Monitors, 16:10 or 16:9 which one should I get?

[gll99]

The eyes aren't what they used to be so I'm thinking of buying a new larger lcd monitor. My current main one is a 17" 1280x1024 which according to my estimates is a 5:4 format. I had a 19" 1440x900, 16:10 format but it broke.

Many 24" monitors have a 16:10 (1920x1200) footprint but the one I'm looking at (Acer P244w) is 16:9, 1920x1080. This means the width will be more stretched like a true 1080p HDTV.

For properly scaled video it will look fine but when it's used as a desktop will the lack of height and greater width be more noticeable than a 16:10 (1920x1200) monitor?

My concern is that for desktop use the vertical viewing area won't be much larger than my current 17" which is about 10 1/2" in height. By my estimates the 24" 16:9 may only be about 12" in height which (aside from the greater resolution) won't make the screen much easier to read. Am I wrong?

[Soopafresh]

The big advantage is the ability to play hi def movies in proper aspect ratio. That's the main thing I noticed when I got a 24" monitor. I had a Gateway 22" monitor which was 16x10 A/R and movies always letterboxed. Other than that, the advantage is more real estate to put your application controls - horizontally. By the looks of your PC specs, you probably don't have the horsepower to play HD content anyway.

I see your argument about vertical size. You're right, my 24" monitor is around 12" vertical.

[gll99]

@Soopafresh
You have to ignore those profile specs, the monitor is for my other pc. It's not super fast right now with a 2 core E2180 cpu but the mboard can take a 65ns or 45ns quad so I'm not too concerned about that. The mobo has onboard video with a manually switchable dvi or hdmi connector (via jumpers) and 4gb of 800mhz ddr2 memory. If necessary, I could add a 16x pci-e video card but that probably won't be needed.

I appreciate the true HD 16:9 aspect ratio for movies although many dvd movies are not but when I play movies I use KMPlayer and often fudge the size by playing with the height and width to suit my taste even if they are not quite true to specs. With a 16:10 I'd probably adjust the height and stretch out the sides outside the viewable screen if the A/R looked too odd.

Like I said if I only gain about 1 1/2" for the height then I'm concerned that the text won't appear much larger than my 17".

Does anyone know how the calculate the viewable dimensions (h/w) of a 24" 16:10 and those of a 16:9? My geometry is bad.

[nonoitall]

There are tools online that you can use to calculate screen dimensions, or if you like algebra:

('sqrt' means find the square root of what's in brackets. IE, sqrt[25] = 5.)

You need these variables:
d = diagonal size
x:y = aspect ratio

Formula #1:
h = dy / sqrt[x² + y²]

Where 'h' is the height of the screen. Then you can easily solve for width:

Formula #2:
w = hx / y

[gll99]

Nice formula but for the older tired mind like mine an even better tool link.

Thanks

[edDV]

Look at the comparison of a 19" 4x3 vs 22" 16x10 I did in this thread then run the numbers for a 24" in the referenced calculator.
https://forum.videohelp.com/topic349373.html?highlight=screen%20calculator

[nonoitall]

After looking at it for a sec I simplified it a bit more, but do whatever floats your boat. :P

[gll99]

After looking over the numbers and going with my need for the best height in a widescreen, even though it's a good price for the Acer 24" 16:9 (1920x1080), I'll wait for a deal on a 24" 16:10 (1920x1200).

Thanks for the info guys it was really helpful.

[jagabo]

I prefer having more height for applications. The only advantage of a 16:9 display over a 16:10 display is the playback of 16:9 video. But most non 4:3 video is wider than 16:9 so you'll get letterbox bars anyway.

[gll99]

I prefer having more height for applications. The only advantage of a 16:9 display over a 16:10 display is the playback of 16:9 video. But most non 4:3 video is wider than 16:9 so you'll get letterbox bars anyway.

I completely agree with the height comment. I was leaning that way but needed reassurance that I didn't miss something. It's too bad because right now, locally, a comparably featured 16:10 24" model is priced about $100 more than the 16:9 format which is on sale. I'm sure if I wait a few weeks one will turn up.

[Phlexor]

To be perfectly honest, you'd end up getting used to a 16:9 monitor. I was very hesitant when going from 4:3 to 16:10, but after a few days it just seemed normal. Just think, if the panels native hight resolution is now bigger than what you are currently using, then it wont matter regarding height for programs.

When it comes to computers, so many people want things to stay the same, why not mix it up a bit and keep things fresh by trying something different or something you wouldn't normally do.

[jagabo]

By "easier to read" and "eyes aren't what they used to be" I assume you are looking for larger pixels. The screen aspect ratio is only indirectly related to that. What you want to know is the pixel pitch of the monitors. For example 22 inch 1680x1050 monitor has a larger pixels than a 20 inch 1680x1050 monitor. Everything will look about 10 percent bigger on the 22 inch monitor and be easier to read. On the other hand a 24" 1920x1200 monitor has a slightly smaller pixel pitch than the 1680x1050 22 inch monitor. Although you'll have a bigger desktop with the 24 inch monitor objects will appear slightly smaller.

NewEgg lists the pixel pitch of the monitors they sell.