By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - "FULL HD" Monitors

Xelloss on 06 January 2010
vlad321 said:
gameover said:

Full HD means 1080p and it's a widescreen 16:9 display

1920x1200 is not Full HD.. it's capable but is it doesn't meet the widescreen standard..  it's 16:10

i would avoid a screen like that (although i have one but i would not buy again) for gaming because i don't like to have borders on top and bottom while playing a 1080p game... stick with 1920x1080 dipsplays

btw my LG monitor has a HD ready sticker although its 1920x1200..  even if a monitor has a higher resolution it cant be called full hd..

I have never had a game play with black bars on the monitor when it runs on 1920x1200 to be honest. I've been looking fo these mostly because after I got used to a 1920x1200 the 1080s look kind of funny and small vertical-wise. Also playing even WoW on a 1200 over a 1080 shows some differences (the spell icons look a bit more hand drawn).

Are you sure you are referring to different monitors, not just different res settings on the same monitor?

LCD monitors have a native resolution, and aspect ratio.. if you force a deviation frm this in your settings, your results will always suck.

IE: You can run 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 monitor, but its going to look like shit. There are plenty of example, but always stick to native res for best results. Even worse than simply being in wrong res, is being in wrong aspect ratio. Running 16:10 on a 16:9 and vice versa will always look like shit. Some game engines do not run natively on both aspect ratios though. Not sure about WoW but im thinking you either were trying different resses on the same monitor, or have something setup incorrectly.

I've run a 16:9 and 16:10 side by side quite a bit, there really is no difference in quality. An extra 120 pixels really doesnt matter for overall quality, it only matter if you are trying to display something that thinks it has those 120 pixels.

 



Around the Network
Vetteman94 on 06 January 2010
Xelloss said:
vlad321 said:
gameover said:

Full HD means 1080p and it's a widescreen 16:9 display

1920x1200 is not Full HD.. it's capable but is it doesn't meet the widescreen standard..  it's 16:10

i would avoid a screen like that (although i have one but i would not buy again) for gaming because i don't like to have borders on top and bottom while playing a 1080p game... stick with 1920x1080 dipsplays

btw my LG monitor has a HD ready sticker although its 1920x1200..  even if a monitor has a higher resolution it cant be called full hd..

I have never had a game play with black bars on the monitor when it runs on 1920x1200 to be honest. I've been looking fo these mostly because after I got used to a 1920x1200 the 1080s look kind of funny and small vertical-wise. Also playing even WoW on a 1200 over a 1080 shows some differences (the spell icons look a bit more hand drawn).

Are you sure you are referring to different monitors, not just different res settings on the same monitor?

LCD monitors have a native resolution, and aspect ratio.. if you force a deviation frm this in your settings, your results will always suck.

IE: You can run 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 monitor, but its going to look like shit. There are plenty of example, but always stick to native res for best results. Even worse than simply being in wrong res, is being in wrong aspect ratio. Running 16:10 on a 16:9 and vice versa will always look like shit. Some game engines do not run natively on both aspect ratios though. Not sure about WoW but im thinking you either were trying different resses on the same monitor, or have something setup incorrectly.

I've run a 16:9 and 16:10 side by side quite a bit, there really is no difference in quality. An extra 120 pixels really doesnt matter for overall quality, it only matter if you are trying to display something that thinks it has those 120 pixels.

 

You mean an extra 120 lines with 1920 pixels in each one, which is 230,400 more pixels.   And it is a significant difference if the source is 1920x1200.   If the source was only 1920x1080,  it wouldnt look any different on either monitor.



Krzyzowiec on 06 January 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision
I wonder how the are going to sell this.



alephnull on 06 January 2010

I'll stick with my EGA monitor



vlad321 on 06 January 2010
Vetteman94 said:
Xelloss said:
vlad321 said:
gameover said:

Full HD means 1080p and it's a widescreen 16:9 display

1920x1200 is not Full HD.. it's capable but is it doesn't meet the widescreen standard..  it's 16:10

i would avoid a screen like that (although i have one but i would not buy again) for gaming because i don't like to have borders on top and bottom while playing a 1080p game... stick with 1920x1080 dipsplays

btw my LG monitor has a HD ready sticker although its 1920x1200..  even if a monitor has a higher resolution it cant be called full hd..

