BenQ announces Full HD 21.5-inch widescreen LCD (16.9)

16:10 and 5:4 should never have been implemented, you would not know any better if you only had 4:3 and 16:9.

Again you can read all about that in that Google keyword thingy I posted above if it even still exists.

If all monitors became standardised it would be a good thing esp as they are getting bigger and peeps will actually watch a movie on them now.
 
Last edited:
makes no real difference to me, i only prefer 16:10 as its got more pixels in it lol. Standardization is almost allways a good thing. I dislike all the ultra widescreen formats though, such as 2.4:1 -- I dont quite get the point since i was imagining a screen the other day and to get the height to something i liked it would've meant filling one wall of the room with the TV :D
 
I know 4:3 and 16:9 are as old as the hills and officially recognized, I have no idea what Think Tank came up with the idea to make LCD PC Monitors into 2 new illegitimate Ratios like 5:4 and 16:10.

A lot of peeps like yourself are happy to have the extra lines of 16:10 but you would not have missed it if you never had it and at the end of the day 1080p is not 1200 lines its 1080 lines.

I do not know if there is a real reason for this or did someone just make up a number, but then again how did they decide what length a yard or meter was ?.

I remember some story from school about an Roman Emperor and the distance from his nose to her fingertip when he extended his arm.
 
Last edited:
I had a 16:9 monitor when they first came out only 1680 and unless youve got a massive monitor you do miss a hell of a lot of space from crt times, especially when typing letters or watching sd content. I didnt really by my monitor to watch movies on and movie are never 1080 lines anyway as some **** decides they want 1/2 the screen to be black bars.
However it makes life easier with interconectivity if not impractical at smaller sizes.

No swearing
 
Last edited:
tumtums said:
Hopefully around the 200-300 range
Click to expand...

Not a chance.

Its a competitor to the 22" monitors, which are £250+ for a decent one, but its the first of its type with this aspect, so carries the uniqueness factor, which will translate to probubly well above £350
 
Im looking for a new monitor, but really don't fancy a 24" swamping my desk, but really would like 1920x1200.

Very few options if ones looking for my requirements, so this looks interesting.
 
Huddy said:
Im looking for a new monitor, but really don't fancy a 24" swamping my desk, but really would like 1920x1200.

Very few options if ones looking for my requirements, so this looks interesting.
Click to expand...

Well this Monitor is TRUE-HD/FULL-HD as its 1920x1080 (16:9) and you seem to want 1920x1200 (16:10), which you can get on a few 22" Monitors.
 
helmutcheese said:
A lot of peeps like yourself are happy to have the extra lines of 16:10 but you would not have missed it if you never had it and at the end of the day 1080p is not 1200 lines its 1080 lines.
Click to expand...

So by that reasoning, if you lost an arm it would be OK because "if you never had it before you'd not have missed it".

Tough, I LIKE having 1200 pixels of vertical resolution because I use my monitor for work and not gaming or watching movies. That extra resolution is important to my productivity when programming (having more lines on the screen definitely helps here).
 
it doesnt make a lot of difference either way. however, i see no reason why i should loose vertical height on my PC monitor. i have a big screen for watching films.
 
My over the top metaphor was simply a direct response the meaningless "well, if you'd never had it you'd never miss it"; I don't care that we'd never have missed it, we've have 16:10 for a while and some of us will miss it now which is frankly what's important.

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't make one jot of difference (except to people with OCD) if we have standardisation on 16:9 or have 16:9 and 16:10 co-existing, remembering that media viewing and computer use are two very different problem domains that would be best served independently (for instance one benefit of 16:10 is that it allows you to see 2 A4 pages next to each other in DTP or word processing packages). Standardising for the sake of standardising is a little pointless IMHO.

We should just see this for what it is: a cynical ploy by panel manufacturers to increase their margins. Don't for a second think this will lead to lower priced monitors (notwithstanding normal effeciency of scale price reductions), this is akin to crisp manufacturers putting less and less in a bag and charging the same banking on nobody noticing.

Not going to matter really as we're going to run out of Indium in the next 10 years (defecit for the first time next year) so LCD is a dead end technology :p

Edit: Forgot to mention that 16:10 is close to the "golden ratio" (the ratio that looks the most easthetically pleasing), whereas 16:9 was just chosen because it was a "compromise" between 5:3 and 1.85 aspect ratios (the two most commonly used in film).
 
Last edited:
philjohn said:
So by that reasoning, if you lost an arm it would be OK because "if you never had it before you'd not have missed it".

Tough, I LIKE having 1200 pixels of vertical resolution because I use my monitor for work and not gaming or watching movies. That extra resolution is important to my productivity when programming (having more lines on the screen definitely helps here).
Click to expand...

Turn your monitor vertical. Lots of lines of code.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom