Widescreen displays - stupid?

[heavyness]

i have two 20.1-inch widescreen monitors (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4688). both are maxed out at 1680x1050 and they work great. the second monitor is turned vertically so i can have all my menus and floating windows stretched out [like flash, photoshop, and 3dsmax --> i just have 1 or 2 very long strips of menus].

while i do want new monitors that go a bit higher then 1680x1050, i'm fine [but i would get more 16x9 monitors]. since most art apps have very customizable UIs, you can manage the screen as needed.

i think it comes down to a personal choice. works for some, others not so much.

[leigh]

Stupid? Nope. Give me widescreen over regular any day.

[Signal2Noise]

"Stupid is as stupid does"

Widescreens are where it's at.

[ThirdEye]

Stupid? Nope. Give me widescreen over regular any day.

QFA
___________

[newman]

There's no 'best monitor for CG'. It all comes down to personal preference - I too prefer dual 4:3 screen setup, and I run two 20" LCDs at 1600x1200 each at home. But that's not to say that widescreens are 'stupid'.. someone likes 16:9 aspect better, someone doesn't. Simple as that.

[ThirdEye]

someone likes 16:9 aspect better, someone doesn't

but it's a fact that your eyes are placed horizontally on your face, not vertically.

[mummey]

I'm going to have to agree with the mob on this one.

Granted, they're more expensive. Doing work without have to switch between which windows is in view more than makes up for it though.

[gamedeveloper]

Sitting in front of three major archetypes right now:

- Moderate pixel density Dual 19" displays (2 x 1280x1024)

- High pixel density 23" widescreen (1920x1200)

- Low pixel density 32" HDTV (1366x768)



ON THE PC:

DUAL is great for applications where split views of data are beneficial or where you need to have open (and visible) two compleimentary apps. Web surfing, Web design, coding, Word/PowerPoint, Maya. You may need a window/screen manager to make the experience optimal.

23" WIDESCREEN is great for anything with a timeline, multiple views or a data table that you don't want to span multiple displays. MS Project, MS Excel, After Effects 6.5, Premiere, Maya. High pixel density makes ambient light a strong factor in small text legibility, so your eyes may suffer.

32" LOW DENSITY HDTV is great for games, movies, goofing off watching Heroes. Also great for high detail artwork where you zoom in often (eg: pixel painting, cell phone art, low rez textures). A must for tired overworked eyes. If you have eye problems or work ABSURD hours, go for a larger display with lower pixel density. You'll get the size, without paying a premium for pixel density you'll never use (because your eyes are so screwed up anyway). ;-)


But even after using all these, I'd say the best comprimize would be a single color calibrated, high quality, 37" 1080P HDTV. You could work on it all day without too much eyestrain and there are enough pixels for decent distribution of toolbars, windows, etc. Plus you usually get a TV tuner, massive number of inputs, HDCP and (almost) decent speakers.

But you'd have to be very careful about screen type/quality. Using a cr&ppy HDTV as a monitor will make your eyes bleed as fast as flying razorblades!

[Mibus]

It really comes down to taste and app usage. I started using a pair of 19" widescreen LCDs instead of 19" 4:3 CRTs... it was really uncomfortable to begin with, everything was squished!

Eventually I turned off a few toolbars I didn't really use, moved one of my desktop panels to the left of the screen, and got used to it. Now... doesn't really bother me either way.

If you watch a lot of movies / TV, you'd probably prefer widescreen. The one gamer I talk to regularly prefers 4:3 for games, though I'm not sure how preference fits in with that.

[newman]

but it's a fact that your eyes are placed horizontally on your face, not vertically.


Indeed. And you can compensate for that by having dual 4:3s - exactly what I've done at home. I've always found that dual widescreen setup simply gives me a too wide work area in relation to it's height. So for me, the choice comes down to either having a single big widescreen (23" or more), or having two 4:3 screens (I've found that 20" LCDs work quite nicely at 1600x1200 each - total desktop 3200x1200. Quite wide enough for me.)
I do a lot of 3d modelling, and I've found that, in terms of having reference material and such stuff on, there's no substitute to dual monitors setup. On a single widescreen.. let's be realistic - there's no way I wouldn't stretch max all over it, no matter how big it is :)
On dual screens, I can keep max on the primary display, while having reference material up all the time on the secondary. Or Photoshop, if I'm doing some texturing and want to see the results in max immediately.
As I said, personal preference.

[dan1el]

but it's a fact that your eyes are placed horizontally on your face, not vertically.

*ssshhh* don't tell Picasso...

[studiomaxer3d]

My whole thing is I don't like losing the height. 2 4:3 monitors are my pref.. I also love being able to run an app in one monitor and have references on the second.

[lots]

Though, you could take two 16:9 displays and rotate them sideways :)

Granted, the ratio is still smaller than a 4:3 monitor (1.333 vs 1.125)...

[nick3000]

How about a 30" in normal landscape mode and then another 30" next to it but in potrait mode???? :thumbsup: The secondary display then can be divided into top and bottom half. The Dell 30" does not rotate/pivot but the plate that attaches the screen tot he stand is perfect square so I assume one can unscrew the plate > rotate the screen > screw everything back. I must try this---just need the monitor :)

[Framed]

I use 2 20.1" in my studio and a single 24" at home. I work on both setups because I often don't feel like going out (raining) when I don't have to meet anyone :). I have more space on the two 1600x1200 displays but it somehow feels like I have more space on the single 24". It always feels a bit claustrophobic booting up on the 2 20.1 (relatively of course). But having that extra display to get things out of the way but still accessible is priceless... I'm now thinking taking my 24" to the studio and have one 20" on the side, taking the other 20" home. I think that would be optimal.. as long as it doesn't rain too often :D

[gamedeveloper]

Don't you folks find that high pixel density kills your eyes over the long haul when working?

I know some people feel that a low dot pitch is killer, but small system text and tiny interface elements make my eyes twitch!

That 1080P Dell 27incher actually looks better to me than the 30incher. Well, for working anyway...

[Szos]

I agree with the original poster.

Unless a widescreen is BIG, I do not wanna lose the height. A 21" wisescreen is ridiculiously too small in terms of the height in my opinion. I think until you get to the 27" widescreen size, I rather stick with the old 4:3 aspect ratio... preferably TWO 4:3 monitors.

[dravt]

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but right now I´m looking for an lcd. The thing is, I´m been offered a regular 19 or 20.1 widescreen. I´ve seen some of you don´t like the resolution in the 19, however, the height is better than the 20.1. Could any of you post a desktop screenshot of a 19? The one I saw at the store was somehow "stretched".

Thanks.

[beaker]

Dell 24" widescreen monitor is only $700. That's not exactly expensive.

[martinrebas]

Dell 24" widescreen monitor is only $700. That's not exactly expensive.

It's $1,100 in Sweden, where I live. :sad:

(And a week ago, the cheapest price for the Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP was $1,500(!))

[SheepFactory]

I wouldnt trade my 30" widescreen dell to any 4:3

[newman]

I´ve seen some of you don´t like the resolution in the 19, however, the height is better than the 20.1.


Where did you get that information? The 19" will have 1024 pixels height at native res, which is still lower than with 20"s 1200 pixels. Are you sure you're not comparing a 20" widescreen with a 19" 4:3? Sounds a bit like it..
As for res, yes, the 19" native res is 1280x1024. This doesn't give you the same image aspect as other 4:3s - at resolutions like 800x600, 1024x768, 1600x1200 etc. you get a 1.33 image aspect, while at 1280x1024 you get 1,25. Since the physical height/width ratio of the screen remains the same, it means the pixels have to be stretched in order for the image to look normal (aspect - wise) - because at 1280 width you'd have to have only 960 height to accomodate normal 4:3 picture. To compensate for this, pixels aren't of the same aspect as with other, non 1280x1024 screens. That's what I don't like about 19" LCDs (or 17", same thing only a bit smaller).
And besides, on my previous screen - a 19" CRT - I got used to 1600x1200 res, and when I was switching to LCDs, I certainly wasn't going below that :)

[draco76x]

I thought of buying an LCD monitor, saw one Viewsonic 19" Widescreen, quite
cheap.

