LCD Monitor Screen Size, bigger isn't really bigger?

[Des]

I have a 2 year old 19" wide screen AOC monitor and decided spur of the moment a few weeks ago to buy an Acer 22" monitor that looked really nice in the store.
I finally hooked it up last night. For my needs and eyes the monitor is very good, but I am surprised that it is the same screen height as the one it is replacing and is simply 3" wider.
I know 19" to 22" isn't that great a difference, and it's my own ignorance here, but I really thought it would be a bit bigger in all directions and not just side to side.

So, next time I am impulsive, what size monitor starts to become larger over all, and not just wider?
Or, like many things today, is there no longer a standard for this?

--dES

[gll99]

Is the 19" a 16:10 ie... (1920x1200) format and the 22" a 16:9 (1920x1080)?

When I bought my 24" monitors I specifically chose the 16:10 format because they are a bit higher.

[Des]

The new one is 1920x1080, the previous one was 1440 x 900.
I still get more screen real estate, which I like, but was also hoping everything would be bigger AND more screen real estate.

--dES

[jagabo]

was also hoping everything would be bigger

Then you need to look at dot pitch, not screen size.

[Des]

The new one is 1920x1080, the previous one was 1440 x 900.
I still get more screen real estate, which I like, but was also hoping everything would be bigger AND more screen real estate.

--dES

Interesting. I thought dot pitch had to do with how well details appear on the screen? How would this effect image size?
I'm thinking: bigger TV screen= bigger picture, is this not really the case then?

--dES

[aedipuss]

the new one is widescreen 16/9 the old one was not, it was in between 4:3 and 16/9.

[jagabo]

I thought dot pitch had to do with how well details appear on the screen?

Yes.

How would this effect image size?

width = horizontal dot pitch * horizontal resolution
height = vertical dot pitch * vertical resolution

I'm thinking: bigger TV screen= bigger picture, is this not really the case then?

If the resolution is the same.

[Des]

Thanks Jagabo, that makes sense, especially when I tie it into the information Aedipuss about the old screen vs new screen aspect ratio.

--dES

[edDV]

Screen size is measured diagonally.



Notice the height is approximately the same.

For this one, notice the diagonal is the same.

[davexnet]

16/10 models were popular a few years ago, I've got one myself - 1680*1050.
For the same width, compared with a 16/9 LCD mine is taller.

[lordsmurf]

16:10 is still the default for new pro monitors. Prior to that, it was 5:4.
I only have 16:9 because the low-cost IPS panels from ViewSonic come in that size and not 16:10.
I'd prefer 16:10.

Older non-pro monitors were also 16:10, but now mostly 16:9.

[gll99]

The new one is 1920x1080, the previous one was 1440 x 900.
I still get more screen real estate, which I like, but was also hoping everything would be bigger AND more screen real estate.

--dES

Regardless of screen resolution your old one has a 16:10 aspect ratio the width is 1.6 times the height (1440 / 900) which is the same width to height ratio (not size) as my 24" (1920 / 1200 = 1.6) and the new one is 16:9 where the width is 1.7777 times the height (1920 / 1080). That's why the difference in height is not as much as you expected.

[handyguy]

If you want a bigger monitor, sit closer to the one you have.

[Des]

Interesting how these things have changed. I guess when all we had were 4:3 ratios it was simple, guess I have to stop being so simple now 8)

<q>Handguy: If you want a bigger monitor, sit closer to the one you have.</q>
Funny you should say that, I moved the monitor 2 inches closer this morning

--dES