Why is everything x1080 now?

[zCypher]

About a year ago I bought a syncmaster which uses 2048x1152 for $170. Now I can't find anything under $200-230 and it only has 1980x1080? What the hell? Even displays up to 27" still have that same resolution - what is going on?

I see a few pricey IPS panels that have nice resolutions, but honestly... Is this 2048x1152 just unheard of these days, or am I missing something? Don't you find that 1080 pixels is not much for a big display?

If I am just completely way off base or misinformed, please please help put me on the right track!

 

[Winterpool]

You may want to read this thread.

Short answer: it's cheaper. Also, it matches the 1080 resolution people associate with HDTV.

Most people who actually do work (or a lot of reading) on their monitors prefer more vertical pixels, but as you've noticed, even 16:10 is becoming rare outside premium displays (eg IPS panels). And even IPS displays are often available in 16:9 now (look at Apple's iMacs, Dell's U2711, U2311H, etc).

 

[fluffmonster]

the real tragedy is the ubiquity of 16:9 ratio screens. I hope my 16:10 monitors last a long long time.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I agree, it's annoying. I'm hanging onto my 20" NEC WMGX2 until I find a worthy 16:10 ratio successor.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Personally I don't mind 16:9 ratio, you just have to consider the fact that you cannot compare 16:9 vs 16:10 size wise.

22" 16:9 is more like 20" 16:10

Another words, 16:10 is always bigger than 16:9 of the same size.

I have a 25" 16:9 and 24" 16:10 and prefer 24" 16:10, but wouldn't mind 16:9 if I had no choice or if it was cheaper.

I also don't understand the lack of 16:10 format. Dieing breed?

 

[Soccerman06]

I prefer 16x10 because i can see slightly more of whatever game than with 16x9. Long live 30" 16x10!

 

[tweakboy]

That is a odd resolution,, is that 16:10 or 16:9

Well for 10 years Ive used 2304x1440 on my ubber Sony CRT ,, its still going strong I will not get a LCD because their 60hz,, I will wait 3 or 4 years until the douches come out with PC monitors 27 inch 2560res 120hz or 240hz refresh.. Thank you

 

[zCypher]

Anyone have suggestions of 23 to 27 inch monitors with resolutions in excess of 1980x ?

 

[Vdubchaos]

That is a odd resolution,, is that 16:10 or 16:9

Well for 10 years Ive used 2304x1440 on my ubber Sony CRT ,, its still going strong I will not get a LCD because their 60hz,, I will wait 3 or 4 years until the douches come out with PC monitors 27 inch 2560res 120hz or 240hz refresh.. Thank you

What's the refresh on your CRT?

Personally, I have never had an issues with gaming on ANY LCD Monitor or TV.

 

[vshin]

16:9 is better for movies, 16:10 is better for everything else. Once you get to sizes beyond 24", most people use these huge monitors for watching movies rather than productivity. This is the main reason why you see more 16:9 monitors in that range.

For gaming I think either size is fine but I prefer 16:10. Also, 16:10 is probably better for triple-monitor setups.

 

[RussianSensation]

I prefer 16x10 because i can see slightly more of whatever game than with 16x9. Long live 30" 16x10!

Is this always true though? It seems 16:9 produces wider viewing angle in SC2 than 16:10.

 

[edplayer]

About a year ago I bought a syncmaster which uses 2048x1152 for $170. Now I can't find anything under $200-230 and it only has 1980x1080? What the hell? Even displays up to 27" still have that same resolution - what is going on? I see a few pricey IPS panels that have nice resolutions, but honestly... Is this 2048x1152 just unheard of these days, or am I missing something? Don't you find that 1080 pixels is not much for a big display? If I am just completely way off base or misinformed, please please help put me on the right track!

2048x1152 is just as unheard of now as it was about a year ago. That was never a popular resolution.

 

[toyota]

I prefer 16x10 because i can see slightly more of whatever game than with 16x9. Long live 30" 16x10!

I hope you are referring to physical size because 16:9 actually gives you more viewing area of a game than 16:10. it simply just adds more to the sides of what you are already seeing in 16:10.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Here at work everyone hates the 16:9 monitors Dell ships. They are pretty crap for office work imo. I really don't understand why people like them so much.

I've got a 16:10 at home. Long may it last.

 

[edplayer]

I hope you are referring to physical size because 16:9 actually gives you more viewing area of a game than 16:10. it simply just adds more to the sides of what you are already seeing in 16:10.

wouldn't that only apply if both examples used the same amount of vertical pixels? the example that is usually brought up is 1200 vs. 1080. In that case wouldn't they both display the same horizontally?

 

[fluffmonster]

16:9 is the new standard because its cheaper to manufacture...can get more screens out of the glass panels they cut up or something like that.

 

[toyota]

wouldn't that only apply if both examples used the same amount of vertical pixels? the example that is usually brought up is 1200 vs. 1080. In that case wouldn't they both display the same horizontally?

the number of pixels has nothing to do with it. its the aspect ratio that determines what you see for gaming. 1280x720 and 1920x1080 will have the exact same fov because they are both 16:9. you will see less of the game area on any 16:10 aspect ratio no matter what the res is.

 

[edplayer]

but if vertical pixels is half the aspect ratio, how could it have nothing to do with it? aspect ratio is horizontal pixels : vertical pixels, right?

 

[edplayer]

seems to me like the horizontal FOV would be 90 for both and the vertical would be 58.72 for 1080 and 64.01 for 1200

 

[arredondo]

If choosing between the two options, 60" @16x9 >>> 30" @16x10 for me, and far more immersive as well.

 

[lowboyee]

the number of pixels has nothing to do with it. its the aspect ratio that determines what you see for gaming. 1280x720 and 1920x1080 will have the exact same fov because they are both 16:9. you will see less of the game area on any 16:10 aspect ratio no matter what the res is.

Depends on how the game scales FOV wrt. aspect ratio. Going from 16:10 -> 16:9, games should expand the areas on the side, not crop the top+bottom, as humans have a larger horizontal FOV.

 

[edplayer]

most games are hor + now

which contradicts what I have posted so far... :whiste:

edit: well actually it doesn't (contradict). I pulled those numbers off the widescreengamingforum calculator.

 

[lowboyee]

but if vertical pixels is half the aspect ratio, how could it have nothing to do with it? aspect ratio is horizontal pixels : vertical pixels, right?

The number of vert pixels on monitor A compared to the number of vert pixels on monitor B is a worthless comparison without the horizontal. With that, we can get an aspect ratio and then ignore pixels altogether.

 

[edplayer]

The number of vert pixels on monitor A compared to the number of vert pixels on monitor B is a worthless comparison without the horizontal.

Of course. Did you not see that I posted both where you quoted me?

 

[Vdubchaos]

I hope you are referring to physical size because 16:9 actually gives you more viewing area of a game than 16:10. it simply just adds more to the sides of what you are already seeing in 16:10.

I think he is just saying that the cost of 30" 16:10 is more than 60" LCD 16:9 TV.

I believe it's close....and I would take a 60" as well.