Is 1920x1200 really dead?

[Throckmorton]

I'm having some problems trying to find that ASUS MVA 24" 1920x1200 Throckmorton was talking about. The models I've checked so far (not all) at ASUS are all 1080 res. Anyone have a link?

My bad, it's 1920x1080

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2150579

 

[Hogan773]

I came upon this topic back in January just in time to get an Asus 25.5" model with 16:10 before it sold out. At the time it had just sold out on Newegg, but Amazon still had it. Was $259 AR - nice price.

Hopefully it will last me many moons although I also have that pang of concern "what will I do next?" but hopefully I wont have to worry for awhile. I hate 16:9 vs others but would also have a hard time shelling out for 2560x1440 or whatever if its $900 vs $250.......

And to all those with complaints about pixels being "too small" - c'mon they can never be too small so long as you can adjust text sizes upwards via your software automatically (which you can).

I had an old Blackberry and when I got my new one the resolution is better even though screen size is same, and the difference is night and day. The new one can show all different kinds of fonts and graphics, and the old one, well, can't......

 

[Avalon]

Should be able to find a good one, they're just not as common as 16:9 any longer. A big part of that was because of the rise of 1080p video (HD-DVD and notably Blu-Ray).

 

[nitromullet]

I'm pretty convinced my next monitor will be 2560x1440. $900ish is a tough pill to swallow, maybe they'll soon come out with some PVA or e-IPS 2560x1440 panels. Either that or it'll be a while to save up enough for a U2711.

Samsung is supposed to release the SA 850 'soonish', which is based on their new tech called PLS. PLS is supposed to offer similar advantages as IPS over PVA and TN, but cheaper to manufacture. We'll have to see if the claims are true, and if the reduced cost is passed on to consumers. Definitely a screen to watch if you're interested in purchasing a 27" 2560x1440 LCD in the next year.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/23.htm#samsung_sa850
http://www.computerbase.de/bildstrecke/32560/1/

I hate people! They drive the market to stupid directions because they buy into hype. For cameras they buy into the "moar pixels is bettar!" garbage, then on monitors they buy into pixels don't matter, just buy HUGE. People are so dumb. They complain they can't see fonts right with small pixel pitch... uhh... use higher dpi fonts and they loot WAY better. But they're clueless, so the market continues to move in a direction that doesn't make sense.

This is an interesting observation. The same thing is true when talking to console gamers and home theater buffs. Many don't care that most 360 and PS3 games run at 1280x720 or lower resolutions (or don't even believe it), yet they all own 1080p HDTVs and swear by Blu-Ray.

you forgot the /rant part.

I'm curious about 2560x1440, but tiny pixel sizes bug me when doing productivity work. I'm at 1920x1080 with a 21.6" asus on my office computer, and I end up either getting eyestrain or increasing res by ~ 25% or so in office/internet/etc.

It took me about a week to get used to it. Fonts are definitely smaller, but I also find that on a quality IPS panel that they are also razor sharp which makes them easier to read.

I had messed around with DPI settings and stuff initially, but eventually I just decided to run at 100% which works fine for almost everything. For web pages with very small text, I just tap ctrl+ and zoom in one step, and I'm good to go. I browse AT forums at the standard setting, but zoom in once on Hardforums. High contrast sites, like ABT and HOCP, are actually sort of painful to read at any DPI IMO. I find AT's color scheme much more comfortable for extended durations.

 

[Chaoticlusts]

This is an interesting observation. The same thing is true when talking to console gamers and home theater buffs. Many don't care that most 360 and PS3 games run at 1280x720 or lower resolutions (or don't even believe it), yet they all own 1080p HDTVs and swear by Blu-Ray.

Yeah I always found that hilarious that the PS3 and 360 are advertised as 'True HD' 1080p when other than a couple of rare exceptions (and a lot of the downloadable titles with more 'simple' graphics) are 720p native and just upscale to 1080p....Blu-Ray can do 1080px24 though so not entirely sure what you meant there? That being said I do own a 1080p LCDTV for my gaming/movie viewing but it definitely runs native 1080p content at times since there's a HTPC hooked to it that streams 1080p content onto it (that and in the end *good* upscaling actually isn't all that bad)

in reply to the other stuff posted here about consumers, yes the majority are stupid and will buy anything but I agree with the side thats said the large driving force behind the move is simply economics that it's more profitable to make 1080p a universal standard though consumers are partially to blame because the fact that they don't care is part of the reason it's cheaper (since they'd buy it either way why not opt for the cheaper solution)

The idea that I'll never be able to get a 120hz 1920x1200 monitor is a little sad....I'll hold out a vain hope that maybe one company (probably Dell by the sounds of it) will make one just for that niche market...and hopefully it won't cost your first born...(that being said if I do accidentally have a kid trading it in for a good monitor sounds like a great deal )

 

[nitromullet]

Blu-Ray can do 1080px24 though so not entirely sure what you meant there?

