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

Forums - PC Discussion - "FULL HD" Monitors

Senlis on 07 January 2010
solidpumar said:
OMG... this thread is noob town.

The FULL HD name is only a standard that the media studios and electronics come up. The SD standard was outdated, so all electronic decided to do higher resolution TV, choosing the 16:9 because that was already the movie standard. The choice of being 1080p lines was also because would give the same detail as movies did.

The 1920X1200 was created only for monitor because monitor have the 16:10 standard, created because unlike the TV the monitor needs the TAB/options bar/explorer/ USER INTERFACE etc. So these 120 lines were for the UI not to affect the 16:9 view.

The is no max resolution.... the 1080p is the standard now, simply because there is no need for more now.

There is already lots of monitors, 30''sizes with 2560 x 1600. In fact the 2560 x 1600 is becoming now the new PC ENTHUSIAST RICH GAMERS standard, slowly getting mainstream in the PC core gamers. The 3 SLI 200series gamers out there sure love maxing Crysis at that resolution.

Both me and Vlad know why they call it full HD.  We were commenting on how ambigous the term "HD" is and how it is just created in the first place to make producs sound good.

16:9 is not a movie standard.  Sometimes, movies will have black bars on the top and bottom even on a widescreen TV.  This is because the movie was made in a aspect ratio not 16:9.  If it were standard, all movies would be the same.

Not all monitors have the 16:10 aspect ratio.  In fact, The Witcher was made for 16:9 aspect ratio monitors.

There are benefits to having a resolution higher than 1080p if you have a big enough TV.  It is just that nobody makes movies/games that go higher than 1080p since they don't make TVs higher than 1080p.

I would get your facts straight before calling anyone else noob.




 

Around the Network
Alby_da_Wolf on 07 January 2010

1920x1200 is a 16:10 resolution, while 1920x1080 is a 16:9 one.
While for new TV's, as programs switch to 16:9, a 16:9 res makes sense, recently a lot of manufacturers are switching to 16:9 for monitors too, where it doesn't make sense at all, because while 4:3 is perfect for most work tasks and 16:10 can be fine, on screens from 19" up, for mixed leisure and work use, 16:9 means that you buy a new bigger screen and for some tasks, like word processing, you don't get any extra vertical space, and this sucks.
16:9 on PC monitors makes sense only for manufacturers, for the same diagonal, a 16:9 has smaller area and less pixels than a monitor with squarer aspect ratio, so, excluding old CRT's where widescreen costs more and has worse image quality, a 16:9 costs less to them (but not to us).



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


jefforange89 on 07 January 2010

I've actually seen some TVs with 1920x1200 as well. They do exist.



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
SnesTea on 07 January 2010
disolitude said:
^hahaha. Yes actually...I'd stick my dick in to anything XGA and up.

I thought I was a whore. Damn. Lol.



Ssenkahdavic on 07 January 2010
Senlis said:
solidpumar said:
OMG... this thread is noob town.

The FULL HD name is only a standard that the media studios and electronics come up. The SD standard was outdated, so all electronic decided to do higher resolution TV, choosing the 16:9 because that was already the movie standard. The choice of being 1080p lines was also because would give the same detail as movies did.

The 1920X1200 was created only for monitor because monitor have the 16:10 standard, created because unlike the TV the monitor needs the TAB/options bar/explorer/ USER INTERFACE etc. So these 120 lines were for the UI not to affect the 16:9 view.

The is no max resolution.... the 1080p is the standard now, simply because there is no need for more now.

There is already lots of monitors, 30''sizes with 2560 x 1600. In fact the 2560 x 1600 is becoming now the new PC ENTHUSIAST RICH GAMERS standard, slowly getting mainstream in the PC core gamers. The 3 SLI 200series gamers out there sure love maxing Crysis at that resolution.

Both me and Vlad know why they call it full HD.  We were commenting on how ambigous the term "HD" is and how it is just created in the first place to make producs sound good.

