What's your Monitor Resolution/Aspect Ratio?

[davegee]

It might be interesting to see the outcome of this - maybe some use can be made of it by someone?

If you have to use one of the the "OTHER" choices please indicate the actual resolution in a reply below?

My monitor is 16:10 1920x1200 but if/when I'm in the market for a new one at any time my current thinking is that I will get a 16:9 1920x1080.

DG

[Ken Cox]

Dave

see

http://www.scantips.com/

and scroll to bottom page

to do the survey

http://www.scantips.com/cgi-bin/survey.cgi

the test shows

" Your screen resolution setting is 882x498 pixels.This current vote was not counted again, since you have voted before."

I played around with mine to satisfy myself -

my display properties show it as

1368/768

and i am happy

my situation is i run 2 systems thru a KV switch and the old system 's graphic's card will not do wide screen proper,so i have to satisfy the main system

ken

[Barry Beckham]

DaveG

I think it may be interesting to see what the enthusiasts are using. I have had my 16:10 Dell monitor for almost 2 years and I could not go back to a 1024*768 or 1280*1024 screen now. What is your thinking behind the 16:9 option next time ?

I have been thinking of upping the resolution of my DVD videos to a wide screen format from 1024*768 to 1280*800, but not sure if it is a bit too soon for some. This poll may indicate how close we are to 16:9/16:10 taking over from the old formats.

[davegee]

Hi Barry,

I must take some of the blame for persuading you to go with 1920x1200 when you upgraded a couple of years ago. We had a long drawn out discussion and if I remember correctly you opted for the Dell 27" 1920x1200?

My reason for choosing 1920x1080 when/if I change in the future is that it is completely compatible with both TV standards and projector standards. I mostly make PTE shows in the 1920x1080 (or 1080 high) resolution for showing on TV via HDMI and I have yet to see a better finished product than that. Our club's projector is 1920x1080 and as Maureen hinted in a recent post it is the standard that all clubs should be aspiring to and adopting asap in order to progress. Individuals with healthy Bank balances may also join in.

I can't stress enough the importance of being able to use HDMI (or DVI with separate audio leads) - there IS a difference in quality and this is what is uppermost in my thoughts when making any decisions along these lines.

Taking PC World as an example, they appear NOT to be selling any Desktop PC/Monitors or Laptops that are anything but WIDESCREEN so maybe that, in part, will answer the second part of your post? I might be wrong but I think that it is beginning to be more and more difficult to buy anything other than widescreen? Yes, you can buy 4:3 and 5:4 now - but for how long?

PLEASE everyone, don't turn this into an argument about monitor aspect ratios - it's just a survey - no more - no less.

Thanks for joining in.

DG

[Ken Cox]

Dave et al - forgot to add that when a show is posted that fills my ws monitor, i note it in my comments

ken

[denwell]

Hi Dave

1680 x 1050 (16:10)

[davegee]

Thanks Den.

[Guest guru]

I'm faithful to CRT. Resolution 1280 x 960, 4:3.

Good idea, Dave!

[davegee]

Thanks Guido.

[davegee]

Any more?

Almost 300 views and just 27 votes.

Does that mean that around 250 people don't know what their monitor resolution is or that they don't care to participate?

The present result seems to suggest that wide screen is being used by twice as many people as non-wide screen and that 1920x1080 is the most popular AR.

Remember that (just like in a General Election) the poll is not really valid if not everyone votes.

(Wales has an Assembly because 25% of the population [plus 1 person] voted for it)..

[JEB]

Dave,

Let's keep politics out of this. Come to that, however, I will mention football and Scotland's rugby tour of Argentina and what's more both in the same sentence!

John

PS I have voted by the way.

[davegee]

OK John,

I PROMISE - no more politics in a trade for no more sport.

Thanks for participating.

[xahu34]

... Does that mean that around 250 people don't know what their monitor resolution is ...

I actually do know the resolutions of my monitor, of my TV, and the one of the projector that I sometimes use. But I do not see the point why this should be of any public interest

Regards,

Xaver

[davegee]

Many thanks Xaver.

[Don]

Dave,

16:10 1920x1200

Don

[Lin Evans]

Hi David,

Unfortunately, like most "polls," there is not a category which fits properly. In my case, I really don't have a "main" monitor but have seven systems which I use on a fairly regular basis. They have monitors ranging in resolution from 2560x1600 to multi-sync models which top out at 1600x1200. I don't have a 1920x1080.

