1920x1080 is taking over 1920x1200 screens, why??

Phil2008 · 11 Jun 2010 at 18:48

Just been browsing the monitors and there's not many screens of 1920x1200 now, the 1920x1080 seems to be taking over :confused:

Edit: Dammit messed up the title, sorry, should have been "1920x1080 is taking over 1920x1200 screens, why??" I really wish you could edit the title

deaglecat · 11 Jun 2010 at 18:57

or spell "many".

I think it is all to do with compatibility with 1080p TVs for the panel manufacturers. Personally, I am awaiting a decent 26-28" at higher than 1080p but for a decent price (less than £300).

Deag.

arknor · 11 Jun 2010 at 18:58

1920x1080 is 1080p HD

HD sells even though pc have had HD for like a decade people use it as a marketing gimmick cos its new init

thepeganator · 11 Jun 2010 at 19:00

Because 16:9 is cheaper to produce that 16:10 at the same diagonal size.

You get less screen area, makes it cheaper.

OpenToSuggestions · 11 Jun 2010 at 19:11

thepeganator said:
Because 16:9 is cheaper to produce that 16:10 at the same diagonal size.

You get less screen area, makes it cheaper.

That comment is not valid as computer screens are sold in inches.

24 inch is 24 inch, it doesn't matter if it is 1920x1080 or 1920x1200

.

elpedro · 11 Jun 2010 at 19:19

16:9 appeals to more people; those wanting to play their consoles or watch TV through the same monitor. Broadcasting standard means 16:10 creates wasted space or "black bars" where the extra height isn't used.

thepeganator · 11 Jun 2010 at 19:22

mglover070588 said:
That comment is not valid as computer screens are sold in inches.

24 inch is 24 inch, it doesn't matter if it is 1920x1080 or 1920x1200.

My comment is completely valid...

A 1920x1080 screen is 16:9, at 24" that means 11.7" * 20.9" or 244.52 square inches.

A 1920x1200 screen is 16:10, at 24" that means 12.7" * 20.3" or 257.82 square inches.

So you get 5% less screen real estate on a 16:9 screen as opposed to 16:10 at the same diagonal size.

OpenToSuggestions · 11 Jun 2010 at 19:26

thepeganator said:
My comment is completely valid...

A 1920x1080 screen is 16:9, at 24" that means 11.7" * 20.9" or 244.52 square inches.

A 1920x1200 screen is 16:10, at 24" that means 12.7" * 20.3" or 257.82 square inches.

So you get 5% less screen real estate on a 16:9 screen as opposed to 16:10 at the same diagonal size.

My bad, you are right

.

thepeganator · 11 Jun 2010 at 19:35

mglover070588 said:
My bad, you are right.

hehe

elpedro said:
16:9 appeals to more people; those wanting to play their consoles or watch TV through the same monitor. Broadcasting standard means 16:10 creates wasted space or "black bars" where the extra height isn't used.

Watching tv or playing some ported games (Assassins Creed, Mirrors Edge) can be a bit annoying sometimes, you have that extra 11% of space just sitting there being black and doing nothing :/

OpenToSuggestions · 11 Jun 2010 at 19:37

thepeganator said:
Watching tv or playing some ported games (Assassins Creed, Mirrors Edge) can be a bit annoying sometimes, you have that extra 11% of space just sitting there being black and doing nothing :/

I do think that one format needs to be chosen and stuck too.

Personally I am not bothered about the aspect ratio but whenever I buy a new screen it will be as a pair.

Phil2008 · 11 Jun 2010 at 22:11

A tv screen looks quite a bit higher then a pc monitor of 1920x1200, So Im guessing a pc monitor of 1920x1080 will look like a tv screen, higher and not as wide. If that makes sense.

So what screen would you get, a 1920x1200 or 1920x1080??

WingZero30 · 11 Jun 2010 at 22:50

elpedro said:
16:9 appeals to more people; those wanting to play their consoles or watch TV through the same monitor. Broadcasting standard means 16:10 creates wasted space or "black bars" where the extra height isn't used.

Yes I was wondering myself why 1920X1200 hasn't been as popular as 1920X1080. I guess it is also probably to do with marketing aswell. People just hear all the time about HD1080P and become familiar with it. As one of the poster mentioned that manufacturers should stick to one format, I also agree with that.

thepeganator · 11 Jun 2010 at 23:04

Phil2008 said:
A tv screen looks quite a bit higher then a pc monitor of 1920x1200, So Im guessing a pc monitor of 1920x1080 will look like a tv screen, higher and not as wide. If that makes sense.

So what screen would you get, a 1920x1200 or 1920x1080??

Nope, a 1920*1200 monitor is about an inch taller at 24" than a 1920*1080 tv/screen, and just over half an inch less wide.

Phil2008 · 11 Jun 2010 at 23:29

thepeganator said:
Nope, a 1920*1200 monitor is about an inch taller at 24" than a 1920*1080 tv/screen, and just over half an inch less wide.

When I had a 20.1" at 1680x1050, my 24" crt widescreen TV screen deff looked taller and not as wide?

Ice Tea · 11 Jun 2010 at 23:55

Juts found this pic in Members market showing a 1920x1200 trying to show a 1080p Blu-Ray.

Need you say anymore why 1920x1080 for 1080p HD native resolution would be taking over 1920x1200

Thanks to Alfie for the Rip of his pic without permission

.

Temi_D · 11 Jun 2010 at 23:59

This only thing that benefits 1920x1200 is if you don't play games it watch movies. 1080p is much better because in games you have a wider FOV and in movies theres is less black bars (not that they matter much)

Temi_D · 12 Jun 2010 at 00:00

Ice Tea said:
Juts found this pic in Members market showing a 1920x1200 trying to show a 1080p Blu-Ray.

Need you say anymore why 1920x1080 for 1080p HD native resolution would be taking over 1920x1200

Thanks to Alfie for the Rip of his pic without permission

.

Even on a 1080p screen, there still WOULD be black bars, its just that they will be a few pixels shorter (not really noticable)

Lleot · 12 Jun 2010 at 00:35

I wish 1920x1200 was still the standard. As long as the monitor has a semi decent scaler all you will get is black bars, which are perfectly fine. Many movies are ~21:9 which will give you black bars anyway.

smilertoo · 12 Jun 2010 at 01:01

It's cheaper for the makers. There's no valid reason for pushing this crap onto computer users...if im gonna spend all my time playing games or watching tv i'd do it on a big hdtv.
It's time computer screens moved well past standard HD res.

Beansprout · 12 Jun 2010 at 01:16

Have had this same problem recently too, have a Samsung 244BW which is great and was cheap (around £230ish iirc) but they've stopped making it!! Have ordered an HPZR24W at £340...more expensive but then the Samsung isn't a great quality screen so am hoping this HP is somewhere between it and Dell's £450 bad boy which seems OTT to me.