Is IPS LCD really worth it?

xera said:
Crop is the correct term. But stretching, or changing the aspect ratio.... ha ha, who wants to see oval faces... not me.

Do you have a separate TV PostmanPot?
Click to expand...

So the sides get cropped and the top and bottom get stretched. :p

Yes. Samsung PS42C450 42" plasma. :love:
 
It uses 50W, which isn't that much. An average desktop uses 50-200W of power. At about 80c per kwh, it's R1 for every 25 hours you use it.

Let's say your monitor is on 5 hours a day - thats R6 a month.
 
xera said:
I have also been perfectly happy with my 2232GW samsung. it's 16:10..... but would be great if it were 16:9 for movies, not cause I dont like letterboxing, but because it would make the movie altogether bigger.
Click to expand...

The difference between a 16:9 and 16:10 22" screen in horizontal terms is about 1.3cm, ~2%, with a reduction in height of about 2.2cm (~8%). Given that a 16:10 22" has about 2.8cm of letterboxing (1.4cm at the top and bottom) when playing a 16:9 video, the increase in overall viewing area of such videos is ~5%. Interestingly enough, this is roughly the same as how much more surface area the 16:10 screen has in total over the 16:9 screen. Thus, you'd be sacrificing about as much viewing area for everything else as you would be gaining for movie viewing. In addition, despite being physically larger, the 16:10 display has ~8% greater PPI ratio (at 1680X1050 vs 1600x900).

You can always use Pan & Scan to fit the movie, which will keep the movie ratio (no stretching) and chop small bits off the side, which are usually ancilliary anyway, which will result in you getting a larger viewing area.
 
Rudimental said:
You can always use Pan & Scan to fit the movie, which will keep the movie ratio (no stretching) and chop small bits off the side, which are usually ancilliary anyway, which will result in you getting a larger viewing area.
Click to expand...

Why? What is it with people and black bars. If they are such an issue surely then the monitor bezel should also bug you?
 
ponder said:
Why? What is it with people and black bars. If they are such an issue surely then the monitor bezel should also bug you?
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I would recommend that he uses Pan & Scan since he is concerned about maximising physical viewing area, which seems to be his issue rather than just not having black bars, since then he will use the entire 16:10 screen and get more viewing area than if he had a 16:9 screen at the same diagonal size, of course at the cost of losing the peripheral bits of a 16:9 video.
 
Last edited:
doobyscoo said:
Yet another monitor thread that turns into a debate about 16:10 vs 16:9....
Click to expand...

As a proficient forum user, I've come to expect it. It's not totally off topic IMO.

As the OP, I really don't mind. Hey, it'll probably help more people get into IPS at the end of the day. I'm all for that.
 
PostmanPot said:
As a proficient forum user, I've come to expect it. It's not totally off topic IMO.

As the OP, I really don't mind. Hey, it'll probably help more people get into IPS at the end of the day. I'm all for that.
Click to expand...

Yeah I just think its amusing. It happens with nearly every thread.

More pixels the better IMO. The absolute only problem with 16:10 is how rare and expensive they are.
 
16:9 is ok for a 27" @ 2560x1400 - you have enough vertical pixels then. But I much prefer 16:10 at smaller screen sizes. I'm soooo happy I've got a 1920x1200 display which is really high quality!
 
4:3 is still the best aspect for computing. I have two 4:3 IPS panels, one in landscape and one in portrait. That cannot be done with 16:10, it is just to narrow to be useful, forget about 16:9...
 
Synaesthesia said:
It uses 50W, which isn't that much. An average desktop uses 50-200W of power. At about 80c per kwh, it's R1 for every 25 hours you use it.

Let's say your monitor is on 5 hours a day - thats R6 a month.
Click to expand...

Actually it's 85W.. And if rates are what you say they are, then at 8 hours a day it would come to R16.32 per month. For an triple monitor eyefinity setup, that would be R48.96

Rudimental said:
The difference between a 16:9 and 16:10 22" screen in horizontal terms is about 1.3cm, ~2%, with a reduction in height of about 2.2cm (~8%). Given that a 16:10 22" has about 2.8cm of letterboxing (1.4cm at the top and bottom) when playing a 16:9 video, the increase in overall viewing area of such videos is ~5%. Interestingly enough, this is roughly the same as how much more surface area the 16:10 screen has in total over the 16:9 screen. Thus, you'd be sacrificing about as much viewing area for everything else as you would be gaining for movie viewing. In addition, despite being physically larger, the 16:10 display has ~8% greater PPI ratio (at 1680X1050 vs 1600x900).

You can always use Pan & Scan to fit the movie, which will keep the movie ratio (no stretching) and chop small bits off the side, which are usually ancilliary anyway, which will result in you getting a larger viewing area.
Click to expand...

I like your reasoning, thanks.
Surface area, as in PPI?
 
Last edited:
xera said:
I like your reasoning, thanks.
Surface area, as in PPI?
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't really use the best terms. Surface area as in the physical area of the screen LCD matrix, as opposed to viewable area, which would just consist of the content displayed (i.e. viewable area would not include the black bars when letterboxing a movie). Since the more a rectangle tends towards a square the greater its area, a screen of 'size' 22" has a larger LCD matrix at 16:10 screen ratio than it would have at 16:9 screen ratio.
 
Rudimental said:
Sorry, didn't really use the best terms. Surface area as in the physical area of the screen LCD matrix, as opposed to viewable area, which would just consist of the content displayed (i.e. viewable area would not include the black bars when letterboxing a movie). Since the more a rectangle tends towards a square the greater its area, a screen of 'size' 22" has a larger LCD matrix at 16:10 screen ratio than it would have at 16:9 screen ratio.
Click to expand...

Ahh brilliant... Never did think about it like that before. :o So the area of a 24" 16:10 is 258.85 inches squared, whereas a 24" 16:9 would be 246.02 inches squared.
 
oh yes, and the Zr24 can display the non native res of 1600x1200 in aspect ratio mode perfectly well!, image is so clear and crisp, its as if it 1600x1200 was its native rez :D
 
Rainy said:
oh yes, and the Zr24 can display the non native res of 1600x1200 in aspect ratio mode perfectly well!, image is so clear and crisp, its as if it 1600x1200 was its native rez :D
Click to expand...

Nice. How about a few pics to heat things up? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X