What's with all the Widescreens?

[HangTime]

I've noticed a definite trend over the last 6months or so towards widescreen (typically 8:5) aspect ratios being used on modern screens. Pretty much all the large screens coming out of late seem to be WS models and I was wondering if there was any particular reason for this?

Go back a couple of years to when TFTs were first starting to become mainstream and it was the opposite, with a lot of 5:4 'narrowscreen' 17-19" monitors hitting the market.

I suppose this trend does follow that taken by televisions as most high end ones tend to be WS now. But this is kinda understandable due to the large amount of WS content viewed on it (e.g. films).

Of course the cynic in me does wonder if this could be somewhat of a marketing ploy, given that WS monitors have a smaller surface area to hypotenuse (the most commonly quoted size figure) ratio. A 22"WS monitor is actually smaller than a 21" standard (4:3) screen, but to the average man on the street it probably sounds larger.

 

[LanceCrossfire]

i believe it is because widescreens are easier on the eye and better suited to our vision...

 

[xolotl]

Widescreen fills up more of our peripheral vision making the experience more immersing.

 

[Richdog]

I've noticed a definite trend over the last 6months or so towards widescreen (typically 8:5) aspect ratios being used on modern screens. Pretty much all the large screens coming out of late seem to be WS models and I was wondering if there was any particular reason for this?

Go back a couple of years to when TFTs were first starting to become mainstream and it was the opposite, with a lot of 5:4 'narrowscreen' 17-19" monitors hitting the market.

I suppose this trend does follow that taken by televisions as most high end ones tend to be WS now. But this is kinda understandable due to the large amount of WS content viewed on it (e.g. films).

Of course the cynic in me does wonder if this could be somewhat of a marketing ploy, given that WS monitors have a smaller surface area to hypotenuse (the most commonly quoted size figure) ratio. A 22"WS monitor is actually smaller than a 21" standard (4:3) screen, but to the average man on the street it probably sounds larger.

Do you have or have you used a widescreen monitor?

 

[Magic Man]

The better viewing experience is subjective but even so, the OPs assumptions as to marketing etc. are right. You only have to look at the 22" models with the same resolution as a 20" to see they are playing the size game...

 

[fish99]

I think the trend is driven by consumer demand. It's not like the whole industry would decide to switch to widescreen to get bigger profit margins. The competition is cut-throat so they're always going to be selling whatever they sell at a similar margin - you just have to look at the price of 19"/20" widescreens. If anything widescreens are cheaper than non-widescreens now, which offsets the less area you get, and as previously said they do fit human vision better.

Having played PC/360 games in widescreen I far prefer it over 5:4/4:3. I prefer it for browsing/apps too.

 

[Clarkey]

i like the idea of widescreen, what I don't really understand is why the old 17 and 19" screens were actually narrower than 4:3

 

[HangTime]

Do you have or have you used a widescreen monitor?

Yeah I'm using one right now.
The only reason I went for WS was because as fish99 points out, they are quite competitive on the price front (up to 22" at least).
Given the choice I'd rather have a 21" 1600x1200 (4:3) screen than a 22" 1680x1050 (8:5) one.

 

[Kreeeee]

Hang on... can you explain this point in more detail please:

Of course the cynic in me does wonder if this could be somewhat of a marketing ploy, given that WS monitors have a smaller surface area to hypotenuse (the most commonly quoted size figure) ratio. A 22"WS monitor is actually smaller than a 21" standard (4:3) screen, but to the average man on the street it probably sounds larger.

How does a 20" widescreen monitor have a lower surface are than a 20" non widescreen one?

 

[fobose]

I think he means it has less pixels, a 20" WS has 1680x1050 whereas a 20" 4:3 (5:4?) has 1600x1200.

 

[D33]

Just got the Dell 20" Widescreen Monitor which is next to my Q17+ Standard monitor. Made me laugh that a 20" Widescreen Monitor is a couple of mm smaller ( height wise ) than a 17" Standard Monitor.

None the less, using ultramon to extend the taskbar, despite the Q17+ being on 1280x1024 and the Dell being at its highest res the experience is quite smooth. Need to get another Q17+ now I think

See height here:
http://www.onlinegaminghub.net/misc/DSC00123c.jpg

Need to get my cousin and his wonderful £500 camera over sometime for some better photos ;(

 

[fobose]

The dell is 26 pixels more in hight so you shouldn't get the mouse "stuck" at the bottom/top of the screen often (was a different story using 1280x1024 with 1024x768).

