For those of you with 27" monitors

kylew · 11 Sep 2010 at 22:01

PCM2 said:
He might be confused by the fact that 16:9 gives you a wider physical size than 16:10 for a given screen size (since screen size is a diagonal measurement). The pixels are just stretched out a little more horizontally - you don't actually get any extra information displayed.

A 16:9 screen has less vertical resolution than a 16:10 screen of the same inchage. The pixels are definitely not stretched out at all, pixels on monitors are square.

kylew · 11 Sep 2010 at 22:05

trentlad said:
I still don't get it.

Surely if you're saying 16:10 is better for heavy desktop users then wouldn't 16:9 be better since there's more room to the side to fit things in?

Seems like a it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Really, I don't get the fuss of the lack of 16:9 screens, if you're moving from a 1920x1200 screen, a 16:9 27" screen is still going to be taller than your 24" screen, you'll just get more horizontal space. I get it when they're talking about the same inchage, as I wouldn't want to move from my 3 16:10 screens to 3 16:9 screens if they were 24", however if I got the chance to move to 3 27" 16:9 screens, I'd be all over them.

PCM2 · 11 Sep 2010 at 22:19

kylew said:
A 16:9 screen has less vertical resolution than a 16:10 screen of the same inchage. The pixels are definitely not stretched out at all, pixels on monitors are square.

Sorry I meant they were physically more stretched out (or more to the point - spread out) across the screen, horizontally. There is more physical space to fill horizontally so the image on the screen will appear relatively 'wide' but you don't get any more detail.

inflynx · 11 Sep 2010 at 22:50

kylew said:
A 16:9 screen has less vertical resolution than a 16:10 screen of the same inchage.

That is not always true. 16:9 Dell u2711 for instance, is 1440 pixels vertically, while things like Hanns.G HZ281HPB are only 1200 even though they are 16:10.

There is nothing wrong with 16:9 screen provided they are high enough resolutions. Dell u2711 is an absolutely fantastic screen, able to accommodate 3 pages in Word side-by-side.

Skeng · 11 Sep 2010 at 22:53

I have the IIYAMA E2710HDSD and its like 70cm in front of me and it looks fine and I have now headache issues. I used to have it 30cm in front of me with my old desk and it was still good

kylew · 12 Sep 2010 at 01:13

inflynx said:
That is not always true. 16:9 Dell u2711 for instance, is 1440 pixels vertically, while things like Hanns.G HZ281HPB are only 1200 even though they are 16:10.

There is nothing wrong with 16:9 screen provided they are high enough resolutions. Dell u2711 is an absolutely fantastic screen, able to accommodate 3 pages in Word side-by-side.

Huh? That Hanns G monitor is 28" firstly, and secondly, I said of the same inchage, as in, 24" 16:10 compared to a 24" 16:9. If there was a 16:10 U2711 it'd be 2560x1600, compare that to 2560x1440 and the 16:10 screen has more vertical resolution.