Re: Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?
On 24/04/12 01:39 PM, Sian Mountbatten wrote:
When I replaced my desktop with a new computer, I kept my TFT screen.
It has the non-standard size of 1440x900.
Recently, I have been wondering if it would be better for me to have
1600x1200 screen. Would this be better for Linux software? What about
HD TV? And movies?
Any comments welcome
Multiply the two numbers together to get the total pixel count. 1440 x
900 is a standard 16:9 ratio that gives you 1,296,000 pixels.
1600x1200 is a pretty good 4:3 ratio that gives you 1,920,000 pixels.
That's about 50% more pixels.
However, it's getting harder to find 4x3 screens around. In North
America, the common size is 1920x1080, a standard HD size at 16:9. That
gives you 2,073,600 pixels - an insignificant increase over 1600x1200.
You may have some luck finding a 1920x1200 screen (16:10) which gives
you 2,304,000 pixels. That's almost double the count of your 1440x900
screen. However, these ones are rare.
For any TV viewing, the programming is all going to 16:9 so if you want
to watch current programming, go with a widescreen monitor. The 16:9
ones work well but 16:10 can allow you to have onscreen controls, etc.
below the program. Since 16:9 are more common and generally cheaper...
You can watch widescreen programs on a 4:3 monitor, just like you can on
a TV. However, you won't be using the full screen size.
There's little point in getting any monitor that doesn't do at least
1920x1080 these days. If you are on a very tight budget, getting a used
monitor may be the answer.
Reply to: