1920x1080 VS 1920x1200

aspectRatio.png


and there you can see something else - the 16 in 16:9 means squat - it can be changed as you want - it can also be seen as 32:18 if you want, it's just a ratio - there is no "constant"
 
Keeper said:
yes, more pixels WILL be shown, but that DOES NOT mean you will see "more"

you think you gonna be able to see a person on your left side with a resolution of freaken 5000x5000? no - and i'll be able to see him on my crappy 800x400 resolution - because it's wider.
Click to expand...

Actually, all you'll see is an indistinguishable blob :p

Games use the resolution to make the image appear sharper. Keeping the same horizontal aspect while making the vertical larger WILL give you more viewable area. While increasing the resolution will only make your game look more better (if the game supports it). Otherwise, pro's would be playing games on 100" 999999x999999 screens, able to look behind them.
 
120 extra pixels is negligible. Rather stick to an industry standard format: ie. 1920x1080. That way, if you ever want to view HD content in it's native glory, you won't have to worry about images being stretched or letter-boxed.

It's as simple as that.

Keeper is correct. The wider the ratio, the more information is displayed. More pixels will give you a higher resolution, but not necessarily a larger veiwing scope.
 
I prefer 1920x1200 on a PC. Unfortunately it's frequently significantly more expensive.
 
genetic said:
That way, if you ever want to view HD content in it's native glory, you won't have to worry about images being stretched or letter-boxed.
Click to expand...

If you view a 16:9 HD movie on a 16:10 monitor it looks IDENTICAL to the 16:9 monitor, nothing is lost or stretched. The only difference is you have a 60 pixel black bar at the top & bottom. The actual image you are viewing stays the SAME. If you do not believe me compare the two side by side.

I would get a 16:10 monitor if it was an option.
 
Last edited:
ponder said:
If you view a 16:9 HD movie on a 16:10 monitor it looks IDENTICAL to the 16:9 monitor, nothing is lost or stetched. The only difference is you have a 60 pixel black bar at the top & bottom. The actual image you are viewing stays the SAME. If you do not believe me compare the two side by side.

I would get a 16:10 monitor if it was an option.
Click to expand...

That's why I said it would be letter-boxed.
 
genetic said:
That's why I said it would be letter-boxed.
Click to expand...

But the image is still in it's "native glory" as you called it, 16:9 @ 1920x1080. The two little black bars do not detract from the image, same goes for some movies in cinemas that were shot extra wide that have white borders at the top and bottom which you don't see as no light is project on the issue.

Are the two little black bars an issue?
 
gees you guys have gone awol

:)

no they not, but the price of a 1920*1200 is too expensive

im going 1920*1080

funny coz the height is going to be the same as my 22" 1680*1050, just wider
 
HTC_guy said:
gees you guys have gone awol

:)

no they not, but the price of a 1920*1200 is too expensive

im going 1920*1080

funny coz the height is going to be the same as my 22" 1680*1050, just wider
Click to expand...

I can personally recommend the Samsung P2250, bought mine from Sybaritic.
 
ponder said:
But the image is still in it's "native glory" as you called it, 16:9 @ 1920x1080. The two little black bars do not detract from the image, same goes for some movies in cinemas that were shot extra wide that have white borders at the top and bottom which you don't see as no light is project on the issue.

Are the two little black bars an issue?
Click to expand...

Then the same can be said viewing a 16:9 image on a 4:3 screen. letter-boxing at the top and bottom. It does not distort the image, but there is resolution loss.
In the case of 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 there is no resolution loss because the width is identical, but there is unused space at the top and bottom of the screen. It may bug some, but not others. Comes down to personal preference.

In the case of cinemas, a film shot in an ultra wide aspect ratio is designed to be displayed in a cinema that can display the ultra wide image. Cinema's that "crop" the screen to fit the image are not designed for the ultra wide format, so peripheral vision is definitely lost.
 
ponder said:
If you view a 16:9 HD movie on a 16:10 monitor it looks IDENTICAL to the 16:9 monitor, nothing is lost or stretched. The only difference is you have a 60 pixel black bar at the top & bottom. The actual image you are viewing stays the SAME. If you do not believe me compare the two side by side.

I would get a 16:10 monitor if it was an option.
Click to expand...

Yup.

For everyone else... :)

failure-of-logic-fail-demotivational-poster-1209989155.jpg
 
haha techie - you are not following.
your firefox migh show "more" because it is a 2D Browser, and not a 3D Game or Movie.

i'll see if I can show you with screenshots, so you can see it for yourself.
 
genetic said:
Then the same can be said viewing a 16:9 image on a 4:3 screen. letter-boxing at the top and bottom. It does not distort the image, but there is resolution loss.
Click to expand...

If the 4:3 display has a horizontal resolution of 1920 then there is no loss of resolution, you just have bigger black bars at the top and bottom and the original image stay intact.
 
ponder said:
If the 4:3 display has a horizontal resolution of 1920 then there is no loss of resolution, you just have bigger black bars at the top and bottom and the original image stay intact.
Click to expand...

That is correct, but my original argument was not over resolution, but aspect ratio. You're loosing peripheral vision - not resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X