22¨, 24¨ lcd monitors

PunterCam

PunterCam

Active Member
Are they all widescreen these days? I can't find any 4:3 ratio screens above 19/20¨. I don't understand this obsession with widescreen - sure, films are filmed in it, but it's a computer first, not a tv. My dad used to use huge (maybe 24¨ plus) CRT 4:3 monitors years ago, they were awesome!

On a side note, I wouldn't mind keeping my 17¨ LCD going as well (I'm pretty sure I'll be ordering a 24¨ tonight). My Geforce 7300Gt has 2 video outputs (I think) - Do they both output at the same resolution? I'm sure they will, so is there any way of running them at different resolutions? I can get a 2nd 7300gt pretty cheap, could I run a second screen off that?

cheers
 
I'm not positive but you should be able to use to different resolutions. Depends on how you set it up i guess.
 
widescreens are better for computers too. nothing to do with movies. you have more screen size, you can look at multiple documents that are open simultaneously, playing games is much more realistic, etc. all around they should have always been widescreen in my opinion. tvs are different in that movies were pretty much always made widescreen but used to you couldn't find a widescreen tv on a shelf to buy.

i'd say if you have a video card that supports one, just buy a widescreen. not really worth it to buy a 4:3 otherwise IMO. i mean, why wouldn't you want one?
 
You can open multiple documents on a 4:3 and it fits pretty nicely; I reckon on a 24¨ 4:3 screen you could have 4 word documents open and usable pretty well.

There's no argument saying games are more realistic either, why would they be more realistic? Do we see in widescreen? No. I'd actually say I have more visual sensitivity on the x axis than the y. Books have always been taller, rather than wider (quite how this relates I don't know, it just popped into my head!), this fasination with widescreen just confuses me a bit. At the cinema, it's ridiculous! You can only really watch half the screen as it's so wide, yet you can easilly see the top and bottom without moving your eyes. And then you play a DVD on your 'widescreen' tv, and you get back bands top and bottom if you try to watch it in it's original ratio - because the tv isn't really widescreen.

The reason I'd like to keep using my 17¨ screen is so I can run a 'ProTools' mix window on it, and the edit screen on the other so I can stop flicking between the two
 
you can set any resolution on both monitors that you want as long as it doesn't exceed the specifications of your monitor or your video card.
I owned the 7300 for some time and it can handle the 22" native resolutions don't know for sure about the 24" resolutions probably will. check it if you want to.
 
PunterCam said:
Are they all widescreen these days? I can't find any 4:3 ratio screens above 19/20¨. I don't understand this obsession with widescreen - sure, films are filmed in it, but it's a computer first, not a tv. My dad used to use huge (maybe 24¨ plus) CRT 4:3 monitors years ago, they were awesome!

On a side note, I wouldn't mind keeping my 17¨ LCD going as well (I'm pretty sure I'll be ordering a 24¨ tonight). My Geforce 7300Gt has 2 video outputs (I think) - Do they both output at the same resolution? I'm sure they will, so is there any way of running them at different resolutions? I can get a 2nd 7300gt pretty cheap, could I run a second screen off that?

cheers
Click to expand...

1.there are still standard screen lcd now with not 4:3 ratio but 5:4
2.no doubt time of crt is running out
3.go seach for intro of "nvidia nview" tec
 
PunterCam said:
You can open multiple documents on a 4:3 and it fits pretty nicely; I reckon on a 24¨ 4:3 screen you could have 4 word documents open and usable pretty well.

There's no argument saying games are more realistic either, why would they be more realistic? Do we see in widescreen? No. I'd actually say I have more visual sensitivity on the x axis than the y. Books have always been taller, rather than wider (quite how this relates I don't know, it just popped into my head!), this fasination with widescreen just confuses me a bit. At the cinema, it's ridiculous! You can only really watch half the screen as it's so wide, yet you can easilly see the top and bottom without moving your eyes. And then you play a DVD on your 'widescreen' tv, and you get back bands top and bottom if you try to watch it in it's original ratio - because the tv isn't really widescreen.