I have never had a game play with black bars on the monitor when it runs on 1920x1200 to be honest. I've been looking fo these mostly because after I got used to a 1920x1200 the 1080s look kind of funny and small vertical-wise. Also playing even WoW on a 1200 over a 1080 shows some differences (the spell icons look a bit more hand drawn).

Are you sure you are referring to different monitors, not just different res settings on the same monitor?

LCD monitors have a native resolution, and aspect ratio.. if you force a deviation frm this in your settings, your results will always suck.

IE: You can run 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 monitor, but its going to look like shit. There are plenty of example, but always stick to native res for best results. Even worse than simply being in wrong res, is being in wrong aspect ratio. Running 16:10 on a 16:9 and vice versa will always look like shit. Some game engines do not run natively on both aspect ratios though. Not sure about WoW but im thinking you either were trying different resses on the same monitor, or have something setup incorrectly.

I've run a 16:9 and 16:10 side by side quite a bit, there really is no difference in quality. An extra 120 pixels really doesnt matter for overall quality, it only matter if you are trying to display something that thinks it has those 120 pixels.

 

You mean an extra 120 lines with 1920 pixels in each one, which is 230,400 more pixels.   And it is a significant difference if the source is 1920x1200.   If the source was only 1920x1080,  it wouldnt look any different on either monitor.

About 11% increase in pixels.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
Xelloss on 06 January 2010
Vetteman94 said:
Xelloss said:
vlad321 said:
gameover said:

Full HD means 1080p and it's a widescreen 16:9 display

1920x1200 is not Full HD.. it's capable but is it doesn't meet the widescreen standard..  it's 16:10

i would avoid a screen like that (although i have one but i would not buy again) for gaming because i don't like to have borders on top and bottom while playing a 1080p game... stick with 1920x1080 dipsplays

btw my LG monitor has a HD ready sticker although its 1920x1200..  even if a monitor has a higher resolution it cant be called full hd..

I have never had a game play with black bars on the monitor when it runs on 1920x1200 to be honest. I've been looking fo these mostly because after I got used to a 1920x1200 the 1080s look kind of funny and small vertical-wise. Also playing even WoW on a 1200 over a 1080 shows some differences (the spell icons look a bit more hand drawn).

Are you sure you are referring to different monitors, not just different res settings on the same monitor?

LCD monitors have a native resolution, and aspect ratio.. if you force a deviation frm this in your settings, your results will always suck.

IE: You can run 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 monitor, but its going to look like shit. There are plenty of example, but always stick to native res for best results. Even worse than simply being in wrong res, is being in wrong aspect ratio. Running 16:10 on a 16:9 and vice versa will always look like shit. Some game engines do not run natively on both aspect ratios though. Not sure about WoW but im thinking you either were trying different resses on the same monitor, or have something setup incorrectly.

I've run a 16:9 and 16:10 side by side quite a bit, there really is no difference in quality. An extra 120 pixels really doesnt matter for overall quality, it only matter if you are trying to display something that thinks it has those 120 pixels.

 

You mean an extra 120 lines with 1920 pixels in each one, which is 230,400 more pixels.   And it is a significant difference if the source is 1920x1200.   If the source was only 1920x1080,  it wouldnt look any different on either monitor.

 Incorrect, if source does not match monitor aspect ratio it has to be scaled, and does not look right. The number of pixels difference sounds impressive on paper, but is really not much of a difference in practice, not enough to be noticable in the slightest. Scaling 16:10 to 16:9 looks like crap to the discernign viewer, and vice-versa, whereas the difference in pixel count is more or less all in your head.



Vetteman94 on 06 January 2010
Xelloss said:
Vetteman94 said:
Xelloss said:
vlad321 said:
gameover said:

Full HD means 1080p and it's a widescreen 16:9 display

1920x1200 is not Full HD.. it's capable but is it doesn't meet the widescreen standard..  it's 16:10

i would avoid a screen like that (although i have one but i would not buy again) for gaming because i don't like to have borders on top and bottom while playing a 1080p game... stick with 1920x1080 dipsplays

btw my LG monitor has a HD ready sticker although its 1920x1200..  even if a monitor has a higher resolution it cant be called full hd..

