What's your Monitor Resolution/Aspect Ratio?

[crossfade]

Crossfade,

That's a very interesting monitor with a comprehensive spec - it should be at that price!

It seems to be a "one-off" at the moment - no other manufacturer making that resolution in LCD TFT (?).

Apple and Dell make them that size, and the Dell is cheapest, under $1000 refurb. My computer cost more than that (core i7).

Care to share your experiences with it and reason for buying it (apart from the obvious)?

I have some friends who are still using 1024x768 who argue that they can't see the icons on larger monitors - I wonder what they would think of that

I love the space. 1600 pixels tall is great for reading files and have two pages side by side. I do a lot of page layout and there is no going back to smaller screens.

Photos on it are great. I can look at photos from my old 3 megapixel Canon G1 at 100%! Only problem is I have a 7D now so I have to shrink them again. Still, with photoshop I can see A LOT of the image.

[davegee]

Thanks,

Is it fair to say that you use it more for Graphics Layout than pure photographic?

I use this site as a first stop when looking at monitors:

http://www.dabs.com/category/computing,desktops-and-monitors,monitors/11109-4294957423#filters

As you can see the price new (over here) is a little more than you suggest - that's always the case.

What's also interesting is that the site categorises monitors as WIDESCREEN, NON-WIDESCREEN and some others. For whatever reason this monitor is classed as one of the "others".

[BrianH]

Hi Dave,

As I appeared to be unable to select multi screens from the poll list I would advise as follows.

My main work monitor is 16:10 1680 x 1050

I also display on an lcd tv 16:9 1920 x 1080

I use a laptop for portable display which is 16:9 1600 X 900

Regards,

brianh

[Barry Beckham]

DG

Probably 16:10 I think it just has a slightly better format, but its negligable. 3:2 would be fine too. I could even use 1920*1080 and may be doing so soon for one of my PC's.

[cjdnzl]

Colin

Its what Lin Evans said earlier in this thread, 1920*1080 is the way we are being taken like ot or not?

I started to look for a new screen to replace an old 1024*768 one I have used for recording tutorials for years. Most of those that are reasonable for what I need and a decent price are 1920*1080, so I don't think it is a great surprise to see that resolution out in front. Personally I prefer 16:10 as it is so close to 3:2 it hardly makes any difference to the composition, 16:9 does.

Hello barry,

That's true, 16:9 is a bit skinny for 3:2 but it only means a bit wider bars at the ends; however, shaving 3.75mm off the 24mm dimension of a full-frame 35mm format gives a 16:9 ratio, i.e. the height becomes 20.25mm instead of 24mm. On my modest 300D that means a vertical dimension of just over 1700 pixels, and of course better than that with newer cameras, so enough room for a 1.7x zoom without resorting to pixel-stretching. To be honest, the AOC 22" 1920*1080 was bargain price at $NZ 280, quite a lot cheaper than 16:10 screens, so that was the decider.

Colin

[colin hill]

Hi Dave,

1920x1080 16:9

Colin

[Barry Beckham]

Colin

Yes, I don't disagree with what you say, I have just schooled myself over the years to fill the frame and can usually get away with a slight trim top and bottom for 16:10. I would use 16:9 if that was available at a good price. I don't think there are any rights and wrongs here, just preference. I did recently start to make a show at 3:2 and found it looked squashed me when viewed on the monitor. My eyes must be getting too used to the 16:10:blink: .

The poll is showing some interesting results and there does not seem to be much in it between 16:9 and 16:10

I was thinking about making my tutorial videos larger for DVD use and going widescreen, but was not sure about the 1024*768 users who may then not see a crisp video. This poll seems to suggest that among enthusiasts, wide screen has been accepted.

[allcart]

I am still using a 19" crt, set at 1280 x 1024. I do a lot of photo editing and can't seem to see the same detail in cheap lcd screens. I need to upgrade to a larger screen, but until I can afford to splash out, this one is fine.

Allan

[Ken Cox]

what do you consider a cheap lcd screen

all specs req'd

pric,size, contrast etc

then maybe somebody can assist you

my last run of the mill was

SAMSUNG 22"WS

SYNCMASTER P2270

MODEL LS22EFHKFV/2C

TYPE EF 22WS

SN EF33HVGS503696

$318.64 INCL TAXES AND $12.03 MONITOR RECYCLING CHARGE

it would fall into an average price range

ken

[Johnwnjr]

I feel a mixed up kid! I have a monitor which I use most of all 1680 x 1050 at 16:10 On this I have made my Avs at 1024 x 768 which is the same resolution as my projectors. Following bbdigital advice I have started making my latest Avs as 1920 x 1080. All seem to work OK on other monitors or screens, although obviously the format varies where ever they are shown, with some black fill ins. I quite like the 1920 x 1080 even on projection as it takes on the widescreen aspect but cuts down the picture size with black at the bottom. John

[Barry Beckham]

John

although obviously the format varies where ever they are shown

The format cannot vary, that is the whole point of a one size fits all. You can have confidence that what you have created will show at the same format on any monitor, but yes, you will see black bars around the edge depending on what screen you are showing it on.

[davegee]

If there are no additional participants in the next 24 hours I'll close the Poll and we can summarize/discuss the "results".

DG

[AZOET]

I also use 2 monitors. My desktop monitor is an 19x1080 23",

and my laptop has an 1280x800 monitor.

Annemiek

[davegee]

Time to close this Poll.

Almost made the 50 participants but not quite!

Here's my take:

It shows that 70% of the people who participated are using Widescreen while the other 30% are using Non-Widescreen.

The 16:10 and 16:9 aspect ratios were evenly split, each being used by 34% of those who participated.

Among the Non-Widescreen users 5:4 was used by 18% and 4:3 by 12% of those who participated.

Obviously, this makes 4:3 the least used monitor aspect ratio among those who participated.

The LCD/CRT split was 90% / 10% and I suspect that the CRT users are the 4:3 (1024x768) users – nothing technical about that assumption – it's just that the figures are the same.

So, my question now is: Do the above results change your view about which aspect ratio you should use to produce your PTE shows?

Speaking for myself I produce a mixture of 3:2 and 16:9 shows. I can't remember the last time I produced a 4:3 show. I think that the results above suggest that I am on the right track when trying to match the aspect ratios of what I produce to the aspect ratios of other peoples monitors more closely.

Thanks to the 49 people who participated. If you want to carry on discussing the results, please feel free to do so.

[Barry Beckham]

Dave

An interesting poll and speaking for myself I produce 16:10 shows and I havn't made a 4:3 show for just under two years and wish I had moved to the widescreen format sooner, but its not until you get a nice large monitor that the penny drops.

There are plenty of large wide screen format slide shows available for anyone to try on their system, if they have concerns about their PC being able to handle the larger size. I think that generally speaking many will be pleasently surprised

It will be interesting to do the same poll in a years time and perhaps this tells me that if I wanted, I could consider moving to a wide screen video format for tutorials.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

I don't think 50 out of a potential 6000+ is anything to go off in estimating who uses what.

Yachtsman1.