1920x1080 vs 1920x1200 -- Text readability.

[Patrick_]

Hi, I'm trying to decide between a 24" 1920x1080 monitor (16:9) and a 24" 1920x1200 monitor (16:10). My main focus is text readability... I stare at text all day and so that's the most important thing to me.

Do more vertical pixels in the same size monitor mean everything, including text, is smaller, or is the 1920x1200 actually taller vertically than the 1920x1080, to make up for the higher vertical resolution?

I'm a bit confused. :)

[bob_c_b]

Nope, I had the same concern but it has zero impact. Both of my current monitors are 1920x1080 and the text scaling is perfect and you won't notice any real difference from 1200.

[max84]

You already answered it yourself. It's simply taller vertically. I have a 24" 1920x1200 monitor and my laptop is HD resolution. There is no change in text readability. Arguably, it's better on the 24", because there is more space vertically so I can zoom in a little, but still get a lot of text on the screen.

[Rob2687]

Either will be fine as long as you run it at the displays native resolution.

[tsupersonic]

More vertical resolution = win. I hated 16:10 when it first came out, and I got used to it, but 16:9 is just utter ****. Less vertical resolution = loss.

[alisalem]

The physical heights will vary on each monitor, so no stretching will exist.

[ObiWanToby]

I just got a 16:9 screen. Came from a 16:10. Text readability is great ( better than my 22 inch at 1680x1050). The PPI is slightly higher, resulting in a more detailed image. If you are looking for any recommendations, I'd highly recommend the NEC EA231WMi.

[PyX]

According to my calculations :

24" 1920x1200 pixels = 8.90 pixels / square inch

24" 1920x1080 pixels = 8.43 pixels / square inch

The more you have pixels / square inch, the smaller things are. So if you want text to be bigger, go with the 24" 1920x1080, things will be about 5% bigger, which is negligible.

Also, the new displays are all 16:9, 16:10 is the past. So 2 - 0 for the 1080p display :)

Please someone, correct me if I'm wrong...

[Lee G. Veteran]

My preference would be for 16:10. I like the vertical height. But, the other day I was using my family's new laptop with a 1920x1080 resolution, and the lack of vertical height didn't really bother me. Nonetheless, if I was buying a monitor, I would go for 16:10. I'm sure the text readability would be great on both of them.

[lt8480]

As others have said, the pixels are "square" on pc monitors, so the same diagonal dimension with different resolutions will have different aspect ratios - nothing is stretched.

19:9 seems to be most common, and when one of my 1920*1200 died I had very few to choose from and difficulty matching my second monitor, it also seems 1920*1080 is substantially cheaper. There's not a hugely noticeable difference - especially if you are mainly using it for reading text. I use a 24inch samsung at 1920*1200 at home and a 23inch samsung at 1920*1080 at work, and the difference doesn't bother me in the slightest.

[Patrick_]

Thanks for the info guys. :)

Here's another question: since a 16:10 is obviously slightly less-wide than a 16:9 at the same screen size, do you think that a 16:10 is inferior when having multiple windows next to each other? Or is the difference negligible since the resolution is the same?

[Argote]

No, there will be no inferiority as you will have the same width in pixels. Actually I think 1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080 simply because you have more pixels (more total space)

[Brody McKee]

You'll notice that 1920x1080 is becoming more prominent... It's nicer to view movies on a screen without black bars. But yeah, no real difference.

[Fraud OS 11]

As long as the monitor you buy has the same native resolution as the one you wish to use.

[ipodman715]

1920x1200 ftw

two documents side by side is nice

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

According to my calculations :

24" 1920x1200 pixels = 8.90 pixels / square inch

24" 1920x1080 pixels = 8.43 pixels / square inch

The more you have pixels / square inch, the smaller things are. So if you want text to be bigger, go with the 24" 1920x1080, things will be about 5% bigger, which is negligible.

Also, the new displays are all 16:9, 16:10 is the past. So 2 - 0 for the 1080p display :)

Please someone, correct me if I'm wrong...

Yeah, you're off by a bit, a pixel density of 8.90 pixels per square inch would result in each pixel being nearly 3mm wide and tall, there's actually 8,900 pixels per square inch, not 8.9 :p

[Shannon]

I'm sorry but 16:9 displays are a gimmick. How much DVD and HD content is really 16:9? The truth of the matter is, you're still going to get black bars for most of what you watch anyway, so you may as well get the 16:10. More screen real estate, and the benefit of being able to fit two A4 pages side by side is awesome for reading.

[Bazenga]

The truth of the matter is, you're still going to get black bars for most of what you watch anyway, so you may as well get the 16:10. More screen real estate, and the benefit of being able to fit two A4 pages side by side is awesome for reading.

This.

[andrew_f]

I'm sorry but 16:9 displays are a gimmick. How much DVD and HD content is really 16:9? The truth of the matter is, you're still going to get black bars for most of what you watch anyway, so you may as well get the 16:10. More screen real estate, and the benefit of being able to fit two A4 pages side by side is awesome for reading.

Watching on demand TV on iPlayer, Youtube, the hundreds of podcasts out there etc. are almost always without a letterbox on 16:9. I personally prefer it. It also means if you connect it up to your games console you don't have to use a funky resolution (360 handles this pretty well, admittedly).

[Brody McKee]

I'm sorry but 16:9 displays are a gimmick. How much DVD and HD content is really 16:9? ...

Most content is 16:9 today, and soon all computer screens will be in that ratio.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Most of the DVD's we've been getting lately have been in the 2.40:1 aspect ratio, meaning you see the black bars on a 4:3, 16:9 and 16:10 screen.

Edit: And most of the cheap "HDTV's" I've been seeing lately are 16:10.

[PyX]

Yeah, you're off by a bit, a pixel density of 8.90 pixels per square inch would result in each pixel being nearly 3mm wide and tall, there's actually 8,900 pixels per square inch, not 8.9 :p

Heh yeah, I should have checked if it made sense or not. It's 8 900 XD, don't know what I did there, but it's the same proportions anyways, so it's still cool :p

I must have used kilopixels instead.... ahhh those damned kilopixels.