 

[fish99]

It is true btw that a 20" 16:10 screen has less area than a 20" 4:3 screen.

At the end of the day it just comes down to personal preference and I personally prefer gaming in widescreen. The extra peripheral vision from the wider horizontal FOV makes me feel less confined. There's also the tactical advantage of being able to see more. If someone else prefers 4:3 or 5:4 though, fair enough.

My 20" widescreen is a few millimetres taller than the 17" 5:4 screen it replaced btw.

 

[Shaddow]

A 22" Widescreen is about the same physical Height as a 19" 4:3 (You could think of it as a Widerer 19"

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?7c0f32f4b0c9e03ea0a69b917975e88d

I used to have 2 x 19" but replaced one with the Asus 22" and it is much nicer on the eyes and also more immersive when gaming etc.

 

[HangTime]

Hang on... can you explain this point in more detail please:



How does a 20" widescreen monitor have a lower surface are than a 20" non widescreen one?

Well using second year maths (there's probably a more efficient way using trig, but it's a long time since I was in education!) we should be able to work it out:

By Pythagoras, on a right-angle triangle, w^2+h^2=d^2 where w=width, h=height, d=diagonal
So we know that on a 20" monitor, w^2+h^2=20^2

On a WS monitor, we know that the w:h ratio is 8:5, or in other words we can substitute 1.6h for w, giving (1.6h)^2+h^2=400
2.56h^2+h^2=400
3.56h^2=400
h=(400/3.56)^0.5
h= ~ 10.60"

So now subbing that back into our original equation we have
w^2+10.6^2=400
w^2=400-112.36
w= ~ 16.96"

Now, surface area = h*w, so we have:
A = 10.6*16.96
A = ~ 179.8 square inches for a WS monitor

On a 4:3 monitor of course things are much simpler as we know this is the special 3-4-5 traingle i.e. w=4d/5 and h=3d/5 meaning
w=4*20/5 = 16
h=3*20/5 = 12

A = 16*12
A = 192 square inches for a normal monitor

So a 4:3 20" monitor is clearly bigger than than a 8:5 monitor. And similarly we can show that a 4:3 21" monitor is in fact bigger than a 8:5 22" one.

The fact you had to ask for an explanation pretty much illustrates my point that some might perceive this to be a marketing ploy designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the average man on the street.

 

[setter]

i recently moved up from a cheap 17 inch crt to a 20 inch viewsonic vx2025
ill admit it took me a few weeks to get used to it, but now for gaming and movie play back i think its great, my only regret is not waiting until the 22 inch tfts came out

 

[setter]

query for fish

i see u got a n athlon 4000 and probably the same memory as myself,are they easy to clock to the speed u show in your sig

 

[Fr0dders]

The fact you had to ask for an explanation pretty much illustrates my point that some might perceive this to be a marketing ploy designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the average man on the street.

nope

its just computer monitor's following the same trend in TV's

when was the last time you saw a 4:3 TV available in anything other than a portable or in a bargain bin ?

TV and film has gone widescreen, so it was only a matter of time before the PC went the same way.

 

[yer_averagejoe]

i see u got a n athlon 4000 and probably the same memory as myself,are they easy to clock to the speed u show in your sig

I have an athlon 3000 at 2.5 on air you 4000 will easyt manage 3.

 

[fish99]

The fact you had to ask for an explanation pretty much illustrates my point that some might perceive this to be a marketing ploy designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the average man on the street.

The fact that most of the general public may be unaware that a widescreen monitor has less area than a regular monitor of the same diagonal doesn't necessarily make it a conspiracy. If there's a conspiracy here, it's more likely to be that widescreens are being used simply to make people who already have a TFT buy a new one. Sales are what drives technology though, and it always will be. Same reason car manufacturers bring out new models, it's nothing new. I don't think screen area in itself is significant, especially with the way widescreen prices have dropped.

It's also worth pointing out that widescreen content on a widescreen monitor is bigger than it would be in letterbox format on a regular screen of the same diagonal size. So if people are buying them for use with widecsreen content then they're not being ripped off really.