xtknight,
I appreciate the insight but 1920x1080 has been a standard before 1920x1200.
No, it has never been.
That's what we study history for. This knowledge helps us understand the present and manage the future.
It's a common mistake to mix up HDTV video standard with LCD monitor resolution.
Those are two different operas.
"Full HD"="1080p" is related to
the video content.
LCD resolution is related to
the screen on which the content is displayed.
These two things are not the same and have never been so.
Full HD video standard parameters happened to to include 1920x1080 resolution.
It happened years ago. So 1920x1080 has been a standard for a long time but for movies,
not for LCD monitors.
Now about monitors.
1600x
1200 4:3 has been standard since 2003 (at least) involving all major brands and all 3 technologies (IPS,*VA,TN)
Probably Sony and Apple pioneered 1920x
1200 wide screen standard about the same time with 23" true 16:10 IPS. Then this standard quickly covered all brands and technologies as well.
So, in terms of modern slang, 1920x1200 true 16:10 monitors have been "Full HD" for about 6 years already. In computer world it's equal to 2 or 3 generations.
Recently the manufacturers have decided to cut panels to make more money.
How much to cut off?
They stopped at the
minimal size that can accomodate Full HD content. So 1920x120 portion was cut off, living us with 1920x1080.
The next is rather informal but a good "simple" definition of this procedure I've met in the internet:
"1920x1080 = castrated 1920x1200".
And the final touch: sticking sweet "Full HD" label to the "new" product to make cropping look like an improvement. The art of marketing.
1920x1200 is a strange PC bastardization of it, probably done because of LCD mother glass sizes or something like that?
"Bastardization" of 1920x1080 to get 1920x1200 techically is not possible, because 1920x1080 LCD monitors appeared
many years later than 1920x1200 by the way of "castration" of 1920x1200.
Years ago 1920x1200 became a 1600x1200 wide screen derivative.
20" 4:3 became 23" 16:10 (actually 20"Wide)
21" 4:3 became 24" 16:10 (actually 21'Wide)
Nobody's going to deny 1920x1080 is smaller
Absolutely correct (as far as informed people are concerned) because
vertical resolution is defining factor.
And the classification has to be very clear about it.
Why?
Because of "diagonal trick".
I believe, 20" was the first trick (21" was little later).
Smaller 1680x1050 was presented as "20"W" due to diagonal measurement trick.
In fact it was just 17"Wide.
1920x1080 has definitely
lower rank in terms of size and resolution than comparable true 1920x1200.
You say that nobody is going to deny obvious facts?
How about those
with marketing pasta hanging on their ears?
Knowledge deficit can be easily "compensated" with marketing pasta. In the worst cases we get 16:9 fanatics.
In fact I'd say 1920x1080 increases its ability to show media.
I prefer to pretend that I have not read that.:brokenheart:
By no means cropped 1920x1080 increases anything in comparison with true 1920x1200.
Vertical resolution!
World's media #1 is...?
Internet!
This media is in front of my eyes on 16:9 screen right now.
My media is cropped by about 15%!
More scrolling. Less space to work with multiple windows.
Yesterday I had to make two PrintScreens and then work on putting them together just because of the lack of vertical resolution on 16:9.
Photos=Media!
With cropped 16:9 - smaller photos or cropped resolution, annoying scrolling...
Video=Media!
95% of my home video is still 4:3.
Again we need higher vertical resolution to get
larger video format on 1920x1200 both for watching and editing.
We don't need black bars....Why malignant pasta again?
Most of movies are wide screen that means
black bars on both 16:9 and 16:10.
In some cases black bars do exist on 16:10 and.... let it be the worst we see in our life.
Best regards.