The reason I'd like to keep using my 17¨ screen is so I can run a 'ProTools' mix window on it, and the edit screen on the other so I can stop flicking between the two
Click to expand...


Yes, the eye does see in "widescreen." It's called peripheral vision. If you put your fingers at the top of your vision and the bottom of your vision, the distance between your fingers is much smaller than to the left and right sides. And the good thing about widescreen vs normal with your book reference is that on a widescreen 22" I can basically read 2 8.5"x11" documents as opposed to 1 on a regular.
 
PunterCam said:
You can open multiple documents on a 4:3 and it fits pretty nicely; I reckon on a 24¨ 4:3 screen you could have 4 word documents open and usable pretty well.

There's no argument saying games are more realistic either, why would they be more realistic? Do we see in widescreen? No. I'd actually say I have more visual sensitivity on the x axis than the y. Books have always been taller, rather than wider (quite how this relates I don't know, it just popped into my head!), this fasination with widescreen just confuses me a bit. At the cinema, it's ridiculous! You can only really watch half the screen as it's so wide, yet you can easilly see the top and bottom without moving your eyes. And then you play a DVD on your 'widescreen' tv, and you get back bands top and bottom if you try to watch it in it's original ratio - because the tv isn't really widescreen.

The reason I'd like to keep using my 17¨ screen is so I can run a 'ProTools' mix window on it, and the edit screen on the other so I can stop flicking between the two
Click to expand...

I don't understand your logic. Why I say this is b/c of you reference to the cinema screen and going off that mentality if the cinema screen was as tall as it was wide then you would not be able see the top half of the screen either due to it being too tall or too big which ever way you want to look at it.

Eg, What is the difference in having a wide monitor that is 22" wide and a 4:3 monitor that is 22" wide? Other than the fact that the 4:3 will be taller. The Y axis is the same so if you can see the whole screen on a 4:3 that big then you should have no problem veiwing wide monitor with the Y axis being the same???

Again I don't see your problem?
 
well obviously a widescreen will be wider. 24¨ 4:3 screen will sacrifice some width to add some height. I think you've misread my point about cinema screens, but I guess I wasn't all that clear; if you focus your eyes on the center of the screen you can see something at the top of the picture and something at the bottom of the picture at the same time. You cannot view something on the extreme left and something on the extreme right (unless you sit miles back). The 22¨, or 24¨ refers to the diagonal as well, no the width, so the y axis will be different between widescreen and 4:3.

I don't really have a choice though, it's widescreen or nothing. Why not just a square screen? Why not a screen that's taller than it is wide? It would make it more space efficient on a desk.

But I'm really just complaining now
 
PunterCam said:
well obviously a widescreen will be wider. 24¨ 4:3 screen will sacrifice some width to add some height. I think you've misread my point about cinema screens, but I guess I wasn't all that clear; if you focus your eyes on the center of the screen you can see something at the top of the picture and something at the bottom of the picture at the same time. You cannot view something on the extreme left and something on the extreme right (unless you sit miles back). The 22¨, or 24¨ refers to the diagonal as well, no the width, so the y axis will be different between widescreen and 4:3.

I don't really have a choice though, it's widescreen or nothing. Why not just a square screen? Why not a screen that's taller than it is wide? It would make it more space efficient on a desk.

But I'm really just complaining now
Click to expand...
im gonna tell you it's all because the ****ing "HUMAN SYSTEM ENGINEERING"!
by those wierd theory lcd is getting so wide just because human's eyes are horizonal...
and i can tell it's bullshit cause our eyes just focus on one point in screen.i think the real answer is to keep the cost of lcd cutting maybe
 
Cost cutting is all I can think of too, but it's wierd they don't offer any squarer lcds... How much cheaper could widescreen really be?!
 
