Monitors Widescreen or Regular 4:3 - which is a better monitor aspect ratio?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not surprised @ all. I exchanged my 6 months old crappy 19" wide with a 3 years old no warrantee 19" reg LCD.

vinayaga said:
If you ask me, the question is redundant. You just CANNOT buy any 4:3 LCD monitor today of size greater than 17". I have a 20" 4:3 LCD and a 23" 16:9 LCD. The 20" always seems to have more space to do stuff, unless of course when I watch a widescreen movie or play a game. In every other day to day use, I prefer and love the 4:3 monitor.
Click to expand...
U will have few choices so start looking. Dell S2209WA is one of those lcds which have 16:10 ratio with amazing colour production.

ashebouy said:
16:10, 19+ inches....which is the best Samsung/Dell/LG?
Click to expand...
 
my uncle owns a LG 19" monitor square type not the widescreen

which really looks awesome:lick: and way better than any widescreen monitor

also widescreens are cheaper than the square type monitors at their corresponding inches
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Cheaper because they are mainstream now.

ocizer said:
my uncle owns a lg 19" monitor square type not the widescreen

which really looks awesome:lick: And way better than any widescreen monitor

also widescreens are cheaper than the square type monitors at their corresponding inches
Click to expand...
 
All those still in doubt over 16:10 Vs 4:3 LCD monitors, it all comes down to the intended purposes which have been explained earlier.

Both have their pros and cons, so it's what you prefer that matters.
 
cranky said:
4:3 monitor with the same diagonal size will have more pixels than a widescreen monitor. 16:10 has roughly 17% less pixels, and 16:9 about 25% less.

4:3 is still better for productivity suites, specially in larger sizes. In addition, high-quality screens are not usually available in widescreen (S-IPS) unless you pay a lot. The Dell 2007FP is an example of a high-quality monitor for Photshop, for example, at a reasonable price, and with more real estate than even a 22" 1680x monitor, and far ahead of 1440x monitors in similar sizes.
Click to expand...

While 4:3 aspect monitors have greater area for the same screen size, I disagree that wide screen displays are not well suited for productivity suites. If anything 16:10 aspect monitors are very much preferred in the DTP industry. Both my company's as well as Adobe's customers prefer to have more horizontal space than vertical. They like to to keep all their palettes to the side and sill be able to have the document itself itself visible horizontally. In fact even software developers find it well suited for their work.

Yeah I agree that most of the regular wide screen displays in the market are crappy TN Panels and practically useless for anyone who work with color management for whom colors are important. Some of these people still prefer a 4:3 high quality CRT display over even similarly sized 4:3 LCD Panels. But for the rest there are S-IPS offerings from Apple and Dell that are used by many creative professionals. Apples 20", 23", 30" as well as Dell's 20", 30" Wide screens are used by a lot of our customers.

There even used to be Wide screen CRT displays from Sony. So its not like Wide screen displays are not preferred for productivity suites.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom