Re: 4:3 vs. 16:9 LCD's
- From: JDa™© <JDaNospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:00:50 -0400
My bad! Thats what I get for being in a hurry!
Barry Watzman wrote:
Surprise, but your 17" monitor is 5:4, not 4:3. [it's 1280x1024, right?].
JDa™© wrote:Tracy, I recently upgrade from a 17" (4:3) to a 20" (16:10) Dell 2007WFP, and I am
really happy. But I choose the 20" wide screen based on the "height" of the panel.
Its nearly identical to the height of the 17". Because the screen panel height is10 3/4"
for both 17" (4:3) and 20" (16:10), I notice no difference in character size.
Unlike you, I ran the 17" at its max setting of 1280x1024 and I run the 20" at its
max of 1680x1050. I believe you could run a wide screen at 1024x768 with no
problem. See the pixel chart I have attached. Maybe it will give you some ideas.
Tracy wrote:I'm looking to get a new system and need to decide on the LCD. I
currently have the 20 inch 2001FP from a few years ago. Because of my
vision problems, I run this at 800x600 (since it's half the native
resolution there is no deteriation). I've always used a 4:3 computer
display up to this point. (I don't like changing the fonts or dpi
settings because they just don't look right in smaller resolutions.)
I'm satisfied (but not thrilled) with the UltraSharp I have. The
bright white areas on-screen actually hurt my eyes after so much time
(brightness is even set really low I believe). So I'm considering a
2007FP 20 inch 4:3 (basically just an upgrade over what I have now) or
something like the 2007WFP. I may or may not be buying the monitor at
the same time as they system (depending on coupons), so I'm open to
other vendors as well. I've heard good things about Samsungs too. (If
I stayed with a 4:3, I'd like it to also look good at 1024x768 - the
2001FP doesn't - just incase I'm forced to move up on resolutions at
some point).
But here are a few questions about these two Dell monitors...
1. Will the widescreen run ok at 840x525? I guess I'd be gaining 40
pixels in width, but loosing 75 in height.
2. XP runs fine at 800x600 but will Vista run ok at 800x600 or 840x525
since it's designed for a higher-res? I guess some Windows may be
cropped if they max out a 600 high with a 525 high screen though.
3. With the widescreen monitor what will happen if I run an older game
that requires a certain resolution to run like 800x600 or 640x480?
Obviously a 4:3 LCD would just scale down as needed. But on the
widescreen monitor, will the image be stretched or will there just be
extra "black" where the extra pixels are located?
Thanks in advance for any help that you experts can provide. I want to
make the right decision as this is a big purchase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
- References:
- 4:3 vs. 16:9 LCD's
- From: Tracy
- Re: 4:3 vs. 16:9 LCD's
- From: Barry Watzman
- 4:3 vs. 16:9 LCD's
- Prev by Date: Re: E520/Analog Monitor Question
- Next by Date: Re: Buy Dimension now?
- Previous by thread: Re: 4:3 vs. 16:9 LCD's
- Next by thread: Re: E520/Analog Monitor Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
