Widescreen monitors - why?

[cptwhite_uk]

I'd love a 16:10 24" IPS, but given there rarity I'm still rocking my 21" 4:3 IPS Iiyama. 7 years old and still as good as the day I bought it. Awesome screen.

[watercooled]

I wouldn't call 3D the new Widescreen, ATM I see it as yet another annoying gimmick which leaves you with a headache (literally for some people).

@cptwhite_uk: Iiyama monitors are very underrated!

[Ciber]

I wouldn't call 3D the new Widescreen, ATM I see it as yet another annoying gimmick which leaves you with a headache (literally for some people).

I was making a joke!

I can clearly see the benefit of a nice big wide screen. 3D however I don't want. Having been to see Avatar in 3D to experience the effect, yes it is more immersive and things do seem to float around in front of each other. However yes it does also lead to tired eyes and no I don't think it is worthwhile.

[Pob255]

There's a skew here, and Ciber summed it up nicely, most of us here when we get a new monitor we've also got a bigger monitor.
I went from a 17" 4x3 1280x1024 to a 22" 16x10 1680x1050, it's roughly the same height and vertical res, I love it.

However is you compare like for like screen sizes, most of the current 19" 16:9 are 1366x768, compared to the old 19" 4:3 1280x1024 or 19" 16:10 1440x900 not only is it a big drop in vertical height it's also a drop in resolution and a big loss of vertical pixels.

If you're not gaming or watching movies but word processing or web browsing then a 19" 4:3 is much better than a 19" 16:9
Even if you get a stand to rotate the monitor the resolution is too to be any good you'd now be 768x1366 and 768 width is not going to work well.
Also most cheap monitors are TN panels, most current TN panels have less viewing angle height wise the sidewise so if you rotate it you've flipped the view angles as well which can bring it's own set of problems.

To sum up wide screen is great esp on bigger monitors but os smaller monitors it is far more of an issue, it was less of a problem on 16:10 but lower resolutions of 16:9 have meant a down step in small monitors.

(although to address one point, the square inchage of the viewing area of a LCD is the same whether or not it's wide screen because the size is taken across the diagonal)

[Cryptik]

i would have to say wide-screen has far more uses these days, when it comes to picture editing, level designing, 3D rendering etc.
you can happily view your project and all your tool-bars on the same screen. try doing that in 4:3.

[watercooled]

(although to address one point, the square inchage of the viewing area of a LCD is the same whether or not it's wide screen because the size is taken across the diagonal)

No, you do get more area the closer to a square you get. Using 19" as an example, you get about 162 in^2 with 16:10 but about 173 in^2 with 4:3.

[Ciber]

No, you do get more area the closer to a square you get. Using 19" as an example, you get about 162 in^2 with 16:10 but about 173 in^2 with 4:3.

Yes, but it is less than 10% different!

[watercooled]

Yeah, it's only about 10% less even with 16:9. I was just being pedantic.

[this_is_gav]

i would have to say wide-screen has far more uses these days, when it comes to picture editing, level designing, 3D rendering etc.
you can happily view your project and all your tool-bars on the same screen. try doing that in 4:3.

I feel the opposite. On my 16:10 screen, when I'm in Photoshop I'm never short of horizontal space, but vertical space always feels horribly cramped.

16:10 I can get away with, and on higher resolution screens it's probably a better all-round resolution than 4:3, but 16:9 is an appalling resolution which has zero actual usage for anything on a desktop or laptop other than watching videos. I haven't found a single productive use for a 16:9 screen - they're atrocious and I find them bordering on unusable.

[ed^chigliak]

All depends if your software has lots of side bar, ribbon GUI or combination of both as to what screen aspect is best. Two 24" screens landscape at 1920x1200 is best solution for my needs. I could work with a wider screen aspect but then I would be looking at 27" to get >1200 vertical and I can't justify the cost. I for one miss cheap 1920x1200 TN screens.

[Giraffe]

I'd love to get an LED-lit monitor but they're all 16:9, so going from 1024 to 1080 just isn't worthwhile - or money.
A 26" 16:10 would be about right for me and my eyesight; the 22" WS that I bought for a build for a friend a couple of years ago was OK for quality but everything was too small and I won't mess with font size for LCD.
I do prefer 5:4 for browsing and documents, PDFs etc. On a WS I'd use the space for wider sidebars in the browser as trying to read lines that are too long is a pain.

[Pob255]

No, you do get more area the closer to a square you get. Using 19" as an example, you get about 162 in^2 with 16:10 but about 173 in^2 with 4:3.

Sorry I stand corrected, trig fail

@this_is_gav try doing the same thing on a small 16:9 screen with 1366x768 resolution it's hidious.
Current big wide screens are great because of the high resolution, if you can grab one of the old 21" 4:3 1600x1200 IPS screens they are lovely for working on images. (my other half has one, I was so glad I got it for her)[

[this_is_gav]

Yeah, I work with little netbooks/laptop replacements which have such screens at work. I guess they're fine for the kids, but for me they're utterly hopeless.

I guess my own workspace for photo editing could be my 24" screen rotated to portrait mode and add some awful cheap TN panel as a second screen for Photoshop palettes or Lightroom, but I don't have the space, nor the wish to rotate a decent monitor every time I alternate between Photoshop and the rest of my job.