Dot pitch discussion...

davejm

davejm

davejm

Associate
Joined
16 May 2007
Posts
302
I've been reading up about 'dot/pixel pitch' today, which is the actual size of the pixels.

The reason for this, is because I've been looking at buying a 22" Samsung monitor which has a resolution of 1680x1050. It occured to me that the vertical resolution isn't a lot more than my current 17" screen at 1280x1024, so affectively I'm getting a slightly larger screen, but not a lot more desktop 'retail', if that makes sense. I'm getting a bit more horizontal space, but that's all really.

I'm just a bit worried that I'll have a larger panel, but everything will appear slightly larger than what I'm used to with the 17" screen. I want the same detail, but with more screen 'retail', so it's making me question getting the Samsung now.

Any thoughts on this?
 
1280 x 1024 on 17" must be horribly small. I think you'll appreciate the larger dot pitch!

Plus, when you're playing a game you don't really notice dot pitch anyway. (Assuming you're a gamer).
 
It's what I'm used to I suppose. All the 17" panels I've ever used have a native resolution of 1280x1024, including the ones at work and the two I have at home. I've never used any larger panels so I've not experienced a larger dot pitch.

I think I'm being pedantic about this, I just wondered if anyone else has had similar concerns going from a 17" panel.
 
In work a few months back I went from 2x17" to an combination of a 1680x1050 22" and a 1280x1024 19". I found them a bit fat as I prefer smaller dot pitch.

I've since swapped again to one of my old 17" panels + a 1920x1080 22" panel. I find the 17" panels the perfect dot pitch and the new 22" a little small, but I'm happy to stick with it over the 1680x1050 22", as I've rather have smaller than fatter :)

At home I'm running a 1920x1200 24" with 2 1280x1024 17" and they're pretty close in dot pitch so work much better.

-----------------

The above doesn't read very well, but is useful to see where I'm coming from. My thoughts are that I didn't find a 22" (1680x1050) much better than the 17" panels I was running. I wanted more vertical hight than width. I also found the text size on 1920x1080 22" monitors a little small and to be honest they're too wide! :D (I hate 16x9 aspect ratio).

All in all if you want an upgrade in retail desktop space that will make you go wow (and actually feel like an upgrade), you want to be moving to a 24" with a res of 1920x1200 :)

It's also worth noting that quite a few other people in the office have got the same 1920x1080 panel as me and a lot of them are running them at less than native res, which looks horrid as they can't cope looking at the screen when it is running native res.
 
Cheers moley. I'm thinking the same now, that a 24" screen will be a better upgrade for me.

Here's what I've worked out using an online calculator:-

17" 5:4 @ 1280x1024 = 0.2634 dot pitch
22" 16:10 @ 1680x1050 = 0.2821
22" 16:9 @ 1920x1080 = 0.2537
24" 16:10 @ 1920x1200 = 0.2692

I think the larger dot pitch of the 22" at 1680x1050 is going to be noticible for me. The 1080p ones would be an option, but I agree with you about the aspect ratio and it wouldn't be an upgrade in terms of vertical retail.

I think a 24" 16:10 screen might be the way to go!
 
Last edited:
If you're used to a 17" at 1280x1024, yeah. I guess it depends how sensitive you are to these kinds of changes. I'm pretty fussy, hence why I wasn't sure.

I'd suggest going to look at some 22" 1680x1050 panels in action if you're not sure. I'm going to do the same when I get a chance.
 
It's all personal choice. A lot of people are on 19" running at 1280x1024 where I work and can't understand how I can use a 17" at the same res.

As davejm has stated, go have a look at some in a shop, we can quote figures all day, but you wont know till you've gone and had a look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom