LCD monitor sizes and wide screen monitors  | |
December 3rd, 2008, 12:08 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3
| LCD monitor sizes and wide screen monitors
My current LCD monitor is a 19" monitor. I am looking to buy a new larger LCD monitor for a new computer system I am building. I noticed that there are many new larger LCD monitors.
All of the larger LCD monitors are wide-screen monitors. That is, they retain the same height as my current 19" monitor but are wider, anywhere from 20" wide to 30" wide within a reasonable price range. While I am interested in some of these new LCD monitors for my new computer system I am curious as to why the larger LCD monitor technology are all wider than my current monitor but not proportionally taller as far as the display area goes. Why is that ? I would have assumed that as newer, larger LCD monitors are being engineered that the display area of the monitor would be proportionally larger so that it could display both a greater width and a greater height. |
| |
December 4th, 2008, 09:50 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 736
|
as the size grows in width, the height does too, just not as much as the width so that it stays in a certain aspect ratio of either 16:9 or 16:10, with the latter being the most dominate format in monitors.
__________________ Quote:
Originally Posted by pullmyfoot Aha. Well that was a waste of time I feel quite stupid now | Quote:
Originally Posted by Figgey CPU: AMD 64 Pentium 4 (939 Socket) | Quote:
Originally Posted by strjms72 Craysis is more better than COD 4. | |
| |
December 5th, 2008, 12:31 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizur2002 as the size grows in width, the height does too, just not as much as the width so that it stays in a certain aspect ratio of either 16:9 or 16:10, with the latter being the most dominate format in monitors. | That is understandable so maybe my question really is why the 16:9 or 16:10, which presents a width much greater than the height, has been chosen as the new standard. One would think that a 1:1 ratio would be ideal. I do understand that the previous ratio was 4:3 but why have the new ratios been skewed more rather than evened more. In other words why have we gone from 4:3 to 16:9 / 16:10 rather than toward 6:5 or even 7:6 etc. |
| |
December 5th, 2008, 12:37 AM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | that aint a lightsaber
Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: CJ,MO:REBEL Base
Posts: 6,984
|
first off, because the wide style is easier on the eyes. what is easier to do with your head still: move your eyes up and down, or left and right? Eyes scan sideways very easily, so it makes sense to show information in this way.
__________________ Who is John Galt? |
| |
December 5th, 2008, 07:23 AM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3
| Quote:
Originally Posted by tony_j15 first off, because the wide style is easier on the eyes. what is easier to do with your head still: move your eyes up and down, or left and right? Eyes scan sideways very easily, so it makes sense to show information in this way. | That sounds reasonable. Still I find it better to view proportionable screens than wide screens. This is just my preference. It is similar to viewing a painting for me. My visual sense does not suffer when I have to look up and down as well as side to side. Whether it is anatomically easier on the head or eyes I do not know. I guess I would need to be a physician or opthamologist to really know that. |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Most Active Discussions | | | | | Recent Discussions  | | | | | |