For some reason Blu-Ray is all the rage because BestBuy etc has made it abundantly clear that Blu-Ray is true HD, yet most people don't even notice their console games are running at relatively low resolutions by today's standards. Do these same people really see the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD, or are they just buying it because they've been told it's better?

 

[taltamir]

For some reason Blu-Ray is all the rage because BestBuy etc has made it abundantly clear that Blu-Ray is true HD, yet most people don't even notice their console games are running at relatively low resolutions by today's standards. Do these same people really see the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD, or are they just buying it because they've been told it's better?

DVDs are running at 600x480 aka SD, Consoles typically run at 720p (1280x720) aka "HalfHD" while BluRay does 1920x1080 aka FullHD.
Due to diminishing returns, the difference in quality between 480p/i and 720p/i is much more noticeable then going from 720p/i to 1080p/i.
Furthermore, console graphics tend to look cartoonish, which makes the gains in quality with resolution less important compared to film.

 

[randomlinh]

16:9 only sucks at 1920x1080. I upgraded from 24" @ 1920x1200 to 27" @ 2560x1440, and I'm actually very happy with the aspect ratio. At that resolution you get a nice wide aspect ratio for games, but you still have plenty of vertical space for productivity.

this. which is a problem, cause 27@2560x1440 is not cheap I cannot bring myself to buy a 1920x1080 ~24" monitor, it just doesn't work for me, so I'm hoping my 2408 holds out long enough for the 27"ers drop to $700 or so ($500 would be even better )

The other issue is having a video card to play games. I'm starting to play PC games again, and the 8800GT I got to help w/ photoshop GPU acceleration doesn't quite want cut it at 19x12. I'd hate to think what 2560x1440 needs (and if anyone will make detailed textures to really make it shine)

 

[nitromullet]

DVDs are running at 600x480 aka SD, Consoles typically run at 720p (1280x720) aka "HalfHD" while BluRay does 1920x1080 aka FullHD.
Due to diminishing returns, the difference in quality between 480p/i and 720p/i is much more noticeable then going from 720p/i to 1080p/i.
Furthermore, console graphics tend to look cartoonish, which makes the gains in quality with resolution less important compared to film.

It wasn't really meant to be a point of debate, but I know I can certainly see the difference between 1920x1080 and 1280x720 on a 1920x1080 native screen regardless of the content.

 

[kmmatney]

The standards evolved because technology and customer usage and wants changed. The custoer drove the change.

The 16:10 standard was based more on working with desktop applications in the office - basically working with the printed word. The 16:9 standard is driven by the demand for wider vieiwing field for video. In addition, as screens get larger with higher resolution, extra width now makes it feasible to have two documents side by side - with no demeand for extra blank space at the top and bottome of documents.

Technology is just adapting to the demands of the marketplace.

I disagree - the manufacturers drove the change, by manufacturing only one panel aspect ratio for TV and computers to drive prices lower.

You can fit documents side-by-side on a 1920 x 1200 LCD just as easily as a 1920 x 1080 LCD, seeing as how they both have the same width. Except for movies, there is nothing better about a 16:9 monitor versus a 16:10.

 

[taltamir]

It wasn't really meant to be a point of debate, but I know I can certainly see the difference between 1920x1080 and 1280x720 on a 1920x1080 native screen regardless of the content.

so can I, my point was that it is much less of a difference and was addressing the issue of game console video game quality.

 

[Vinwiesel]

I used 1920x1080 for a while, but it is seemed a bit short for some apps. 16x9 is perfect for movies, but when gaming the HUD and skill bars take up part of your horizontal space, making the viewable portion even thinner. I may be biased though since prior to flat-screens I ran at 1600x1200.

With 1920x1200, the hud takes up some of the horizontal space, which more or less leaves a 1920x1080 portion still viewable. Also nice for browsing, since you have more screen and can scroll less.

I simply cannot fathom why anyone would want less screen for any reason other than to save money. The plus side of standardization is 16x9 LCD's are very affordable these days.

 

[taltamir]

I used 1920x1080 for a while, but it is seemed a bit short for some apps. 16x9 is perfect for movies, but when gaming the HUD and skill bars take up part of your horizontal space, making the viewable portion even thinner. I may be biased though since prior to flat-screens I ran at 1600x1200.

Except movies are not 16:9 (1.78:1)... they are are 2.39:1. Older movies might be 1.85:1
Home video cameras who are "widescreen" record in 16:9. And a lot of weekly TV shows are recorded in that format, but rarely movies.

 

[santz]

WOW 1ST quarter 2012, is like SOooooo farr off, its insane, By the time it roles around, we may not even exist based on some Pundits, see 2012 movie. But seriously, 2012 1st quarter is a long way off, a bit too premature, dont you think to be inquiring so soon . Hold off your excitement and you will get there in time!

 

[Throckmorton]

2560x1440 might actually be good. For a while I had a 30" 2560x1600 Dell monitor because I got a good deal on Craigslist. But it was too big and felt like I had to move my eyes too much, especially vertically. It's not like you can move it further either, because then you have to scale fonts up (and that was when I had XP which sucks at scaling).

