| 1 |
On 5 Sep 2010, at 23:04, Allan Gottlieb wrote: |
| 2 |
> ... |
| 3 |
> With square pixels 16x9 is 1920x1080 (so called full HD is 1080p). |
| 4 |
> This |
| 5 |
> is my laptop's display. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> My big (30") monitor is 16x10 (2560x1600) and is a joy to use. I |
| 8 |
> prefer |
| 9 |
> the current wide aspect ratio better then the previous 4x3 standard. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That kind of resolution is starting to sound appealing, however from |
| 13 |
what I can tell, you're looking to pay 2 or 3 times the price [1] for |
| 14 |
a monitor of this specification, as you will for a set of three |
| 15 |
1600x1200 TFTs. That makes it extremely hard to justify for me. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'll certainly admit that dual-head is not perfect, but I can't help |
| 18 |
thinking that maybe a central display with two "aides", one at each |
| 19 |
side, might solve the "central bezel problem". |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm having a lot of difficulty visualising how big high-quality |
| 22 |
widescreen monitors might compare to my good 4:3s, because I don't get |
| 23 |
to see them. Certainly the widescreens at the low-end of the market |
| 24 |
are much inferior, and a good 4:3 is not much more expensive than those. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Stroller. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
[1] Please don't flame me if your maths on monitor pricing differs |
| 33 |
from mine; I didn't want to spend hours comparison shopping products |
| 34 |
I'm unlikely to buy right now. |
Archives