LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWhy do people try to charge more for widescreen monitors than for standard 4:3 aspect ratio monitors?
For a given quoted screen size, the standard aspect ratio gives a larger screen area!
Why do people try to charge more for widescreen monitors than for standard 4:3 aspect ratio monitors?
For a given quoted screen size, the standard aspect ratio gives a larger screen area!
Since when?
Aren't 4:3 monitors virtually impossible to get hold of at sensible prices these days?
16:9 is relatively cheap nowadays, it's 16:10 that's had a massive price hike over the past few years.
Supposedly,16:9 ratio LCD panels for computer monitors can be made on the same production lines as LCD panels for TVs.
16:9 monitors use the same production lines as TV's, so they are very cheap to produce now.
16:10 has really been resigned to the high end models using better screen technology than most TV's, hence the much higher price.
4:3 monitor are pretty much gone now (as snootyjim said)
there is no difference in a lcd panel in a tv or a monitor, so they are made on the same production line, the difference is the program inside the monitor cpu and which inputs it has soldered in.
Originally Posted by MadduckUK
our boiler broke so we has no heating or hot water, this is the bloody result ^^
Well, computer monitors are usually higher resolution than a TV with the same screen size, i.e. TV pixels are bigger but you are generally sitting further away so it's acceptable. But yeah, otherwise there isn't much difference.
Okay, sharing the production lines with TV's makes sense. But manufacturers pitch the widescreen idea as a marketing point when actually it's a downspec for most PC users. i.e. given the choice, I'd rather have the greater area of a 19" 4:3 than a 19" widescreen.
It's hardly like we all spend our lives watch widescreen movies on our PC monitors. Even if you are using your PC for home theatre, it'll be hooked up to a huge LCD/Plasma/Projector - not some 19" widescreen desktop monitor.
I guess that's what they call progress...
Well it's not a load of rubbish as you're making out - human vision is more 'widescreen' than square so 16:9/10 suits our vision better. Even 4:3 is wider than it is tall for this reason.
I still don't get what you're saying. I think most PC people will agree that 4:3 is better, but since it's so much more expensive, they'll settle for 16:9.
It's down to personal preference really, I prefer 16:10. I suppose 4:3 is better for word processing but I avoid doing that as much as possible...
The wife nicked my widescreen and I had to go back to a 19inch 4:3... and I hate it. Even for
general windows and internet use It feels so confined, its like I am wearing horse blinkers.
Its even worse for gaming.
Much prefer 16:9 or 16:10 to 4:3 or 5:4 (don't see many of them now do we?)
Aside from funding the wider aspect ratios more comfortable for gaming, how about having the equivalent of 2 A4 sheets on screen in front of you?! Great feature!
i prefer 16:9, i used to have a 16:10 screen and i got this because i liked 1080p better. if i wanted to do word processing, id just turn this on its side
our boiler broke so we has no heating or hot water, this is the bloody result ^^
Yeah that's a good point - if you get a monitor on a suitable stand, a widescreen one would make for a more paper-like aspect ratio in portrait.
Uhm, well widescreen is the old 3d and 3d is the new widescreen!
TBH I was concerned about losing vertical screen height when I went from 19" 4:3 screen to 16:10, so I made sure my screen was at least as high as my old one. Hence the 27" monitor. I haven't regretted it once in the years since even though it cost me 850!
As for why do 16:10 or 16:9 screens cost more I have no idea, other than the vaguaries of supply and demand. Anyway my TV, my PC and my laptop have all been widescreen for years and 4:3 just looks wrong these days why would anyone want that?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
