost. Not worth it in MY opinion, but that's the great thing, we all can have our own

 

[Snowdog]

Nobody is bashing your choice, just don't be so "my way is the best and other ways suck" attitude-ish.

And YES, the human eye DOES indeed see motion better to the horizontal periphery better than up and down. It's called evolution and the hunting aspect, we are predators...

First I am not bashing anyones choice, I just wanted to let Isaac know he is not missing out on much with those lost 80 pixels, that is only a 5% difference in width (versus 15% extra height) I have owned 16:10, 16:12, and 5:4 monitors. I have nothing against any format.

What I am sick of is ill informed rationalizing about it. If you would state it as a preference and leave at that, but no you have to start spouting BS about your eyes being designed for 16:10. You don't use peripheral vision to look at a monitor or do any other work.

If we are so designed for this form and working and viewing side to side, why have we always used taller than wider paper. From ,books,magazines, news papers, to the Rosetta stone, we don't work with wide form factors, we tend to work with tall ones.

Oddball rationalizations about being hunters are as absurd as they are wrong. The most important thing to hunters is stereo vision and having both eyes overlapping the target of interest. The FOV for the overlapped eyes is not wide at all. Wide fields of vision is important for the prey. It is the sheep who have the real wide vision.

 

[5627429]

If we are so designed for this form and working and viewing side to side, why have we always used taller than wider paper. From ,books,magazines, news papers, to the Rosetta stone, we don't work with wide form factors, we tend to work with tall ones.

Guys, the monitor manufacturers have already solved your argument.

Many of the widescreen monitors can be rotated 90 degrees, which will give you 1680 or 1920 vertical pixels if you prefer to work that way. That way you can utilize more of your resolution if you are working on something tall like a newspaper or A4/letter sized sheet.

To the author of the thread, I suppose this is one advantage that some of the 1680x1050 monitors have over the 1600x1200 monitors that can only display 1200 vertical lines (unless rotatable 4:3 monitors exist - i'm not really sure).

 

[Snowdog]

Guys, the monitor manufacturers have already solved your argument.

Many of the widescreen monitors can be rotated 90 degrees, which will give you 1680 or 1920 vertical pixels if you prefer to work that way. That way you can utilize more of your resolution if you are working on something tall like a newspaper or A4/letter sized sheet.

To the author of the thread, I suppose this is one advantage that some of the 1680x1050 monitors have over the 1600x1200 monitors that can only display 1200 vertical lines (unless rotatable 4:3 monitors exist - i'm not really sure).

Just as many 16x12 rotate as 16x10s (maybe more as there are a lot of TN 16x10 that don't rotate) and rotated 16x12 again have the advantage as the show nearly the same height in this config as a 16x10 but much more usable width.

The way I see it 1920x1200 > 1600x1200 > 1680x1050 > 1400x1050 > 1280x1024 to mention the more common sizes.

The only disagreement I have is with the people who think 1680x1050 > 1600x1200. Let us politely agree to disagree on this one. To me the width is nearly identical, but you get much more vertical with the 16x12.

 

[Isaacav2]

Why? A "widescreen" is only 80 pixels wider. I would much rather have a 16x12 than 16x10.

If you want widescreen, I suggest you go all the way and get a 1920x1200 23"+.

I had my hopes on buying the ACER 24'' LCD off egg, but couldn't hold out and bout a SAMSUNG 204B after considering pixel pitch, Mega Pixels, and responce time, $$ and time to ownership, I bought the 1600x1200. I am just wondering how much more WOWed I would be going from 19'' CRT1280x960 --> 24'' 1920x1200 compared to 20.1'' 1600x1200.

I'm still not convinced that I should have bought a 1680x1050 22'' LCD, but I do find myself watching a ton of 16:9 movies

 

[Snowdog]

I had my hopes on buying the ACER 24'' LCD off egg, but couldn't hold out and bout a SAMSUNG 204B after considering pixel pitch, Mega Pixels, and responce time, $$ and time to ownership, I bought the 1600x1200. I am just wondering how much more WOWed I would be going from 19'' CRT1280x960 --> 24'' 1920x1200 compared to 20.1'' 1600x1200.

I'm still not convinced that I should have bought a 1680x1050 22'' LCD, but I do find myself watching a ton of 16:9 movies

I know it is really strange, but I have been going backwards. For my first LCD I bought a Dell 2405 24". Which was a nice step up for watching wide screen content. But I had to get rid of the screen as I found I couldn't stand the tone shifting *VA panels, and the backlight was too bright (even turned down to minimum), and it had input lag, and it had a lot of motion smear. In short it was a very negative experience.

Next I went to 20" Dell 2007fp because I thought it S-IPS. I was not wise in the ways of Dell panel lottery yet. Honestly for other than watching widescreen movies, it didn't feel like much of a loss. The 24" has 20% more pixels but cost 100% more $$, so not really the bang for the buck is at. Alas this screen was PVA as well and was an A00, full of banding and text blur. Argh.

Next I bought a 20" trinitron and since having the LCDs I developed a liking for multiscreens. So I picked up a cheap 17" LCD (TN screen) to hold me over until I found that S-IPS screen of my dreams. Oddly the ultra cheap 17" was the best LCD so far. Not shifty like the *VA screens, easy on the eyes with nice low brightness and dirt cheap, and decent reaction speed. A decent second screen to go with me 1600x1200 CRT.

Today I lust after the New HP 3065. 2560x1600, sweet. But I will need to wait a bit on that, I need a computer that can power the beast first and I need to see some reviews how it handle other resolutions. But I am also considering an HP 2065 (1600x1200 S-IPS) or a 24" S-IPS if I could find one at a decent price. There is a new LG 24" S-IPS that might be of some interest if affordable: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/newscontent.htm#24_ips

 

[TheRapture]

If we are so designed for this form and working and viewing side to side, why have we always used taller than wider paper. From ,books,magazines, news papers, to the Rosetta stone, we don't work with wide form factors, we tend to work with tall ones.

.

Uhhhhh......we are talking about VIDEO GAMING, not text pages.....

 

[Kryogen]

Argh.... should I just wait for LCD technology to stabilize?

 

[Snowdog]

Argh.... should I just wait for LCD technology to stabilize?

You could just pick up something relatively inexpensive now as opposed to looking for the absolutely best thing. Use it till you are tired of it and by then there will be all kinds of interesting new developments.

The Dell E207 might be a good choice. This 20" 1680x1050 was under $300 in Canada yesterday, so if you keep an eye out, you might find it for near $250 USD.

Edit: I just checked it now and it is $260 USD. Not a bad starter screen.

 

[Kryogen]

What about a Viewsonic Vx922, 19 inch, not expensive, does the job? Can't be worse than my 17 inch whining crt :|

Opinions? Anything new since I've started this thread?