1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 @ 24"
- Thread starter Leebone
- Start date
Depends which model of monitor you are looking at. If it's being sold as a monitor then it should at least support 640x480 so you can see the boot screen. The only exception to this is that I'm aware of are certain models of the Apple Cinema Display, but there may be others, read the spec sheet for the model you are interested in.
Don't worry too much so long as it'll show 640x480 and it's native resolution, you can use the scaling built into your graphics card to acheive any other resolution, even non-standard ones like 960x600.
As for your original question, would you rather have a 16:9 monitor or a 16:10 monitor, the latter is squarer than the former and thus will result in small horizontal bars while watching widescreen films, with the trade off that when watching 4:3 films the vertical bars will be smaller.
Don't worry too much so long as it'll show 640x480 and it's native resolution, you can use the scaling built into your graphics card to acheive any other resolution, even non-standard ones like 960x600.
As for your original question, would you rather have a 16:9 monitor or a 16:10 monitor, the latter is squarer than the former and thus will result in small horizontal bars while watching widescreen films, with the trade off that when watching 4:3 films the vertical bars will be smaller.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 358
1920x1200 IMO unless you intend to watch 1080p video most of the time (most of which seems to be letterboxed anyway 
).
).That's because most films aren't made in 16:9, 1.85:1 (16.65:9) and 2.35:1 (21.15:9) are the most common.
The 1.81:1 stuff is most likely to end up with a mild crop or pan&scan for the BluRay release but to crop a 2.35:1 film would have the home theatre crowd complaining louder than all the people who complained about Bioshock.
I agree that 1920x1200 would be better for computer use, especially once you take into account the taskbar and your application's toolbars (or that ****ing ribbon) reducing your vertical space even further.
The 1.81:1 stuff is most likely to end up with a mild crop or pan&scan for the BluRay release but to crop a 2.35:1 film would have the home theatre crowd complaining louder than all the people who complained about Bioshock.
I agree that 1920x1200 would be better for computer use, especially once you take into account the taskbar and your application's toolbars (or that ****ing ribbon) reducing your vertical space even further.
1920x1200 IMO unless you intend to watch 1080p video most of the time (most of which seems to be letterboxed anyway
You can just crop or stretch the video to fix that.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 358
1920x817 (2.35:1) video on a 1920x1200 screen, cropping does nothing and stretching looks horrible
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 358
Oh you mean chop off the sides... Doesn't work all that well since the black bars are part of the video (player thinks it's 1080p when the used part is only 817 pixels high)
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 2,688
- Location
- Hull, East Yorkshire
Get a 16:9, fov is lovely.
I think you have mistaken fov for something else. 16:10 will have a larger fov if the source allows. Nothing is cropped when you view 16:9 material in a 16:10 screen.
so you should say get a 16:10
No, he's right on this one (unless it's Bioshock 1.0 or FarCry 2) the wider your screen the further you can see to each side.
However you are also right in that you can achieve the same effect by running your game in 1920x1080, you just end up with small horizontal bars.
However you are also right in that you can achieve the same effect by running your game in 1920x1080, you just end up with small horizontal bars.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 2,688
- Location
- Hull, East Yorkshire
Yep, and 24inch 16:19 is bigger then 24inch 16:10 running 16:9.
16:10 looks kinda square after using a 16:9.
16:10 looks kinda square after using a 16:9.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
either, there's bugger all difference! there has been a few threads on this previously and it just decends into arguments. seriously the quality of the display is far more important that the (small) difference in resolution.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 2,688
- Location
- Hull, East Yorkshire
I think you will find james.miller is very very wrong he is a bad lad, bad lad
So you're saying the quality of the panel is less important than the aspect ratio?
For a 16:9 image:
Image Dimensions: 20.93" x 11.76" on the 16:9 panel
Image Dimensions: 20.35" x 11.43" on the 16:10 panel
Equivalent 16:9 TV: 23.3" for a 24" 16:10 panel
I think losing half an inch of picture in a film is worth having a better desktop resolution
Image Dimensions: 20.93" x 11.76" on the 16:9 panel
Image Dimensions: 20.35" x 11.43" on the 16:10 panel
Equivalent 16:9 TV: 23.3" for a 24" 16:10 panel
I think losing half an inch of picture in a film is worth having a better desktop resolution