Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 107606	2010-02-23 09:22:00	Aspect Ratio	Driftwood (5551)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
860956	2010-02-23 09:22:00	Looking at 24'' monitors. 16:9 1920x1080 or 16:10 1920x1200 Which will have a more proportional image for gaming. In particular FSX, I don't want to see oval gauges on the instument panel. The 16:10 are a lot more expensive, so I assume that is the one I need.	Driftwood (5551)
860957	2010-02-23 19:52:00	Have a read: www.tomshardware.com	pctek (84)
860958	2010-02-23 21:00:00	Thanks, I have read quite a few similar articles. But they all seem to relate to watching movies though. Some of them do mention gaming but not in a way that helps me. As I understand it FSX in particular runs better in 4:3 aspect, which is how I have been using it. I have seen it running on some 22" widescreens & it's either out of proportion or fuzy.	Driftwood (5551)
860959	2010-02-23 21:15:00	I have FSX on a 1080p LG 22" (16:9) screen, running at either 1920*1080 or 1366*768. You do need a frickin grunty PC to run FSX at full HD resolutions, but it looks fine, there are plenty of resolutions to choose from. I'd always go for a 16:9 screen, but that's just personal preference, either will be fine. If you will be using it for movie watching then definitely go for a 16:9 screen.	wratterus (105)
860960	2010-02-23 21:33:00	I run FSX at full res now on a 19'' 4:3 but thats only 1280x1024x32. I may have to get a bigger GPU if I go to a 24'' I understand monitors work best at their native resolution. I'm hoping to run at 1920x1200	Driftwood (5551)
860961	2010-02-24 00:07:00	Looking at 24'' monitors. 16:9 1920x1080 or 16:10 1920x1200 Which will have a more proportional image for gaming. In particular FSX, I don't want to see oval gauges on the instument panel. The 16:10 are a lot more expensive, so I assume that is the one I need. I'm pretty sure you won't see oval gauges if you use the correct resolution. Unless you use 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 screen and stretch it. Monitors can be run at resolutions lower than native, but the quality will depend on the monitor. Some have horrible scalers and all the text is jagged. Others have proper scale-to-aspect-ratio and the result is a slightly blurry, softer picture. Think of it as free anti-aliasing. I prefer 16:10 as the extra vertical space is useful for web browsing and doing work.	utopian201 (6245)
860962	2010-02-24 01:26:00	That the way I think I'll have to go but they are $150 dearer than the 16:9. Also the 16:10 ones have a 5ms rate compared with 2ms for the 16:9	Driftwood (5551)
860963	2010-02-24 02:43:00	I wouldn't worry about response time. If anything, lower response times result in ghosting, because of overdriving. To get the low black to white response time, monitors quickly change the voltage, so white goes to black almost instantly, or white to black. The problem arises when you want to change a near white/near black colour to a light or dark grey colour, you get negative ghosting. The screen I'm using now, I see it when I move my mouse across the dark bands above each post on pressf1, and the black text which has your join date on the light blue background when scrolling. It is very noticeable on http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/ If you scroll up and down, you'll notice bad ghosting near the username and password login boxes (thats if your monitor uses overdrive) This ghosting I am seeing is on an LCD with a purported 2ms response rate. My monitor at home (with a 6ms response rate and cost a lot more) does not.	utopian201 (6245)
860964	2010-02-24 06:20:00	So, are you suggesting I pay the extra $$$$ & go for the big one?	Driftwood (5551)
860965	2010-02-24 20:57:00	It depends on what your own needs and preferences are. Here's a previous post of mine about choosing an LCD: You can check which panel a certain screen has here: www.tftcentral.co.uk TN: Lowest cost, worst viewing angles and colour reproduction, low image processing lag. Apparently best for fast paced gaming, worst for image editing and professsional work where colour accuracy is important. TN panels can only display 262k colours natively and use dithering to display 16.7m. *VA (MVA, PVA, S-PVA): Middle of the road, better viewing angles and colour reproduction, typically high image processing lag (as high as 64ms!). Typically best black levels and contrast. Can display 16.7m colours but unfortunately (or fortunately if you're a design professional) most newer panels of this type are wide gamut, meaning sRGB images are oversaturated in non colour managed applications. Can suffer from slight horizontal contrast shift (like TN's vertical contrast shift, but not as obvious) IPS (S-IPS, H-IPS): Most expensive technology, best viewing angles, colour reproduction almost as good as (or even better than) that of a CRT, medium image processing (between 20-40ms). Almost all are wide gamut (which is a disadvantage, or an advantage depending on how you look at it). No contrast shift. All panel types have similar response times so ghosting is not really a problem anymore. Although some panels use overdrive, so you get a 'negative' ghosting effect, depending on the background eg on the TN (viewsonic 22") I'm using now, there is a slight ghosting trail, which isn't noticable on my IPS screen. So in this instance, TN has worse ghosting than IPS, even though the TN has a "quicker" documented (5ms for TN, 6ms for IPS) response time. ============================ So it depends on your needs; if image quality/viewing angles/colour reproduction without dithering matters to you (eg professional image editing etc), then avoid a TN. But if you're just after some more screen space, there is no point paying extra for features that don't matter to you. For example a cheap TN 24" is around $300, while an IPS 24" is over double the price (and well above if you want top of the line!) $700-$2500	utopian201 (6245)
1 2