Where are all the 4:3 monitors?

[scaryjim]

Just recieved a link to this in my ebuyer "eblast" this morning: only any good to you if you're on VGA and can replace the stand with a rotatable one, but: 23" 2048x1152 Samsung - would give a reasonable screen width rotated 90 degrees, and a *lot* of screen length...

[Fraz]

Surely a 16:10 monitor is a 4:3 monitor with some spare bits, no?

More seriously, I find coding on a widescreen monitor much much better than on a 4:3 monitor. I think they are an improvement in every sense.

[kellyharding]

Just recieved a link to this in my ebuyer "eblast" this morning: only any good to you if you're on VGA and can replace the stand with a rotatable one, but: 23" 2048x1152 Samsung - would give a reasonable screen width rotated 90 degrees, and a *lot* of screen length...

23" 2048x1152 Samsung with better stand, and it has DVI, I have one and love it.

[Shad]

That Samsung (with DVI) is quite nice. I do like that. At 544mm wide it's about 100mm wider than my 20.1" so that might just about fit in between the two 19"s. Good find

Now for another (complicated?) question

Can anyone tell me the difference in pixel size (dot pitch?) of a 23" widescreen running 2048x1152 vs a 20.1" non-widescreen at 1600x1200?

[Shad]

Can anyone tell me the difference in pixel size (dot pitch?) of a 23" widescreen running 2048x1152 vs a 20.1" non-widescreen at 1600x1200?

Don't know why I didn't just Google that one to start with.

http://thirdculture.com/joel/shumi/c...e/ppicalc.html

Tells me that the Samsung widescreen pushes out 2.66 pixels per square inch more than my ViewSonic, with the dot-pitch falling by 0.0067mm.

So hopefully a barely noticeable difference, right?

[MadduckUK]

23" 2048x1152 = 102.16PPI/0.2486DP
20.1" 1600x1200 = 99.5PPI/0.2553DP

[scaryjim]

Can anyone tell me the difference in pixel size (dot pitch?) of a 23" widescreen running 2048x1152 vs a 20.1" non-widescreen at 1600x1200?

Hmm.... OK, back to basics. The Samsung is a 16:9 monitor with a 23" diagonal. The relative diagonal on a 16:9 monitor (using pythagoras ) is 18.35. That make each unit 1.25", so the screen dimensions are 20" x 11.25". That'd give 102.4dpi.

Using the same calcs (easier, because a conventional monitor forms a 3,4,5 pythagorean triple ) a 20" @ 1600 x 1200 would give us an external size of 16" x 12" = 100dpi.

Now, that probably isn't entirely accurate because that's assuming that the diagonal measurement is the full visible area, but it's a reasonable estimation. And if you could tell the difference, I'd be flabberghasted...

EDIT:

Don't know why I didn't just Google that one to start with....

23" 2048x1152 = 102.16PPI/0.2486DP
20.1" 1600x1200 = 99.5PPI/0.2553DP

DOn't know why I bother sometimes...

[Shad]

Thank you both

[kellyharding]

That Samsung (with DVI) is quite nice. I do like that. At 544mm wide it's about 100mm wider than my 20.1" so that might just about fit in between the two 19"s. Good find

Yep it is a nice monitor, tis a TN panel, but it has pretty good contrast, and the stand is very sturdy I find. I don't make use of the swivel function, but thats due to my desktop machine being under the desk and not having a long enough DVI lead to allow for the swivel.

It also does picture-in-picture type thing too, though I don't use this as I use Linux most of the time with it (although it is hooked upto my old iBook G4 via VGA atm due to motherboard swap on main pc).

I'm thinking of getting another monitor sometime to replace the aging NEC 1970NXp as the Samsung makes it look so dull and dark in comparison. Thinking about getting a slightly smaller LED backlight one instead of another Samsung so I've got a contrast of displays for different tasks.

kelly