16:9 is not a movie standard.  Sometimes, movies will have black bars on the top and bottom even on a widescreen TV.  This is because the movie was made in a aspect ratio not 16:9.  If it were standard, all movies would be the same.

Not all monitors have the 16:10 aspect ratio.  In fact, The Witcher was made for 16:9 aspect ratio monitors.

There are benefits to having a resolution higher than 1080p if you have a big enough TV.  It is just that nobody makes movies/games that go higher than 1080p since they don't make TVs higher than 1080p.

I would get your facts straight before calling anyone else noob.

As Solid stated, 16x10 was choosen for 2 major reasons.  First was to display 2 full papers side by side on the screen (that do not cover your task bar) with the second being extra horizontal space for internet use.

16x9, while not always the standard as said above, is used for 1 primary reason.  The human eye views the world in 16x9.  It is the most natural way for you to view anything (3D or 2D).



 

  

The Only True Next Gen Game - Hero-U

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Robert A. Heinlein

Around the Network
GreyianStorm on 07 January 2010
Ssenkahdavic said:
vlad321 said:
Ssenkahdavic said:
The human eye views in 16x9 (thus "Full HD is 1920x1080p for 16x9 aspect ratio). This is why all our widescreen dvds / bluerays (and tvs) come in this resolution.

Computer monitors switched to a 16x10 resolution so 2 documents could be viewed side by side.

What do you mean by that? I haven't done ANY work on the PC with the 1920x1080 monitor yet, it's been solely used for games. However on my 1920x1200 laptop I know I can see 2 Word documents side by side, or PDFs, depending on the reader, and so on aand so forth. Is it any different on the 1920x1080? I wouldn't think so since both have the same amount of horizontal space.

The extra horizontal space is for your taskbar. 

Do you mean the extra vertical space is for your taskbar?

The only problem I see with that is, what taskbar needs 120 pixels (1200-1080)? That is 10% of the screen.



Call of Duty More Popular Than Halo

Ssenkahdavic on 08 January 2010
GreyianStorm said:
Ssenkahdavic said:
vlad321 said:
Ssenkahdavic said:
The human eye views in 16x9 (thus "Full HD is 1920x1080p for 16x9 aspect ratio). This is why all our widescreen dvds / bluerays (and tvs) come in this resolution.

Computer monitors switched to a 16x10 resolution so 2 documents could be viewed side by side.

What do you mean by that? I haven't done ANY work on the PC with the 1920x1080 monitor yet, it's been solely used for games. However on my 1920x1200 laptop I know I can see 2 Word documents side by side, or PDFs, depending on the reader, and so on aand so forth. Is it any different on the 1920x1080? I wouldn't think so since both have the same amount of horizontal space.

The extra horizontal space is for your taskbar. 

Do you mean the extra vertical space is for your taskbar?

The only problem I see with that is, what taskbar needs 120 pixels (1200-1080)? That is 10% of the screen.

With office open, both the office taskbar and the windows taskbar open (these two combine make up 10% of your screen), two pages side by side can be viewed at 100% (no zoom).  With the normal .5-1' margins the pages are 100% viewable from top to bottom.  This is why the extra verticle space was provided (which I oppsed on above). 

Had to edit multiple times cause its late and Im dumb...I mean tired :)



 

  

The Only True Next Gen Game - Hero-U

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Robert A. Heinlein

Senlis on 08 January 2010
Ssenkahdavic said:
Senlis said:
solidpumar said:
OMG... this thread is noob town.

The FULL HD name is only a standard that the media studios and electronics come up. The SD standard was outdated, so all electronic decided to do higher resolution TV, choosing the 16:9 because that was already the movie standard. The choice of being 1080p lines was also because would give the same detail as movies did.

The 1920X1200 was created only for monitor because monitor have the 16:10 standard, created because unlike the TV the monitor needs the TAB/options bar/explorer/ USER INTERFACE etc. So these 120 lines were for the UI not to affect the 16:9 view.

The is no max resolution.... the 1080p is the standard now, simply because there is no need for more now.

