Samsung T260 26 Question ?

.....but you could run anything in 1920x1080(p) with 60 black lines at the top and at the bottom of the screen. I prefer 16:10 (or should that be 8:5 ???)
 
Are all monitors that are 1900x1200 16:10? is their much difference between 1900x1200 and 1900x1080? at 16:10 is the screen stretched?
 
mame said:
.....but you could run anything in 1920x1080(p) with 60 black lines at the top and at the bottom of the screen. I prefer 16:10 (or should that be 8:5 ???)
Click to expand...

Indeed 8:5 theoretically would mathmatically be correct, it doesnt take any complicated maths at all, so why do we all use 16:10??
 
I too like 16:10 a lot more than 16:9.. It just gives you loads more space to work on :p
But if your main concern is watching movies, then 16:9 is the way to go.. more viewable picture.
 
p0ss3s3d said:
Indeed 8:5 theoretically would mathmatically be correct, it doesnt take any complicated maths at all, so why do we all use 16:10??
Click to expand...

I think its because 16:9 format existed first so made sense to use 16:10 as opposed to 8:5.

By the same token we should call 4:3 screens 16:12 as it will make it clear between all three as to what you are getting between screens but that will never happen now, 4:3 is here to stay.
 
so that it is comparable when we say 16:9. 2.35:1 and 1.75:1 are fairly useless as comparisons for the home user really. It probably would be more useful if we just kept all ratios as ratio:1 even if it is a fraction.
 
doiks14 said:
I too like 16:10 a lot more than 16:9.. It just gives you loads more space to work on :p
But if your main concern is watching movies, then 16:9 is the way to go.. more viewable picture.
Click to expand...

Is there? Surely you get the same picture on 16:10 as you do on 16:9? The only difference is that there are black pixels at the top/bottom of the 16:10 screen..
 
Hutch said:
Is there? Surely you get the same picture on 16:10 as you do on 16:9? The only difference is that there are black pixels at the top/bottom of the 16:10 screen..
Click to expand...

No the viewable screen watching 16:9 movies is bigger on a 16:9 monitor :eek:

http://www.displaywars.com/24-inch-16x9-vs-24-inch-16x10

Remarkable I know.

With a 16: 10 screen you get a 16.87% larger area but watching films you get a 5.64% larger area on the 16:9 screen.

I'd rather have the much larger desktop display unless its primary use was film watching.
 
how about buying one with pixel mapping feature like the dell E248WFP? so games don't have to look stretched, move space to work on and still view movies almost as good as a 16:9. I just don't think its worth sacrificing 5. whatever % more viewable picture for 230,400 less pixels for work e.g. spreadsheets, word documents, photoshop etc..
 
For a PC monitor I really don't see what you gain for having a 16:9 over a 16:10. With 16:10 I have the easy option of both resoluations without actually doing anything plus more destop space. Ok if I run something in 1080p i will have 60 black lines at the top of the screen and 60 at the bottom. That's no problem to me. Swaping these back borders for extra view of the wall behind my monitor doesn't appeal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom