| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SycoShaman
VIP Master Jedi
Posts: 24468
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
 Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2008 14:34 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surray
Posts: 5409
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2008 14:36 Post subject: |
|
|
16:10 is pretty much standard for PC monitors.
With 16:9 you can watch HD videos with smaller black bars than with 16:10, and 16:10 is apparently cheaper, so that's what I'd suggest.
Likot Mosuskekim, Woodcutter cancels Sleep: Interrupted by Elephant.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73240
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2008 14:54 Post subject: |
|
|
PC monitor -> Need more desktop space -> 1920x1200. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2008 15:32 Post subject: |
|
|
1920x1080 would be better as it is 16:9 and most of the dvd movies are 16:9
mostly tvs are 16:9, but there are plenty of monitors our there as well
yes
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2008 16:15 Post subject: |
|
|
Well i want to use my monitor for PC stuff, not so much watching movies. and even if i did, i don't care about black bars at the top and bottom, so i think it's propably safer to go with a 16:10 solution here.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2008 17:32 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah go with 16:10 - for PC monitors I'd imagine for nearly everyone here gaming & general PC stuff will take up more time than watching videos.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
upstart_69
Posts: 1094
Location: Right behind you!
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2008 23:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| cnZ wrote: | 1920x1080 would be better as it is 16:9 and most of the dvd movies are 16:9
mostly tvs are 16:9, but there are plenty of monitors our there as well |
Actually read what he said:
| Quote: | | Are there games that support only 16:9 but not 16:10 or the other way round? Note i'm not planning on using the monitor for watching bluray 'n' shit, i mostly run games on it and some webbrowsing. |
Nearly every pc game put out these days (thankfully) support 16:10. Much fewer support 16:9. So clearly 16:10 would be best. Also you would get less viewing area for what you are mainly doing, especially for the games that run in 4:3 as 24" inches is much less space vertically, more horizontally in the 16:9 aspect ratio.
As far as built-in scaling, I had a gateway that did the 1:1 thing perfectly. Unfortunately it was a piece of junk otherwise(backlighting esp). The Samsung I have does not do it automatically, but I can change aspect ratios with the press of a button. So when I play older games, I just hit aspect ratio on the remote and bada bing, no stretched display.
Core i7 920 @ 3.8Ghz | 6GB OCZ DDR3 8-8-8-24 @ 1600mhz | eVga x58 Mobo | 2 x eVga GTX 460 SLI | Intel X25-M + 3x Seagate + WD Black = 2.75TB | X-Fi Titanium | PCP&C Silencer 750 | G15 KB | G5 Mouse | G35 Headset | Z-5500 Digital | Samsung T260HD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2008 14:34 Post subject: |
|
|
stop worry-ing about aspect ratio and think about more important things like colour depth, input lag, scaling etc etc...
also that samsung has a low viewing angle so you will see colour change on the sides of the screen...just so you know 
| Quote: | | PC awesome button = Uninstall! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2008 16:25 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sitting in front of a 19" Samsung 930bf right now and the viewing angle (also 160°) is fine by me, also as far as i know you don't have to worry about input lag with TN panels.
Still don't know about the scaling stuff thought...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73240
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2008 16:56 Post subject: |
|
|
There are two versions of the T240 - T240 and T240HD. The T240 has a bad scaling, as in it stretches anything to the native res. The T240HD has proper scaling, where you have 1:1 correct scaling. Make sure to get the T240HD.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73240
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2008 17:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, then why not look at another monitor? If you look at TN panel monitors, I can suggest BenQ 2400W (not 2400 WA). It has proper scaling, and has DVI, HDMI and VGA inputs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73240
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2008 18:03 Post subject: |
|
|
I can confirm G2400W does. Maybe I was wrong to say "WA", but there's a newer model that is worse than the regular G2400W. I'm not sure if that's the WD though. Make sure to read the specs, but if it's like the G2400W, it's a great monitor.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2008 18:29 Post subject: |
|
|
cool thanks for the info, the benq site is total crap when it comes to product specs, why do they all have to make up their own names for this stuff instead of calling it scaling like everybody else? lol
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73240
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2008 18:38 Post subject: |
|
|
After reading some more, it appears the G2400WA is an analog-only version of the G2400W (Whats the point?  ). So I guess we know what the "D" stands for. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2008 18:55 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 1st Jan 2009 22:41 Post subject: |
|
|
I would say if price is not an issue go with 16:9, newer games support the resolution and most recent older games do too. although a 24 inch monitor with a 16:9 res would likely be 1920x1080 and a 16:10 would be 1920x1200. The 16:10 yields more space in height. However, games would look better at 16:9 as would movies. If you're going for gaming get 16:9. Also I heard the movie standard is 16:9 because it's somehow better quality for human vision or something like that.
For workstations, such as word processing or programming I'de go with 16:10.