There is already lots of monitors, 30''sizes with 2560 x 1600. In fact the 2560 x 1600 is becoming now the new PC ENTHUSIAST RICH GAMERS standard, slowly getting mainstream in the PC core gamers. The 3 SLI 200series gamers out there sure love maxing Crysis at that resolution.

Both me and Vlad know why they call it full HD.  We were commenting on how ambigous the term "HD" is and how it is just created in the first place to make producs sound good.

16:9 is not a movie standard.  Sometimes, movies will have black bars on the top and bottom even on a widescreen TV.  This is because the movie was made in a aspect ratio not 16:9.  If it were standard, all movies would be the same.

Not all monitors have the 16:10 aspect ratio.  In fact, The Witcher was made for 16:9 aspect ratio monitors.

There are benefits to having a resolution higher than 1080p if you have a big enough TV.  It is just that nobody makes movies/games that go higher than 1080p since they don't make TVs higher than 1080p.

I would get your facts straight before calling anyone else noob.

As Solid stated, 16x10 was choosen for 2 major reasons.  First was to display 2 full papers side by side on the screen (that do not cover your task bar) with the second being extra horizontal space for internet use.

16x9, while not always the standard as said above, is used for 1 primary reason.  The human eye views the world in 16x9.  It is the most natural way for you to view anything (3D or 2D).

I just mentoined that not all monitors are 16:10.  However, I see your point that him saying, "The 1920X1200 was created only for monitor because monitor have the 16:10 standard" is valid.




 

Ssenkahdavic on 08 January 2010
Senlis said:
Ssenkahdavic said:
Senlis said:
solidpumar said:
OMG... this thread is noob town.

The FULL HD name is only a standard that the media studios and electronics come up. The SD standard was outdated, so all electronic decided to do higher resolution TV, choosing the 16:9 because that was already the movie standard. The choice of being 1080p lines was also because would give the same detail as movies did.

The 1920X1200 was created only for monitor because monitor have the 16:10 standard, created because unlike the TV the monitor needs the TAB/options bar/explorer/ USER INTERFACE etc. So these 120 lines were for the UI not to affect the 16:9 view.

The is no max resolution.... the 1080p is the standard now, simply because there is no need for more now.

There is already lots of monitors, 30''sizes with 2560 x 1600. In fact the 2560 x 1600 is becoming now the new PC ENTHUSIAST RICH GAMERS standard, slowly getting mainstream in the PC core gamers. The 3 SLI 200series gamers out there sure love maxing Crysis at that resolution.

Both me and Vlad know why they call it full HD.  We were commenting on how ambigous the term "HD" is and how it is just created in the first place to make producs sound good.

16:9 is not a movie standard.  Sometimes, movies will have black bars on the top and bottom even on a widescreen TV.  This is because the movie was made in a aspect ratio not 16:9.  If it were standard, all movies would be the same.

Not all monitors have the 16:10 aspect ratio.  In fact, The Witcher was made for 16:9 aspect ratio monitors.

There are benefits to having a resolution higher than 1080p if you have a big enough TV.  It is just that nobody makes movies/games that go higher than 1080p since they don't make TVs higher than 1080p.

I would get your facts straight before calling anyone else noob.

As Solid stated, 16x10 was choosen for 2 major reasons.  First was to display 2 full papers side by side on the screen (that do not cover your task bar) with the second being extra horizontal space for internet use.

16x9, while not always the standard as said above, is used for 1 primary reason.  The human eye views the world in 16x9.  It is the most natural way for you to view anything (3D or 2D).

I just mentoined that not all monitors are 16:10.  However, I see your point that him saying, "The 1920X1200 was created only for monitor because monitor have the 16:10 standard" is valid.

Yep, Im just making it easier to see the reason without calling anyone a noob. 16x10 (while supported by a good deal of computer games) is not meant for gaming/video.



 

  

The Only True Next Gen Game - Hero-U

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Robert A. Heinlein