Well...it is a good idea for people who are going to be using their computer for HD movie/TV viewing ONLY.
However, I have a 22" widescreen (1680x1050) screen on my desk in the living room that also serves as our main entertainment centre....I have 1.6TB of video on it, and maybe 1/3 of that is in 16:9 format...for everything else, it would waste even more space than my regular Widescreen 22" when viewing regular 4:3 video, or pictures, etc...
It's definitely a good idea for a high def entertainment centre, but not for those who will be using it as a multipurpose display.
Well the big advantage of 1200 vertical pixels is you can show 1600x1200 applications without scaling. A few years ago, that really mattered since that was about the max resolution you could get on a 22" tube with .22mm dot pitch without the pixels blurring together, and lots of applications were hard coded for 3:4 resolutions including 1600x1200. I'll still take 1920x1200 any day just for the extra real estate, but I'd be happy to get a 16:9 version for console gaming, or maybe a really nice photo frame, especially since the module is so thin.
The advantage of 1200 vs. 1080 is simple: more pixels. You're not losing ANYTHING with 1200 horizontal lines of pixels, you're just gaining desktop space. My monitor and others have an option to not scale to full screen whatever signal comes in, so you can get 1080p with a perfect 1:1 pixel mapping and 16:9 ratio. There is absolutely no need for this kind of thing for the PC. It takes away more than it gives (which is pretty much nothing).
I've been waiting for this for ages!!! And to all those nyerrrds complaining about screen real estate... I use a 17" MacBook Pro as my single do-all computer and at the highest setting it's 1650x1050. I've been waiting to hook a monitor up to that which would double as a tv (since I don't want to fork out mega$$$ for a lounge room behemoth). This is the perfect solution because I get more resolution than my current computer at 1920 x 1080 AAAND it's ready to watch Blu-Ray movies on *perfectly*. Now all I need is Sony to come out with a slimmer PS3 and I'll have a complete setup! :D
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Kakaze @ Mar 11th 2008 9:31AM
Why hasn't anyone done this before?
I always wondered why computers were 16x10 and TVs were 16x9. I always thought it would make more sense for computers to fall in line with TVs.
schmitty338 @ Mar 11th 2008 9:49AM
Well...it is a good idea for people who are going to be using their computer for HD movie/TV viewing ONLY.
However, I have a 22" widescreen (1680x1050) screen on my desk in the living room that also serves as our main entertainment centre....I have 1.6TB of video on it, and maybe 1/3 of that is in 16:9 format...for everything else, it would waste even more space than my regular Widescreen 22" when viewing regular 4:3 video, or pictures, etc...
It's definitely a good idea for a high def entertainment centre, but not for those who will be using it as a multipurpose display.
IMHO of course ;-)
Chad Upton @ Mar 11th 2008 10:56AM
I'll buy one. Must have at least 2 HDMI inputs so I can hookup my video game systems and play them at my desk.
Miikun @ Mar 11th 2008 9:49PM
Well the big advantage of 1200 vertical pixels is you can show 1600x1200 applications without scaling. A few years ago, that really mattered since that was about the max resolution you could get on a 22" tube with .22mm dot pitch without the pixels blurring together, and lots of applications were hard coded for 3:4 resolutions including 1600x1200. I'll still take 1920x1200 any day just for the extra real estate, but I'd be happy to get a 16:9 version for console gaming, or maybe a really nice photo frame, especially since the module is so thin.
andyo @ Mar 11th 2008 3:51PM
The advantage of 1200 vs. 1080 is simple: more pixels. You're not losing ANYTHING with 1200 horizontal lines of pixels, you're just gaining desktop space. My monitor and others have an option to not scale to full screen whatever signal comes in, so you can get 1080p with a perfect 1:1 pixel mapping and 16:9 ratio. There is absolutely no need for this kind of thing for the PC. It takes away more than it gives (which is pretty much nothing).
Mat Brady @ Mar 12th 2008 12:21AM
I've been waiting for this for ages!!! And to all those nyerrrds complaining about screen real estate... I use a 17" MacBook Pro as my single do-all computer and at the highest setting it's 1650x1050. I've been waiting to hook a monitor up to that which would double as a tv (since I don't want to fork out mega$$$ for a lounge room behemoth). This is the perfect solution because I get more resolution than my current computer at 1920 x 1080 AAAND it's ready to watch Blu-Ray movies on *perfectly*. Now all I need is Sony to come out with a slimmer PS3 and I'll have a complete setup! :D