- #LG WIDE MONITOR SAYS IT IS A 1024 X 768 WHILE WINDOWS 7 SAYS IT IS AT 1920 X 1080 1080P#
- #LG WIDE MONITOR SAYS IT IS A 1024 X 768 WHILE WINDOWS 7 SAYS IT IS AT 1920 X 1080 FULL SIZE#
- #LG WIDE MONITOR SAYS IT IS A 1024 X 768 WHILE WINDOWS 7 SAYS IT IS AT 1920 X 1080 FULL#
- #LG WIDE MONITOR SAYS IT IS A 1024 X 768 WHILE WINDOWS 7 SAYS IT IS AT 1920 X 1080 TV#
I prefer them because I need them for PC use more than console use, but for those (as I've said before) that also want to use them a fair bit with consoles or 1080p video players, 16:9 monitors can be a compelling choice. I personally prefer 16:10 computer monitors, but it took me a long time and a lot of effort to find ones that can be used properly with 16:9 sources, with no overscan and with proper pixel mapping. $399.99 for the average 16:10 TN based 24".Īs Nenu said, at the end of the day " to each their own". For the record, this screen has MORE pixels than a 1920x1200 16:10 monitor and is much cheaper here in Canada > $299.99 vs. I am also interested in the Samsung 2343BW/BWX with its weird 2048x1152 resolution and see how that works with consoles. So far I've used two 16:9 monitors that fulfill this purpose, and they are both cheaper than equivalently sized 16:10 monitors. Where I do care about scaling is in use with popular consoles such as Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii so that the image is shown at the right aspect ratio, with minimum or no overscan so there is no distortion or degradation. Otherwise the video card will do the job for me without penalty, and as a side benefit, the scaling usually introduces a slight amount of anti-aliasing to smooth things out nicely. I could only think of maybe DOS games that could benefit from good monitor scaling and that is debatable. So in that light, why do I care about scaling on a computer monitor used exclusively on PC? One answer: I don't. So for example an older game with 4:3 ratio will be properly displayed on both a 16:9 or 16:10 monitor, except in those situations where the game's maximum resolution (such as 1600x1200) physically exceeds the screen's resolution, for example 1080p. Why is this preferable to the image on the right? In addition, these days both ATI and nVidia cards have excellent scaling built in which has two advantages:ġ) It does NOT introduce input lag like some monitor scaling doesĢ) It can make older games look good on monitors with ratios different than the resolution/aspect ratio the game supports. The last image clearly shows a racing game screen where the image is cut off top and bottom on the 16:10 screen. They cut off the sides and scale vertically to fill the screen. Additionally the left image looks like one of those movies that has been "resized to fit on TV" except Dame Judy Dench doesn't look like a conehead.īTW the Samsung 2493HM and 2693HM do this as well with consoles over HDMI and DVI, and presumably Bluray players and it is NOT preferred. I don't see how this helps the thread when you are comparing a $1000+ monitor with one less than a third of its price. The middle image is (what I believe) a scaled image from the excellent NEC 2490WUXI/2690WUXI which has exceptional image scaling not common on most computer monitors. You need two 24" monitors (one 16:10 and one 16:9) side-by-side hooked up to a (for example) BluRay player or console and show the difference in image size.
#LG WIDE MONITOR SAYS IT IS A 1024 X 768 WHILE WINDOWS 7 SAYS IT IS AT 1920 X 1080 FULL#
Without seeing the full monitor screen it doesn't show much. Your first picture with the red, green, and gray is confusing. More image for the size with 16:9 images/sources. It may be a little bit less sharp, but it is bigger. If a 24" 16:9 has a larger dot pitch than a 24" 16:10, the image is naturally larger.
This means that a larger 16:9 or 2.4:1 image is shown at equivalent monitor sizes. That previous post with the photos doesn't show anything that is useful or apparent, Albovin.ġ6:9 ratio monitors are wider than 16:10 at the same diagonal size, such as 24". and if that's your priority and you plan on playing on both pc and console, 16:9 may be more beneficial. Not all games currently have 16:9 support, though many do.
PC Games will be able to use the extra resolution of a 16:10 (1920x1200) on a 24" monitor but consoles only 16:9 aspect ratios
#LG WIDE MONITOR SAYS IT IS A 1024 X 768 WHILE WINDOWS 7 SAYS IT IS AT 1920 X 1080 TV#
On small monitors, though, the added width of 16:9 could be helpful in viewing multiple open windows.Īnd in both cases, the 16:9 ratio tends to be better for modern media, however if you watch old tv shows much (4:3) there will be quiet a bit of black space on the two sides.Īnd a hardcore gamer should decide if it's PC gaming or console gaming.
#LG WIDE MONITOR SAYS IT IS A 1024 X 768 WHILE WINDOWS 7 SAYS IT IS AT 1920 X 1080 FULL SIZE#
If you're looking at a 24" monitor, then a 16:10 display is wide enough to hold two full size word documents with a bit to spare, so unless you need anything wider than that, 16:10 is plenty wide. A 16:10 monitor of any size will permit you more vertical space, so if the web-pages you tend to visit are long, there will be less scrolling.