To work on the smaller monitors I generally keep them at 1024x768 so I can more easily read text. On the large, high resolution Samsung, I keep it at 2560x1600. A year or so ago I had a Viewsonic VP2290b (9.2 megapixel) monitor which I used because several of my gallery clients used them. It wasn't great for slideshows with any motion, but was fantastic for still images. It took two high resolution graphics cards to operate it and I found that it wasn't very useful for "most" of my slideshows.

I probably will eventually buy a 1920x1080 monitor though I dislike having to crop all my images to fit. The problem is that the display manufacturers elected to go with a format which doesn't reflect the needs of the still photographer. The vast majority of digital (dSLR) cameras use 3:2 (after 35mm film) with only the 4/3 people like Olympus differing. Some of the newer dSLR's have a mode which will internally delimit to 16:9 but this is wasteful of sensor resolution because it amounts to what is essentially a "crop." Small sensor digicams usually have a couple modes, but generally not 16:9 unless in video.

I suppose that the newer crop of dSLR's which feature video capabilities do shoot at 16:9 in video mode whether it be 1080p or 720p. The problem is that the still photographer is rarely satisfied with 2 megapixel resolution except for display.

I detest having to shoot wide on every frame to allow room to crop for 16:9 but it seems that this format is in vogue today.....

Best regards,

Lin

Many thanks Xaver.

[davegee]

Thanks Lin,

There will always be a few who don't fit in with what a poll asks - no probs.

WRT your worries about 16:9 - I think that you are coming at it from possibly the wrong direction. For the purposes of PTE it doesn't really have to be 16:9 permanently.

It doesn't matter what format you use as long as it is 1080 pixels high. You just get black lines to the sides.

Those who want to preserve their camera's 3:2 ratio images have no option but to have black lines somewhere? On a 4:3 or a 5:4 it is top and bottom. On a 16:9 it is to the sides.

For those who like the 4:3 format Olympus is the way to go.

For those who like 5:4 a Nikon D3 is just made for them.

Now if someone would make a HIGH QUALITY 3:2 Monitor in a 1080 pixel high NATIVE RESOLUTION I might just show some interest.

Thanks again - it's just a little excercise for fun - no more than that.

[davegee]

Come on Guys (and Gals)!

It would be nice to get 50 inputs to say that we really do have a representative poll.

I will close it when it reaches that figure and then perhaps we can discuss what the results actually tell us?

[Ken Cox]

Aspect Ratio Calculator

http://www.digitalre...aspect_calc.htm

from

http://www.google.ca...b5f3810dd6b35d3

ken

[baldsparky]

Hi Dave

I did vote just didn't post a reply, but I guess I have now.

1680 x 1050 16:10

Kind regards

Paul

[cjdnzl]

Likewise, I voted in the poll for my 1920*1080 22" desktop monitor, but I also use a 1620*1050 laptop monitor which is n't allowed for in the poll.

I see from the poll results to date that 1920*1080 is the most common format at 29% of votes so far.

[Barry Beckham]

Colin

Its what Lin Evans said earlier in this thread, 1920*1080 is the way we are being taken like ot or not?

I started to look for a new screen to replace an old 1024*768 one I have used for recording tutorials for years. Most of those that are reasonable for what I need and a decent price are 1920*1080, so I don't think it is a great surprise to see that resolution out in front. Personally I prefer 16:10 as it is so close to 3:2 it hardly makes any difference to the composition, 16:9 does.

[crossfade]

2560 x 1600 here, a very nice Dell 30" LCD.

[davegee]

Hi Barry,

I still would like to see this poll as just an information getting excercise and not as a "which is best" poll.

I fully agree with what you say about 1920x1200 because it puts more pixels on a "full screen" in 3:2 AR PTE shows but it doesn't have the projector or TV backup that 16:9 has.

Our (minority) AV interests are never going to have the manufacturers rushing to provide us with what we want so I think that we are being "led by the nose" a little into a compromise.

Just a little side question, again just for fun: If there were such a thing as a 3:2 monitor backed up by a 3:2 projector, which would you choose; 16:10 or 3:2?

DG

[davegee]

Crossfade,

That's a very interesting monitor with a comprehensive spec - it should be at that price!

It seems to be a "one-off" at the moment - no other manufacturer making that resolution in LCD TFT (?).

Care to share your experiences with it and reason for buying it (apart from the obvious)?

I have some friends who are still using 1024x768 who argue that they can't see the icons on larger monitors - I wonder what they would think of that

DG