Just want to check with you guys, I saw the widescreen image abit "stretched"
on the icon but looks great in movies, just wonder, when doing 3D (I'm using Maya),
will all the object be stretch just to fit the screen??:shrug:

[dravt]

Where did you get that information? The 19" will have 1024 pixels height at native res, which is still lower than with 20"s 1200 pixels. Are you sure you're not comparing a 20" widescreen with a 19" 4:3? Sounds a bit like it..
As for res, yes, the 19" native res is 1280x1024. This doesn't give you the same image aspect as other 4:3s - at resolutions like 800x600, 1024x768, 1600x1200 etc. you get a 1.33 image aspect, while at 1280x1024 you get 1,25. Since the physical height/width ratio of the screen remains the same, it means the pixels have to be stretched in order for the image to look normal (aspect - wise) - because at 1280 width you'd have to have only 960 height to accomodate normal 4:3 picture. To compensate for this, pixels aren't of the same aspect as with other, non 1280x1024 screens. That's what I don't like about 19" LCDs (or 17", same thing only a bit smaller).
And besides, on my previous screen - a 19" CRT - I got used to 1600x1200 res, and when I was switching to LCDs, I certainly wasn't going below that :)

I was comparing a 4:3 19" to a 20.1" widescreen. The 19 is a viewsonic vp at 1280x1024.
The 20 is a vx 2025 at 1680x1050. There is little diference in height.

[Framed]

I thought of buying an LCD monitor, saw one Viewsonic 19" Widescreen, quite
cheap.

Just want to check with you guys, I saw the widescreen image abit "stretched"
on the icon but looks great in movies, just wonder, when doing 3D (I'm using Maya),
will all the object be stretch just to fit the screen??:shrug:

Must've been a badly setup screen. There's no stretching on widescreens as long as the gfx-card is outyputting the screens native resolution.

[petmoi]

Sorry for hijacking this thread, but I didn't want to start a new one. I'm a bit confused about aspect ratios. I have Acer AL1914 19" TFT. The resolution is set to 1280x1024, thus it has an aspect ratio of 5:4. Now, if I draw a perfect circle or square using my screen, will it be a perfect circle or square on a screen with a 4:3 ratio or 16:9 (i.e. I send a picture to a friend/client)?

[gamedeveloper]

Yes. I'm not aware of any (modern) LCD desktop monitors that use nonsquare pixels.

The only aspect ratios out there (that I'm aware of) are:

1:1 160x160, 240x240, 320x320

4:3 320x240, 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1600x1200

5:4 1280x1024

16:10 1280x800, 1680,1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600

16:9 852x480, 1280x720, 1366x768*, 1920x1080



I think there was some confusion in an earlier post between what constitutes 4:3 aspect and 4/5 aspect. ALL 1280x1024 monitors are 5:4 aspect (256 pixels x 5 = 1280, 256 pixels x 4 = 1024).

That said, there are some Plasma TVs out there that provide 16:9 aspect ratio with 1024x768 pixels. In this case there are not enough pixels for that aspect ratio and thus the pixels are nonsquare.

[LeeC]

At work I use 2 19 inch crt's but at home I have a 19 inch 4:3 crt and a 19 inch 16:9 lcd. My home setup is the better of the two for a couple of reasons for me. I prefer CRT's for colour reproduction but I prefer the LCD for text. I use my apps on the CRT and any menus/reference sits on the LCD.

Because of the extra space on the widescreen, you can happily get your menus off the main screen but still have enough room for reference alongside. I also programme though and the widescreen is ideal for those long lines of C# code.

[imashination]

Don't you folks find that high pixel density kills your eyes over the long haul when working?

I know some people feel that a low dot pitch is killer, but small system text and tiny interface elements make my eyes twitch!

That 1080P Dell 27incher actually looks better to me than the 30incher. Well, for working anyway...

Arent you the guy that works at some rediculously low res (1300xsomething) on a rediculously large screen? (37 inch?) If you are, then I was quite tempted to post earlier but got side tracked; if you haven't done already, then you really have some serious issues with your sight. If im stating the obvious then just ignore me now and accept my apologies, but otherwise having to use such a resolution on such a screen would have me very worried.

Most screens are around 70-100 ppi. ie 24"@1920, 30"@2560, 17"@1280. Roughly worked out, you're having to use a 30 ppi screen to be able to work. Those pixels are chunkier than my father's computer, and he can't even legallly drive.