PunterCam said:
well obviously a widescreen will be wider. 24¨ 4:3 screen will sacrifice some width to add some height. I think you've misread my point about cinema screens, but I guess I wasn't all that clear; if you focus your eyes on the center of the screen you can see something at the top of the picture and something at the bottom of the picture at the same time. You cannot view something on the extreme left and something on the extreme right (unless you sit miles back). The 22¨, or 24¨ refers to the diagonal as well, no the width, so the y axis will be different between widescreen and 4:3.

I don't really have a choice though, it's widescreen or nothing. Why not just a square screen? Why not a screen that's taller than it is wide? It would make it more space efficient on a desk.

But I'm really just complaining now
Click to expand...

i'm sorry but you never answered the original question of why you don't want widescreen. seriously, it's bigger. i don't care how many programs you can see on a 4:3 monitor, you can see more on a widescreen. it's not a valid argument to sit here and type up a 3 paragraph response every time someone is simply telling you that you will have more viewing room with a widescreen. there is nothing to prove, that's just how it is. jeez.
 
Widescreen is just 'bigger' by default then? Lets take your widescreen monitor. Now imagine its square, with all sides being the same length as the width. What screens bigger now? and which takes up more room on the table?

A 24¨ screen, widescreen or not, will have the same visible area, the same amount of pixels as any other 24¨ screen. Doesn't matter what shape it is. So why do we stick with only widescreen? Surely you can get you brain around that!?
 
Really there's no argument here though. I'm 100% right, it's blindingly obvious. Since no one seems to know about my original question I'll investigate elsewhere
 
PunterCam said:
well obviously a widescreen will be wider. 24¨ 4:3 screen will sacrifice some width to add some height. I think you've misread my point about cinema screens, but I guess I wasn't all that clear; if you focus your eyes on the center of the screen you can see something at the top of the picture and something at the bottom of the picture at the same time. You cannot view something on the extreme left and something on the extreme right (unless you sit miles back). The 22¨, or 24¨ refers to the diagonal as well, no the width, so the y axis will be different between widescreen and 4:3.

I don't really have a choice though, it's widescreen or nothing. Why not just a square screen? Why not a screen that's taller than it is wide? It would make it more space efficient on a desk.

But I'm really just complaining now
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point as I didn't miss yours. With the cinema screen analogy, if the cinema screen is so wide that when you focus on a single point you can't see the outer edges of the screen, then going by your logic having that same cinema screen changed to 4:3 the same actual width the same thing will ultimately occur on the X axis due to the screen being too tall to see the upper and lower parts of the screen, which means you will have to move back and distance yourself from the screen to be able to get the whole screen in veiw.

And going back to what I said earlier, I did not say a 22" or 24" monitor, I said if the Y axis was constant at lets say 22" or 24" it would not matter if it was a wide screen or a 4:3 monitor, b/c if you can get the whole screen in veiw on the 4:3 screen then you won't have any problem veiw the wide screen as the width will be a constant.

All I was saying is that I don't see your logic for wide screens being harder to veiw? when the reality says otherwise.
 
Ok, fair enough. A big widescreen is no harder to view than a big 4:3, completely correct. I just wonder why the screens get wider and not taller, thats all. If a screen is square then it's far more likely you can see all of it at once.

I mean, I can understand it with tv's - the world as we see it is 'wider' than it is 'tall' ; we don't spend our time looking at out feet and then the clouds, we look along the horizon as everything happens on the ground. You want to capture more of the 'action' on screen, so screens are widescreen, fine. But computers are designed for working on, there is no reason for making them wider as opposed to square.

But hey, it's just something that gets me a bit, if I've missed any of your points during my ranting then I appologise, back to the essay writing!
 
^also to add to your somewhat flawed logic about computer screens: a widescreen can also be a tall screen, if you just rotate it 90 degrees. look at the gateway monitors, they come with a built-in tilter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top