I have never had a game play with black bars on the monitor when it runs on 1920x1200 to be honest. I've been looking fo these mostly because after I got used to a 1920x1200 the 1080s look kind of funny and small vertical-wise. Also playing even WoW on a 1200 over a 1080 shows some differences (the spell icons look a bit more hand drawn).

Are you sure you are referring to different monitors, not just different res settings on the same monitor?

LCD monitors have a native resolution, and aspect ratio.. if you force a deviation frm this in your settings, your results will always suck.

IE: You can run 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 monitor, but its going to look like shit. There are plenty of example, but always stick to native res for best results. Even worse than simply being in wrong res, is being in wrong aspect ratio. Running 16:10 on a 16:9 and vice versa will always look like shit. Some game engines do not run natively on both aspect ratios though. Not sure about WoW but im thinking you either were trying different resses on the same monitor, or have something setup incorrectly.

I've run a 16:9 and 16:10 side by side quite a bit, there really is no difference in quality. An extra 120 pixels really doesnt matter for overall quality, it only matter if you are trying to display something that thinks it has those 120 pixels.

 

You mean an extra 120 lines with 1920 pixels in each one, which is 230,400 more pixels.   And it is a significant difference if the source is 1920x1200.   If the source was only 1920x1080,  it wouldnt look any different on either monitor.

 Incorrect, if source does not match monitor aspect ratio it has to be scaled, and does not look right. The number of pixels difference sounds impressive on paper, but is really not much of a difference in practice, not enough to be noticable in the slightest. Scaling 16:10 to 16:9 looks like crap to the discernign viewer, and vice-versa, whereas the difference in pixel count is more or less all in your head.

Thats not true. In one case if you were to view a 1920x1080 source on a 1920x1200 tv, its can easily be setup to just not use 60 lines from the top and bottom.  The opposite shouldnt even happen,  there would be no reason to setup the source to 1920x1200 if you only have a monitor that supports 1920x1080.  There would be no scaling needed in either case

 



STEKSTAV on 06 January 2010

Pff... 1920x1200 isnt FULL HD.. 5760x1200 is FULL HD! ;)

 



jefforange89 on 06 January 2010
STEKSTAV said:

Pff... 1920x1200 isnt FULL HD.. 5760x1200 is FULL HD! ;)

 

Quit taunting me, I really want a third monitor. :(



Wii/PC/DS Lite/PSP-2000 owner, shameless Nintendo and AMD fanboy.

My comp, as shown to the right (click for fullsize pic)
CPU: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T @ 3.2 GHz
Video Card: XFX 1 GB Radeon HD 5870
Memory: 8 GB A-Data DDR3-1600
Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD Pro/USB3
Primary Storage: OCZ Vertex 120 GB
Case: Cooler Master HAF-932
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64		 Extra Storage: WD Caviar Black 640 GB,
WD Caviar Black 750 GB, WD Caviar Black 1 TB
Display: Triple ASUS 25.5" 1920x1200 monitors
Sound: HT Omega Striker 7.1 sound card,
Logitech X-540 5.1 speakers
Input: Logitech G5 mouse,
Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 keyboard
Wii Friend Code: 2772 8804 2626 5138 Steam: jefforange89
greenmedic88 on 06 January 2010

Max native resolution is the key issue when it comes to scaling video sources. For PC games or OS desktop, it's not an issue, because they can scale to most resolutions and aspect ratios.

But aspect ratio is important when it comes to viewing non native scalable (can't alter aspect ratio without cropping or distorting image proportions) video sources like DVDs or BDs, many of which are set at 16:9, meaning you get black bars at the top and bottom of a 16:10 ratio display, effectively decreasing the area of the picture. So 16:10 aspect ratio monitors like 1920x1200 are not optimal for viewing movies, hence the availability of 16:9 aspect ratio monitors.

It's a bit pointless to rant about "missing pixels" since there are 16:9 aspect ratio monitors that are roughly equivalent in diameter to most 1920x1200 displays with roughly the same number of pixels like the Dell SP2309W which is 23" 16:9 aspect ratio 2048x1152 resolution (slightly more pixels than 1920x1200).