24" - argghh, no more height than 19"

nippynoo

nippynoo

nippynoo

Associate
Joined
25 Feb 2006
Posts
194
Well I've done some measurements of the actual height of the actual LCD screen area and both 24" 16:9 and 19" 4:3 monitors seem to have pretty much exactly the same height. Has anybody else sussed this?

So if I'm changing monitors, the least I'd expect is some more vertical viewing height (for documents etc). So my next question is whats the cheapest way of doing this?

Maybe 24" 16:10 format? (This format gives another inch and a bit) Or should I get a 26" or 27" ? (Again I think I'd prefer 1920 x 1200, ie 16:10)

Of course 178degree viewing angles and LED backlighting would be nice. But does anyone have any recommendations? The OC website seems to have limited choice outside the 24" 16:9 format.
 
You do realise that screen size is measured Diagonally from corner to corner?
So to get a Bigger screen hight wise, will require a much larger Widescreen.
 
I calculated the height for a 16:9 24" from
H = 1080 pixel height x pixel pitch (0.276mm)
i.e.
H = 298 mm

The height of a 19" (4:3 format) is 301mm. So the height of a 24" is actually 3mm LESS than a standard 19" (4:3). Is this correct or have I made some error? (I havent actually got a 24" to measure)

The website linked below shows 16:10 format, not 16:9. It would be interesting to see a similar pic with 16:9 24" and 4:3 19" compared. The diagrams convinced me that i now want 16:10 format, which I think is 1920 x 1200, rather than 1920 x 1080.

So does anyone have a recommendation for a 24" monitor which gives more screen height than my 19"?
 
Its not vertical pixels I need, its vertical inches, and i dont use my 19" in the full res anyway, as my eyesight isnt good enough to read small text.

What I really want is a couple more inches of vertical height, as well as width, but without paying a fortune. I thought 24" would do it, and i was tempted to buy the new BENQ G2420HDBL but the 16:9 format has less height than my 19".

I guess 1920 x 1200 (16:10) would be perfect for my purposed, but OC only sell one of those :-(
 
Stonedofmoo said:
I see 2 1920x1200 monitors on their site... The samsung & dells are both 1920x1200

I'd get the Samsung: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-099-SA&groupid=17&catid=510&subcat=

16:9 isnt a good monitor aspect ratio imo. They have simply adopted it it to match 16:9 movies which is irritating as most people don't watch movies on their main monitor. I have a TV connected for that..
Click to expand...

Agreed. Although I think it is ok on a 22 inch monitor, I feel 1980x1200+ (16:10) is a better resolution and AR for anything bigger and many manufacturers have simply caved in to the whole 1080p 'HD' fascination.
 
Hate all the new 16:9 monitors... If I wan't to watch a film I'll use a TV thanks, and anyway, most films are a much wider aspect than 16:9 anyway so you'll still get the black bars. It's just so they can put a 1080p sticker on it... Bloody marketing gimmicks!
 
HypnoToad said:
Even a 24" 16:10 monitor will not have the vertical res of a 19" screen, 1200 vs 1280.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The 19" will be 1024 high , the 24 likely to be 1200 high.

Also - the 17" and 19" non widescreen LCDs are 5:4, not 4:3. 15 and 20.1" LCDs are 4:3 (generally 1024x768 and 1600x1200)



I use a 19" 5:4 and a 24" 16:10 dell at work dual screen. The OP is right, the height of the screen is as near as dammit the same, but you see more of your document on the 24, i.e. you'll see more rows of your excel sheet/morelines of text in your word doc, text is slightly smaller, but I run big fonts on that screen.

A 17" generally will match the dpi of a 24.


But, the OP is wanting size, not resolution so I propose Using a rotated 20.1 inch 4:3 screen. This is pretty decent, 1600 high, by 1200 wide, and scales perfectly to 800x600, and due to the high dpi other res in between look pretty damn good. I have a HP 2025 which does this.

Failing that, try a 19" rotated, but this won't be as good.

We have some 16:9 Samsung 22" at work which we rotate portrait for checking scans and damn they are decent. Nice and High, a A4 page is larger on screen than in real life. Coould be good, but check the panel is decent, as you can get severe banding/tinting due to the nature of veiwing LCD of angle. My HP2025 doesn't seem to have a problem with disaply rotating, (i think it's a top grade SIPS panel) but some screens at work do suffer.


Ultimately a 27", or a 30" would work well, but be overkill if you are going to drop the res so, consider a 32" HDTV? this may be an option.

And secondly if you are dropping the res from native, having the highest possible native res will ensure a higher quality scaling, in general terms, as the pixels are smaller and make for a smoother scaled image.
 
Stonedofmoo said:
I see 2 1920x1200 monitors on their site... The samsung & dells are both 1920x1200

I'd get the Samsung: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-099-SA&groupid=17&catid=510&subcat=

16:9 isnt a good monitor aspect ratio imo. They have simply adopted it it to match 16:9 movies which is irritating as most people don't watch movies on their main monitor. I have a TV connected for that..
Click to expand...

I find it just as irritating with TVs. Film content is usually 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. I paid Panasonic for black bars! About £250 worth of black bars too :p

Actually not so fussed on monitors myself, though 16:10 is preferable.
 
If it's physical size you need, I'd go for a Hanspree 28" if you can get one. Most people seem to have issues with backlight bleed, (mine's fine), but in terms of physical size you won't get bigger for less than £300, or even £700.
 
I'm beginning to think its all about profit, ie manufacturers have realised can make 10% more profit on a 24" LCD if its 16:9 compared to 16:10 because
its less area, for the same diagonal. I guess it wont be long before they start making 24" monitors with 16:8 ratio because they would save another £20 and punters would only look as far as the "24-inches" on the label.
 
nippynoo said:
I'm beginning to think its all about profit, ie manufacturers have realised can make 10% more profit on a 24" LCD if its 16:9 compared to 16:10 because
its less area, for the same diagonal. I guess it wont be long before they start making 24" monitors with 16:8 ratio because they would save another £20 and punters would only look as far as the "24-inches" on the label.
Click to expand...
surprised we haven't actually seen any 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 screens yet, to get rid of those damn black bars in most movies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom