Why Widescreen

  • Thread starter Thread starter SYC
  • Start date Start date
z0mbi3 said:
16:10 is closer to natural human FOV.

If you want extra height as well then buy two 20" widescreens and stick them on their side.
Click to expand...

as i can see my sides perfectly, 2 screenshots from my eyes, would cover a 360 degree angle perfectly. but yea, its easier to look sideways then horizontally, try it out. put 1 thing above another, and rapidly move your eyes between them.

then put them side by side, and repeat, you will see
 
helmutcheese said:
Since when did you get many 4:3 PC LCD PC Monitors I aint talking whatever RES you have scaled it to.

Make and Model please.
Click to expand...

Please, read the post.
It's a Compaq 2025, also branded as an HP L2025, there were loads floating around a while ago for ~£120, fantastic screen. Great viewing angles, PIP, S-video in, DVI, and Analog.
 
Reading is meant to be easier when the text is narrower. This is why LateX (used to make scientific papers and pdf's) has quite narrow columns. I'd suggest reading with a widescreen vertical but with it normal for games or for when you have 2 windows open side by side.
 
With a 1600x1200 20 inch display, and a 20/22 inch widescreen display (res 1680x1050) your in fact get the same viewing area (almost) with the 4:3 screen, it's the widescreen that's chopped off. That means it's actually BETTER to have a non-widescreen, if you are planning for 2 docs side by side, OK you lose 80 pixels,in width but you gain 150 in height.

The true next step up is the 24 inch screens with 1920x1200 and upwards., (1440 width , but not 900 high)
 
^ LOL there is nothing "chopped off" when using a widescreen resolution in windows. I think you're getting confused with widescreen cropped titles, which are now non existant.

You are missing more on a 4:3 screen.
 
helmutcheese said:
Since when did you get many 4:3 PC LCD PC Monitors I aint talking whatever RES you have scaled it to.

Make and Model please.
Click to expand...

what on earth are you on about?

4:3 is the old native 'TV' resolution whatever res you use, wether it be 640:480, 800:600, 1024:768, 1600:1200, they all divide down to 4:3, not 5:4, widescreen is 16:9 (or 16:10 is more available now)
 
wez130 said:
what on earth are you on about?

4:3 is the old native 'TV' resolution whatever res you use, wether it be 640:480, 800:600, 1024:768, 1600:1200, they all divide down to 4:3, not 5:4, widescreen is 16:9 (or 16:10 is more available now)
Click to expand...

I think he is talking about the physical size of the screen being 5:4 rather than the resolution.
 
a screen set at 1280x1024 is 5:4, and most if not all 17 / 19 LCDs are 5:4 in ratio. It's a ******* resolution, what's worse is when people set there 4:3 CRTs to 1280x1024, then the picture is squashed. The correct res would be 1280x960. If I set my old Sony 21 CRT to that res it'd give thin black bars down the edges as it wasn't set to stretch the picture by default.

Ideally your res ratio should match your screen ratio. whether is 4:3, or 5:4.
 
badbob said:
^ LOL there is nothing "chopped off" when using a widescreen resolution in windows. I think you're getting confused with widescreen cropped titles, which are now non existant.

You are missing more on a 4:3 screen.
Click to expand...

If you are talking to me then you are talking nonsense.

Look:

4:3, 1600 x 1200, or 16:10 1680x1050.

If I position 2 windows on the widescreen vertically tiled each window is 840x1050 in size.

The same thing on the 4:3 screen is 800x1200.
So tell me how you AREN'T seeing LESS on the widescreen when clearly you can see more height on the 4:3, and 40 pixels less width (less than the width of an desktop icon.)
 
Here's a picture I did with a comparison of different screen res with 1 or 2 browser windows open, to get an idea of what you can actually see.

pict.gif


Click for Full size 2.7MB
 
wez130 said:
what on earth are you on about?

4:3 is the old native 'TV' resolution whatever res you use, wether it be 640:480, 800:600, 1024:768, 1600:1200, they all divide down to 4:3, not 5:4, widescreen is 16:9 (or 16:10 is more available now)
Click to expand...

What on earth are you on about?, Nearly all PC LCD Monitors are 5:4 not 4:3 (the above weird one is new to me if really 4:3).

My 22" CRT is 4:3, and I do know Widescreen PC LCD Monitors are 16:10 not 16:9 as a True HDTV like my own is.

The RES you set has nothing to do with it, you can set any weird RES and it will scale, the same as I can set 1280x960.

I run Windows at 1280x960 as its 4:3, on a LCD it would be 1280x1024 as its 5:4.

When I Game its 1920x1440 as its 4:3, on a Widescreen LCD it would be 1920x1200 as its 16:10 not 1900x1080 (16:9)
 
Last edited:
helmutcheese said:
What on earth are you on about?, Nearly all PC LCD Monitors are 5:4 not 4:3 (the above weird one is new to me if really 4:3).
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard

You'll see in the image there are a lot more standard 4:3 resolutions than others. It's a very entrenched standard.

I don't think I've ever seen a 4:3 17 or 19 inch LCD screen. they are all 5:4 as far as I am aware.

But I've seen plenty more 12,15 and 20 inch LCD screens that are 4:3 shaped, and many more smaller ones. We run dozens of these at work. Old Dell screens.
 
Correct they are 5:4, I dont know what wez130 is talking about.

And BTW, We learn everyday cause I never seen or heard of a 4:3 LCD. :)

Normal sizes for me would be 15/17/19/22/24. (used them for customers all are 5:4 or 16:10).
 
Last edited:
As it was years ago I cant remember, all recent years are 17" 5:4's and now mostly 19" 16:10's but as prices are down it will probably be 22" 16:10 soon.

I just set to a RES thats the Ratio of the Monitor that the peep likes, cause some find everything too small on them and messing with DPI can make things look horrid on Taskbar etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom