20" - 24" monitor? - Page 3

mattiesmat · #21 11-15-2007, 10:02 PM

I am thinking about this one:
http://www.hardware.info/nl-NL/produ...cMaster_206BW/

It looks good, what do you guys think?
The only thing is, the resolution is 1680*1050, does this mean it does not support 1600*1200?

Josem · #22 11-15-2007, 10:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing is, the resolution is 1680*1050, does this mean it does not support 1600*1200?

[/ QUOTE ]

1680x1050 is not 1600x1200.

I don't know how else to express this.

mattiesmat · #23 11-15-2007, 10:10 PM

Can you try to explain it?
I understand that those are not the same, but does that mean it does not support 1600*1200 or does it mean it is not optimal?
All Samsungs 20" seem to have 1680*1050 on the shopsite I am looking at.
Sorry for being a computer donk.

mattiesmat · #24 11-15-2007, 10:20 PM

1680*1050 is the maximum resolution I see.
But is that the most optimal?
Will it make a lot of (quality) difference if I change it to 1600*1200 for poker multitabling?

What about the 22" monitors, same thing with those or is that a different story due to different size ratio?

Beavis68 · #25 11-15-2007, 10:22 PM

1600x1200 is a standard formant 4:3 (or 16:12), not widescreen. 1680x1050 is a widescreen 16:9 format. the 16x9 is not tall enough to do 1600x1200.

mattiesmat · #26 11-15-2007, 10:24 PM

Sorry I still do not totally understand it.
Can you perhaps answer my questions one by one?

Josem · #27 11-15-2007, 10:31 PM

Short version (read wikipedia for more info about lcd monitors). this is probably not technically 100% accurate, but it explains it easily enough for our purposes here.

an "old" crt monitor basically works by projecting light onto glass.

thus, it can change the resolution very easily - by projecting bigger or smaller dots onto that glass.

lcd screens are different. lcd screens are made of lots of little pixels - dots that are of a fixed size. if you have a lcd screen in front of you, and you get close enough to it (literally a few inches or so) you should be able to see each individual pixel.

so, you can only display only one resolution* on an lcd screen- there are a fixed number of dots that the PC can control.

so, since different <u>signals</u> have different resolutions, if the resolution of the signal doesn't match the resolution of the screen, there's a little computer chip inside that tries its best to control the pixels. thus, the image will be slightly blurry.

LCDs always work better at their "native" resolution and changing this will give you a blurry image.

Beavis68 · #28 11-16-2007, 11:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I still do not totally understand it.
Can you perhaps answer my questions one by one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know the difference between a standar monitor format and a widescreen? Have you ever seen them side by side?

mattiesmat · #29 11-16-2007, 01:29 PM

I understand widescreen has a different width-height-ratio and because it is LCD, changing resolution will give non optimal images/quality.
But is the maximum resolution always the 'native' and best resolution?
I read on a site that the maximum resolution is not always the best resolution (LCD) and that the best resolution for 20" is 1600*1200 for 20".
Is the monitor I gave above an example of this or is it widescreen?

Beavis68 · #30 11-16-2007, 02:17 PM

I have never seen a monitor where the highest res isn't "native" what looks best may vary though, I don't know. I can run my 24" WS at less than full res without any noticable loss in quality to me, one of my coworkers prefers it that way.

The 1680x1050 monitor is a widescreen. It cannont support 1600x1200 becaue 1200>1050