[xissburg]

hi there. I'm entering this discussion ;)

My questions are not exactly about wide screens,blablabla... I want to know what display should I choose. One 5:4 19" or even 17" 1280x1024 is enough. And my questions: about the manufacturer, do you think Samsung, Sony or LG are good choices? If not what should I choose? And gamedeveloper suggested me to get a TFT-LCD. Is this kind the best choice(obs.: I'm a digital artist and programmer, I read a lot)? I've also seen you talking about pixel size. I worry a lot with the sight health and I also wanna know if pixel size does any difference(for example, what is better: 17" 1280x1024 or 19" 1280x1024?).

Thanks a lot guys and sorry 'cause the amount of questions :D

Cya

[xissburg]

double post

[xissburg]

please someone help :P ! I want to know your opinions.

[Signal2Noise]

please someone help :P ! I want to know your opinions.

---...and the sound of crickets can be heard across the land...--- ;)


Y'know, if you do a search you'll find a lot of our opinions on this topic. As for the three brands of LCDs you're mentioning, I'd put your money on the Samsung. Again, do a search and you'll find out why.

[jdheeter]

with the lower resolution smaller widescreen displays you do loose a bit too much on the top and bottom compared to 4:3, But I think the larger higher resolution widescreens are certainly better than a 4:3 screen, I like the ability to line up 2 programs or windows next to each other with no problems, somthing you can not do on a 4:3 display very easily, dual screen setup is much more expensive and also takes up a good deal more desk space, so I would choose one good widescreen over 2 standard screens

[gamedeveloper]

Get two used 19" 5:4 1280x1024 flat panel displays.

Can be had on eBay for <$175 ea.

Manufacturer is NOT AS IMPORTANT as panel type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IPS).

Once you find a display you like google it until you find out what type of panel it has.

I recommend two 19" displays because you'll quickly grow to need two, and its nice when they're a matched pair. ;-)

[gamedeveloper]

Arent you the guy that works at some rediculously low res (1300xsomething) on a rediculously large screen? (37 inch?) If you are, then I was quite tempted to post earlier but got side tracked; if you haven't done already, then you really have some serious issues with your sight. If im stating the obvious then just ignore me now and accept my apologies, but otherwise having to use such a resolution on such a screen would have me very worried.

Most screens are around 70-100 ppi. ie 24"@1920, 30"@2560, 17"@1280. Roughly worked out, you're having to use a 30 ppi screen to be able to work. Those pixels are chunkier than my father's computer, and he can't even legallly drive.

OUCH!

Nah, I'm using a 32" (32" diagonal, 27.5" wide) at 1366x768, which works out to be more like 50ppi. And I use a variety of monitors (23" 1920x1200, dual 19" 1280x1024) but prefer the lower pixel density when I'm staring at a screen for 10+ hours a day.

---

What type of screen rez are you running and how many hours a day do you stare at your screen?

[imashination]

Me, 2560x1600 30" + 1920x1200 24", and on the laptop 1440x800 15"

Im saying this because it sounds like youre echoing what a friend of mine did. Over a period of 5 years or so, he slowly kept using larger and larger screens, and lower resolutions. He refused to accept that he might have to wear glasses. Eventually he was using a 21" screen at 1024 before I had to smack him round the head and drag him off to an opticians

[gamedeveloper]

Geez, you should change your name to Mr. Pixel!

;-)

Thankfully my eye strain has stabilized with this display. I should also note that I sit about 3-4' from the display, not 2-3' which is probably more typical. ...its my desk situation.

[KayosIII]

I am getting by fine on a 19" Widescreen 1440x900... and I think it comes down to personal preference... Some of the Apps I use needed to be setup differently to work well on a widescreen. My rig has to travel quite a lot so I can't get too carried away with size it also has to operate of the grid so I have to be mindful of how much power it consumes....

Most people I know swear by Widescreens and say that they could never go back... Most of these people are coders rather than artists. For coding A widescreen is handy because you can fairly easily get two documents side by side for comparison or a document and reference material. its also easier to find a place to put reference art (especially if you have the ability to pin the reference material above the program you are working in)

You do loose a bit in overall estate though. so maybe two 4/3 screens would work better. I just don't want to drag around another suitcase...
When my rig moves site...

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.