16:10

[kromosto]

Is there any led 1920*1200 monitors you know?

[zanzabar]

i think that apple has some, but led dosnt make a difference under 37"

[lowfat]

i think that apple has some, but led dosnt make a difference under 37"

Apple definitely doesn't have any LED 16:10 displays. And LED backlighting does definitely make a difference. They are considerably brighter.

[Forin]

Does LED monitors produce less heat?


Apple definitely doesn't have any LED 16:10 displays. And LED backlighting does definitely make a difference. They are considerably brighter.

[[XC] Oj101]

They would, yes, and there is also such a thing as "too bright" ;)

[Forin]

I like my H-IPS, but it puts more heat than e.g. TN. Draws more power.

1920x1200 H-IPS LED would be interesting.


They would, yes, and there is also such a thing as "too
bright" ;)

[Soulburner]

Apple definitely doesn't have any LED 16:10 displays. And LED backlighting does definitely make a difference. They are considerably brighter.
And most traditional CFL LCD screens never had a problem getting bright enough. In fact, most need to be turned down considerably from factory settings to achieve proper brightness.

[Xcel]

And most traditional CFL LCD screens never had a problem getting bright enough. In fact, most need to be turned down considerably from factory settings to achieve proper brightness.

I completely agree, it's not good for the eyes either to run your monitor at maximum brightness. My HP LP3065 is way too bright at max and I usually use it at minimium brightness unless I do photo editing, then I put a bit at slightly above 50% brightness.

[[XC] Oj101]

The ability to go to bright is a good thing though, my work monitor used to be bright at 60% but now it's painfully dull at anything below 85% and I normally leave it at 100%.

[zanzabar]

idealy u want to have brightness and back light independent since lcds have the best color at max brightness but then if that also ups the backlight then its to bright

[lowfat]

And most traditional CFL LCD screens never had a problem getting bright enough. In fact, most need to be turned down considerably from factory settings to achieve proper brightness.

I mean actual brightness. Not the 'brightness' you think you are adjusting in the monitor settings. The brighter the backlighting, the whiter the whites and the more vivid the colours.

[Tech Dav]

16:9 is a standard, why would you want anything else?

[lowfat]

16:9 is a standard, why would you want anything else?

Because on displays 24" and smaller you are loosing 120 lines of resolution and for web browsing etc that is quite noticeable.

[SoulsCollective]

16:9 is a standard, why would you want anything else?Because 16:10 is also a standard, and shows more content? Given the option, why would you want less?

I'm puzzled by this move towards monitors with less vertical height lately. Sure it ties in well with all the "full HD" marketing blitz, but a PC monitor is designed for the consumption of very different media than a TV. On a TV you purely consume movies, which are naturally wider then they are tall. On a computer you consume word documents, e-mails and websites, all of which are naturally taller than they are wide.

[WrigleyVillain]

I mean actual brightness. Not the 'brightness' you think you are adjusting in the monitor settings. The brighter the backlighting, the whiter the whites and the more vivid the colours.

Pretty good article related to your comment, though might be already common knowledge to the average person here:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/display_myths_shattered

[[XC] Oj101]

It's sort of how like 6" is standard, 8" is better :rofl:

[Forin]

I don't care about standards. For me 16:9 is useless and claustrophobic. ;)

[iboomalot]

Because 16:10 is also a standard, and shows more content? Given the option, why would you want less?


Due to profits plain and simple.

19" 4:3
22" 16:10
24" 16:9

19" die has been paid for many times over and when rolling out the panels just cut the same TFT panel 3" longer and 5" longer.

This costs alot less than making a larger die and should cut down on bad panels since the 19" die has been tweeted for many years.

This is speculation only but I think it makes sense. I bought a Dell 24" widescreen to replace my son's 19" and the only thing different was width. As stated before the documents are no taller than the old 19"

[InCredible]

It's sort of how like 6" is standard, 8" is better :rofl:

:rofl: thats hilarious

[Jocelyn84]

16:9 is a standard, why would you want anything else?

16:10 is as close to the golden ratio as you can get. Its only natural for people to prefer it over 16:9



I'm puzzled by this move towards monitors with less vertical height lately.

They're cheaper to make.

[SoulsCollective]

Due to profits plain and simple.

They're cheaper to make.
Lol yes, but I was more referring to consumer preference. It's nonsensical - I blame marketing hype :p:

[Jocelyn84]

Lol yes, but I was more referring to consumer preference. It's nonsensical - I blame marketing hype :p:

Exactly, they've essentially brainwashed people. Most people can't and will not think for themselves. First they got everyone into 1080p monitors, and now they're selling 1600x900 which is so backwards and going so far back in time technologically. lol

[iboomalot]

manufactures can also profit from designing cheaper panel due to larger dot pitch.

24" screen 16:9 vs 16:10

24"(1600:900) = 20.92" wide by 11.76" thus 11.76" * 25.4mm/inch / 900 = dot pitch of .332mm

24"(1600:1000) = 20.35" wide by 12.71" thus 12.71" * 25.4mm/inch /1000= dot pitch of .322mm

now for a good monitor

24" (1900:1200) = 20.289" wide by 12.82" thus 12.82" * 25.4mm/inch /1200= dot pitch of .271mm

The 1900 x 1200 monitor has nearly the same ratio as the 16:10 but with a much smaller dot pitch.

Its dumbing down marketing to make more profits.


another example a Dell U2711 has a dot pitch of .233 mm and costs over $1,000

[PaganII]

Are you confusing ratio with resolution?
16:9 ratio 1920 x 1080 Acer P235Hbmid dot pitch is .265"

[iboomalot]

Are you confusing ratio with resolution? -- same thing see below

lets go backwards on your monitor selection

1920 * .265 = 20.0314"
1080 * .265 = 11.267"

16/9 = 1.77777 ratio right ????

20.0314 / 11.267 = 1.7777 hummm interesting????? no?????

(20.0314*20.0314) + (11.267*11.267) = 528.2 sqrt = 22.982" dia or 23" as the model # states P23

so working backwards the ratio is 16:9 and the dia = 23" and the "resolution" of 1920 x 1080 with .265mm dot pitch works out perfectly.

Gotta love Math it just works so well

_____

off topic Pagan2 you should like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcR7hr4LLQg

[itznfb]

To answer the OPs question... there are a lot of LED 16:10 1900x1200 monitors.