New monitor. 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 ?

Chalex4 · 1 Dec 2008 at 15:13

I just ordered the Hanns-G since I won't be using it with a console, and preferred its height to the Viewsonic, which has such a tall stand that I would probably make me crane my neck when looking at it.

I also read a thread somewhere (not on this forum) where people were complaining about the Viewsonic and firmware issues.

Having said that, I almost bought one, but am pleased that I bought the Hanns-G from a more trustworthy retailer than some of those cheapo dodgey places that sell the Viewsonics :cool:

.

Nate Silvers · 1 Dec 2008 at 21:02

Loque said:
just for the record, 16:10 has just as many resolutions as 16:9 its certinly not limited to just 1920x1200

Yes true but how many are 16:10, I could not get crysis to run 16:10 resolution below the native, nor css.

james.miller · 1 Dec 2008 at 21:05

Nate Silvers said:
Yes true but how many are 16:10, I could not get crysis to run 16:10 resolution below the native, nor css.

driver issue, nothing to do with the game engine as it supports just about any 16:9 and 16:10 resolution.

like i said last time the question was raised, the difference in actual panal size and dsktop area is so small that it really doesnt make a lot of difference. id be more concerned about getting the best image quality for my money

Nate Silvers · 1 Dec 2008 at 21:06

philjohn said:
Fail. You can use 16:9 resolutions on a 16:10 monitor as long as it offers 1:1 pixel mapping (any decent monitor does). 16:10 gives the best of all worlds, it allows you to use 4:3, 16:10 AND 16:9

Speak for yourself, I'd never buy a 16:9 screen as all arguments for them are moot. 16:10 is the PC default for a reason, it's close to the golden ratio, it allows 2 A4 pages side-by-side in word/DTP packages and offers more vertical resolution which is good for productivity.

If people are concerned about black bars then they need their heads examining.

If you used pixel mapping to display a low resolution 16:9 it would be pretty small. You can only pixel map 1920x1080 anyways (well on the 2408WFP as far as I know) which is not a lower resolution than say 1280x900. Try pixel mapping 1280x1024 on a 24 inch and you will get a tiny box. With 16:9 you get the full screen low res.

I did say 16:10 is better for desktop usage. I myself don't find the bars annoying but my 16:9 movies look better with no bars, it's a clean image to your lcd. Dark knight 16:9 blu ray looks awesome full screen no bars.

If your a movie lover or gamer get a 16:9.

james.miller · 1 Dec 2008 at 21:18

dark knight is 2.35:1, a common aspect ratio for blurays which will produce bars on a 16:9 set also. if your watching it full screen your either stretching it or cutting the sides off. there are a few 16:9 scenes yes, but not all of them?

Nate Silvers · 1 Dec 2008 at 21:48

Yo James the imax scenes are 16:9 and there is a lot of them. That said though I do actually have a lot of 16:9 movies and it gets a bit annoying when people say movies arn't 16:9.

james.miller · 1 Dec 2008 at 21:49

there arent a lot of 16:9 blurays at all. nobody said movies arent 16:9 - some are but they are far from the majority.

Nate Silvers · 1 Dec 2008 at 22:47

james.miller said:
there arent a lot of 16:9 blurays at all. nobody said movies arent 16:9 - some are but they are far from the majority.

I meant there's a lot in dark knight not in blu rays in general. Lot's of people say most movies arn't 16:9 but by my experience they are. Out of the 54 I own at least half are.

Spyhop · 1 Dec 2008 at 23:33

16:10 all the way. It's a computer, the more vertical resolution for standard desktop GUI use, the better.

Nate Silvers · 2 Dec 2008 at 00:45

Computers do a lot more then e-mail and word docs these days, just so you know.

gt_junkie · 2 Dec 2008 at 08:55

Agree - 1920x1200.

Also - as for a PS3 used on a Hanns-G, it does not distort by enough to really be noticeable as far as i'm concerned although if the OP can get the viewsonic for the price he claims then go for that since 1:1 is a useful feature to have.

I only got the Hanns-G since it was cheap plus i'd only be using my PC with it... nothing else!

gt

philjohn · 2 Dec 2008 at 10:38

Nate Silvers said:
If you used pixel mapping to display a low resolution 16:9 it would be pretty small. You can only pixel map 1920x1080 anyways (well on the 2408WFP as far as I know) which is not a lower resolution than say 1280x900. Try pixel mapping 1280x1024 on a 24 inch and you will get a tiny box. With 16:9 you get the full screen low res.

I did say 16:10 is better for desktop usage. I myself don't find the bars annoying but my 16:9 movies look better with no bars, it's a clean image to your lcd. Dark knight 16:9 blu ray looks awesome full screen no bars.

If your a movie lover or gamer get a 16:9.

Then I just flick the scaling settings on my monitor to "fill to screen, maintain aspect ratio" which keeps the correct aspect ratio but enlarges it to fit the full width (for widescreen) or the full height (for 4:3/5:4).

You seem to have a very fundamental misunderstanding about scaling on monitors.

Nate Silvers · 2 Dec 2008 at 14:40

Yeah I already know that but it's not the same is it. I used to do that too but it leaves big black borders unless you stretch the image and who wants that not to mention 1920x900 looks a lot better and bigger on a 24inch 16:9 then 16:10.

To the op

Ignore 16:10 it's just pants.

Fothsn · 2 Dec 2008 at 14:48

Get the ViewSonic I have the VX2835wm and its a cracking monitor, the pixel mapping is a god send, I have mine wall mounted I must say the stand is a bit iffy.

philjohn · 2 Dec 2008 at 15:57

Nate Silvers said:
1920x900 looks a lot better and bigger on a 24inch 16:9 then 16:10.

Sorry, but you are just exposing your ignorance here, 1920x900 will look exactly the same size on a 16:10 monitor as it does on a 16:9 monitor, it'll just have some innocuous black bars at the top and bottom (so what?).

Nate Silvers · 2 Dec 2008 at 16:04

Only person being ignorant is you because my whole point is 24inch 16:9 is bigger than 24inch 16:10 ratio. First of all a 16:9 screen is bigger than a 16:10 screen pixel mapped and then after you add the black bars it's even smaller.

Don't listen to this muppet.

Hudzy · 2 Dec 2008 at 16:24

But he's right; 1920x900 does look the same on a 16:9 or 16:10. You even get black bars on both, albeit thinner ones on the 16:9.

Whether or not the screen is bigger doesn't come into it, you'd just be talking bigger pixels.

Nate Silvers · 2 Dec 2008 at 16:28

Sorry i meant 1920x1080

Loque · 2 Dec 2008 at 16:29

well, to my suprise (not) the site in which I found Viewsonic for £284, as far as I can tell, is a scam website. Although im not 100% certin, its enough to put me off using them. If anyone with more experience, wants to take a look, email me and ill send you the link, but for now, the next cheapest price I can find for it, is £324, which I could probably scrape together, but its a bit of a kick in the nuts.

Fothsn · 2 Dec 2008 at 16:48

Loque said:
well, to my suprise (not) the site in which I found Viewsonic for £284, as far as I can tell, is a scam website. Although im not 100% certin, its enough to put me off using them. If anyone with more experience, wants to take a look, email me and ill send you the link, but for now, the next cheapest price I can find for it, is £324, which I could probably scrape together, but its a bit of a kick in the nuts.

Cost me £330 and that is the cheapest I found it for, £280 is way below the price they sell for I was going to mention the figure you said but yes it most likely is a scam as most sell this for £350+ may be cheaper now I last looked a few weeks ago.

One of the shop guys in another thread said OcUK won’t stock this monitor which is a shame