By the way I recently bought a 24 inch 16:9 2ms monitor for 300.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 2nd Jan 2009 01:06 Post subject: |
|
|
Err well thanks for your opinion (really!) but i already decided on 16:10 because more games seem to support it than 16:9. Also i don't plan on watching movies, but i do have the habit of digging out older games quite frequently. And by older games i don't mean Call of Duty 4, i'm talking NOLF and NfS Porsche, so the monitor needs to have scaling, and that BenQ that iNatan sugessted sounds right on the money for me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Jan 2009 05:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| Perry Rhodan wrote: | | Err well thanks for your opinion (really!) but i already decided on 16:10 because more games seem to support it than 16:9. Also i don't plan on watching movies, but i do have the habit of digging out older games quite frequently. And by older games i don't mean Call of Duty 4, i'm talking NOLF and NfS Porsche, so the monitor needs to have scaling, and that BenQ that iNatan sugessted sounds right on the money for me. |
older games as in the ones that only support 4:3 res? There are only a few older games that don't support 16:9 and do support 16:10. Hell there games which support 16:10 and 16:9, but crop out some of the screen for the 16:10 res. Bioshock WAS one till they patched it after a revolt of the 16:10 users took a few months though. Multi system games will likely have better or equal optimization for 16:9 too. Resident Evil 4 also another game that doesn't support 16:10. Poor choice.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
upstart_69
Posts: 1094
Location: Right behind you!
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Jan 2009 07:50 Post subject: |
|
|
| Omego2K wrote: | | Perry Rhodan wrote: | | Err well thanks for your opinion (really!) but i already decided on 16:10 because more games seem to support it than 16:9. Also i don't plan on watching movies, but i do have the habit of digging out older games quite frequently. And by older games i don't mean Call of Duty 4, i'm talking NOLF and NfS Porsche, so the monitor needs to have scaling, and that BenQ that iNatan sugessted sounds right on the money for me. |
older games as in the ones that only support 4:3 res? There are only a few older games that don't support 16:9 and do support 16:10. Hell there games which support 16:10 and 16:9, but crop out some of the screen for the 16:10 res. Bioshock WAS one till they patched it after a revolt of the 16:10 users took a few months though. Multi system games will likely have better or equal optimization for 16:9 too. Resident Evil 4 also another game that doesn't support 16:10. Poor choice. |
No it is not. Do the freaking math and you will find that 16:10 yields more pixels and therefore more real estate on screen. Do you seriously think that the few games in existence that are 16x9(Like RE4 PC, LOL) are worth losing real estate for the type of computing the monitor is meant for? Or did you not read where he doesn't play movies? Or is your comprehension just lacking? Sorry but it pisses me off when someone thinks they are all knowing and their opinion(however idiotic) is FACT. If yours in this case were a fact, where the hell are all the 16x9 monitors that should be STANDARD and not an EXCEPTION?
Core i7 920 @ 3.8Ghz | 6GB OCZ DDR3 8-8-8-24 @ 1600mhz | eVga x58 Mobo | 2 x eVga GTX 460 SLI | Intel X25-M + 3x Seagate + WD Black = 2.75TB | X-Fi Titanium | PCP&C Silencer 750 | G15 KB | G5 Mouse | G35 Headset | Z-5500 Digital | Samsung T260HD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Jan 2009 15:04 Post subject: |
|
|
| upstart_69 wrote: | | Omego2K wrote: | | Perry Rhodan wrote: | | Err well thanks for your opinion (really!) but i already decided on 16:10 because more games seem to support it than 16:9. Also i don't plan on watching movies, but i do have the habit of digging out older games quite frequently. And by older games i don't mean Call of Duty 4, i'm talking NOLF and NfS Porsche, so the monitor needs to have scaling, and that BenQ that iNatan sugessted sounds right on the money for me. |
older games as in the ones that only support 4:3 res? There are only a few older games that don't support 16:9 and do support 16:10. Hell there games which support 16:10 and 16:9, but crop out some of the screen for the 16:10 res. Bioshock WAS one till they patched it after a revolt of the 16:10 users took a few months though. Multi system games will likely have better or equal optimization for 16:9 too. Resident Evil 4 also another game that doesn't support 16:10. Poor choice. |
No it is not. Do the freaking math and you will find that 16:10 yields more pixels and therefore more real estate on screen. Do you seriously think that the few games in existence that are 16x9(Like RE4 PC, LOL) are worth losing real estate for the type of computing the monitor is meant for? Or did you not read where he doesn't play movies? Or is your comprehension just lacking? Sorry but it pisses me off when someone thinks they are all knowing and their opinion(however idiotic) is FACT. If yours in this case were a fact, where the hell are all the 16x9 monitors that should be STANDARD and not an EXCEPTION? |
I think you missed the post where I said that 16:10 yields more space. Never said it should be standard, but said visually 16:9 is more appealing. And some games crop out "real estate" for 16:10" res, like bioshock did.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