 

[SHAQ]

1080 is cheaper, it's the standard and no black bars to worry about on some games. If it's too small get a 27" or a 32" TV. Both of those are still cheaper than a 1920x1200 monitor. I thought about getting a 16:10 early on but the above points swayed me.

 

[taltamir]

1080 is cheaper, it's the standard and no black bars to worry about on some games.

1. The PC standard is 1920x1200 not 1080p... 1080p is TV standard.
2. If your game has black bars then it is made of EPIC FAIL! Seriously, it is super mega duper easy to properly fit a game to a screen without black bars. Not doing it is inexcusably bad console porting.
3. Really really REALLY old 2d games get black bars in either widescreen format.
4. You still have black bars when playing movies in 1080p

So yea, on some games you no longer have black bars... but then you have black bars in others and your vertical space is highly limited for daily computer operations that are not games

 

[Wolves]

1. The PC standard is 1920x1200 not 1080p... 1080p is TV standard.
2. If your game has black bars then it is made of EPIC FAIL! Seriously, it is super mega duper easy to properly fit a game to a screen without black bars. Not doing it is inexcusably bad console porting.
3. Really really REALLY old 2d games get black bars in either widescreen format.
4. You still have black bars when playing movies in 1080p

So yea, on some games you no longer have black bars... but then you have black bars in others and your vertical space is highly limited for daily computer operations that are not games

1. 16:9 is TV standard but nowadays also PC standard. 16:10 is basically an earlier standard that is on the way out. It is just a matter of time before basically everyone use 16:9 monitirs. Most monitors thats are on sale are 16:9 allready and the number of 16:10 screens just get smaller and smaller for every day.

I am really surprised that there still are people that are anti 16:9. I was there 2 years ago my self but pretty quickly understood that this is a good thing.

 

[amenx]

16:9 for PC is not the ideal standard. It was foisted onto the PC community for cost reasons and the assumption that those preferring the better 16:10 are outnumbered by the vast majority who are oblivious to the few extra vertical pixels missing and are not anal enough to care about the difference for it to have an impact on sales. I dont watch TV or movies on my PC and want those missing vert pixels. 16:9 is OK with me only if above 1080 (1440).

 

[Wolves]

16:9 for PC is not the ideal standard. It was foisted onto the PC community for cost reasons and the assumption that those preferring the better 16:10 are outnumbered by the vast majority who are oblivious to the few extra vertical pixels missing and are not anal enough to care about the difference for it to have an impact on sales. I dont watch TV or movies on my PC and want those missing vert pixels. 16:9 is OK with me only if above 1080 (1440).

16:10 doesnt give you more pixels than 16:9.

In fact 16:9 give you more pixels than 16:10.

 

[Creig]

16:10 doesnt give you more pixels than 16:9.

In fact 16:9 give you more pixels than 16:10.

In fact, it doesn't.

16:9 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
16:10 1920x1200 = 2,304,000 pixels

 

[Wolves]

In fact, it doesn't.

16:9 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
16:10 1920x1200 = 2,304,000 pixels

16:10 /= 1920*1200

and

16:9 /= 1920*1080

so I dont understand what you are trying to say?

 

[Avalon]

In fact, it doesn't.

16:9 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
16:10 1920x1200 = 2,304,000 pixels

Was about to say...between the two resolutions being discussed in this thread, by virtue x1200 has more pixels.

 

[Creig]

16:10 /= 1920*1200

and

16:9 /= 1920*1080

so I dont understand what you are trying to say?

At any given comparable resolution, 16:10 will give you more pixels than 16:9 ie:

16:9 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
16:10 1920x1200 = 2,304,000 pixels

16:9 1600X900 = 1,440,000 pixels
16:10 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels

16:9 1360x768 = 1,044,480 pixels
16:10 1440x900 = 1,296,000 pixels

16:9 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels
16:10 1280x800 = 1,024,000 pixels

 

[Wolves]

Any any given comparable resolution, 16:10 will give you more pixels than 16:9 ie:

16:9 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
16:10 1920x1200 = 2,304,000 pixels

16:9 1600X900 = 1,440,000 pixels
16:10 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels

16:9 1360x768 = 1,044,480 pixels
16:10 1440x900 = 1,296,000 pixels

16:9 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels
16:10 1280x800 = 1,024,000 pixels

But why should 1920*1080 be comparable with 1920*1200 for inastance? Obviosly 16:10 screens will have more pixels than 16:9 screens if you choose to compare 16:10 screens with 16:9 screens with lower resolution. But you could choose 16:9 with higher resolutions than 16:10 as well and get the totally opposite result.

16:9 or 16:10 has nothing to do with amount of pixels. It simply is a width length ratio.

If you prefer higher screens you obviosly prefer 16:10 over 16:9.
If you prefer wider screens you obviosly prefer 16:9 over 16:10.