1920x1080 VS 1920x1200

Keeper said:
physical size 16:10 or pixel size 16:10, a movie will display smaller on a 16:10 than on a 16:9, i.e: the movie will ACTUALLY be smaller if you measure it with an Actual Measuring tape.

We have two screens. Screen A is 16:9 and Screen B is 16:10

Scenario 1:
Both are *exactly* the same physical size - 16:9 will show a bigger picture (black bars on Screen B)

Scenario 2:
Both Screens are 22", but they are true to their aspect ratio (Square Pixels)

now, the 16:10 screen might "Look" bigger to the eye, but in actual fact it is smaller if you took a Measuring tape while playing a Movie, and measured it.
Click to expand...

That's only true if both screens have the same diagonal dimension.

I'm fairly certain 1920*1200 screens are 24" and 1920*1080 screens are 23.6". Hence a 16:9 movie will look exactly the same on both.

edit: Actually, I worked out the 23.6" will be 5.5mm wider, but that's within the margin of error, given they only quote the size to the nearest tenth of an inch.
 
Last edited:
J25 said:
That's only true if both screens have the same diagonal dimension.

I'm fairly certain 1920*1200 screens are 24" and 1920*1080 screens are 23.6". Hence a 16:9 movie will look exactly the same on both.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I've been trying to say.
 
J25 said:
That's only true if both screens have the same diagonal dimension.

I'm fairly certain 1920*1200 screens are 24" and 1920*1080 screens are 23.6". Hence a 16:9 movie will look exactly the same on both.

edit: Actually, I worked out the 23.6" will be 5.5mm wider, but that's within the margin of error, given they only quote the size to the nearest tenth of an inch.
Click to expand...

yes J25, that is true.

if the 16:9 screen has less inches, it should fit the 16:10.

if they are both 24 inch diagonally, the 16:9 will be better for movies and games
 
J25 said:
That's only true if both screens have the same diagonal dimension.

I'm fairly certain 1920*1200 screens are 24" and 1920*1080 screens are 23.6". Hence a 16:9 movie will look exactly the same on both.

edit: Actually, I worked out the 23.6" will be 5.5mm wider, but that's within the margin of error, given they only quote the size to the nearest tenth of an inch.
Click to expand...

Yup, a fair amount of 1920x1080 are only 23" where as you mentioned 1920x1200 are normally 24" or 26" for that matter:)
 
Keeper said:
physical size 16:10 or pixel size 16:10, a movie will display smaller on a 16:10 than on a 16:9, i.e: the movie will ACTUALLY be smaller if you measure it with an Actual Measuring tape.

We have two screens. Screen A is 16:9 and Screen B is 16:10

Scenario 1:
Both are *exactly* the same physical size - 16:9 will show a bigger picture (black bars on Screen B)

Scenario 2:
Both Screens are 22", but they are true to their aspect ratio (Square Pixels)

now, the 16:10 screen might "Look" bigger to the eye, but in actual fact it is smaller if you took a Measuring tape while playing a Movie, and measured it.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, no.

If you have two 22" monitors (the length is measured by diagonal length)

and your ratio is 16:10, then you would have the screen 18.66" long, and 11.67" high.

If you had a 16:9 then you would have the screen 19.17" long, and 10.79" high.

Therefor, the 16:9 is slightly (+-1.3cm) longer, and is slightly (+-2.2cm) shorter.

So although you don't lose my length on the 16:10 screen, you gain a little more height.
 
Keeper said:
yes J25, that is true.

if the 16:9 screen has less inches, it should fit the 16:10.

if they are both 24 inch diagonally, the 16:9 will be better for movies and games
Click to expand...

There are no proper 24" 1920x1080 screens available AFAIK.
 
Keeper said:
physical size 16:10 or pixel size 16:10, a movie will display smaller on a 16:10 than on a 16:9, i.e: the movie will ACTUALLY be smaller if you measure it with an Actual Measuring tape.

We have two screens. Screen A is 16:9 and Screen B is 16:10

Scenario 1:
Both are *exactly* the same physical size - 16:9 will show a bigger picture (black bars on Screen B)

Scenario 2:
Both Screens are 22", but they are true to their aspect ratio (Square Pixels)

now, the 16:10 screen might "Look" bigger to the eye, but in actual fact it is smaller if you took a Measuring tape while playing a Movie, and measured it.
Click to expand...

Again, you're mistaken. Read what you're saying...

You're saying that 1920 x 1080 will display more (horizontally) than 1920 x 1200, which is NOT the case. They display the SAME.

For a physical size, say 24", physical horizontal size for 16:9 will be larger than for 16:10. But that simply isn't the case with monitors; 16:10 displays are slightly larger (physical panel area) than 16:9 displays to account for the difference that would occur. Thus they end up having THE SAME physical horizontal width.
 
a quick look on PCint shows that the extra inches have nothing to do with the aspect though (more of square pixels and strethed pixels)

23 WIDE TFT, 1920 X 1080
23.6 WIDE TFT, 1920 X 1080

24 WIDE TFT, 1920 X 1200
25.5 WIDE TFT, 1920 X 1200
 
sn3rd said:
Again, you're mistaken. Read what you're saying...

You're saying that 1920 x 1080 will display more (horizontally) than 1920 x 1200, which is NOT the case. They display the SAME.

For a physical size, say 24", physical horizontal size for 16:9 will be larger than for 16:10. But that simply isn't the case with monitors; 16:10 displays are slightly larger (physical panel area) than 16:9 displays to account for the difference that would occur. Thus they end up having THE SAME physical horizontal width.
Click to expand...

read my previous post ;)
 
scotty777 said:
read my previous post ;)
Click to expand...

I agree with that 100%; for the SAME diagonal PHYSICAL size, 16:9 is wider, and shorter. But I never brought physical size into this. And it's NOT the point of my argument.
 
scotty777 said:
Hmmm, no.

<snip>

So although you don't lose my length on the 16:10 screen, you gain a little more height.
Click to expand...

yes, and that leads to a smaller movie screen.

n2bmzl.jpg


16:9 WINS!
 
Keeper said:
yes, and that leads to a smaller movie screen.

<snip>

16:9 WINS!
Click to expand...

Not really, you losing like 1.5cm (I'm being generous), or 0.75cm on either side with a 22-24" screen. Dude, like honestly, you lose so little that it's hardly something to cry over, but then you gain the bottom bit (if gaming), but that again is small (like 1.2cm each side).
 
Keeper said:
yes, and that leads to a smaller movie screen.

Bleh...

16:9 WINS!
Click to expand...

More like Keeper fail.

Once again you post a comparison purely based on physical size comparison. Ie 22":rolleyes: Yes we get that already, no one was arguing about the differences in physical size *sigh*
 
Zenbaas said:
More like Keeper fail.

Once again you post a comparison purely based on physical size comparison. Ie 22":rolleyes: Yes we get that already, no one was arguing about the differences in physical size *sigh*
Click to expand...

Hahaha!
Nope, you fail for not reading scotty's post - I was replying to him and his post

scotty777 said:
If you have two 22" monitors (the length is measured by diagonal length).
Click to expand...
 
Zenbaas said:
Fixed :p
Click to expand...

no, i'm just pointing a few things out, and you guys keep arguing with me :p

obviously if the 16:9 screen is smaller than the 16:10 screen it's gonna count for the 16:10


but if we compare apples with apples, the 16:9 is better for games and movies - only benefit of a 16:10 is 120 pixels of real estate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X