Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why Widescreen?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 4, 2008 8:36:06 PM

Why wide screen? :o  http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html

The reality is that the human field of focus is much closer to the traditional 4:3 aspect ratio. Our peripheral vision is widescreen... not our clear focal range. It's a Darwinian thing that we have peripheral vision to catch predators sneaking up on us in the caverhood.
The reasons for wide screen or 16:9 as an aspect ratio is more of a result of Hollywood trying to pack more people into theaters and have a bigger till at the end of the night. While it does provide a wider create palette to tell stories on, it has little or no valid reason to be in you office space. That is unless you are gaming wide screen, editing audio or video (because it allows you to stretch out that time line.
In a standard, non-movie or audio related job application... 4:30 is the way to go.
I'm quite pissed off that it is getting so hard to find a good, low cost, 20 inch LCD in 4:3. I just bought a 20 inch wide screen and I HATE IT. Since I am a movie and audio editor.. I have another application for it... but for my regular, every day web development stuff I want a 20+ inch 4:3 aspect ratio, monitor with at 5ms response time, 800:1 contrast ratio LCD for under $200. This trend toward non-conforming aspect ratios is driving us web developers crazy. Specially when our clients are all saying it looks different on their non-conforming wide screen with some convoluted screen resolution like 2480 by 1047 pixels. The vast majority of screens are still 1024 by 768.. yes.. and 4:30 aspect. Why these are becoming the hardest monitors to find under $200 is beyond logic.

If anyone can find me one with a good name.. please post a reply.

More about : widescreen

February 4, 2008 8:43:48 PM

Try a 24" Widescreen...
From a development standpoint, it's like having two 19" monitors side by side.

No compromises! ;) 
February 4, 2008 9:51:12 PM

Human vision is more like 16x9 just as you said, peripheral vision can't be excluded. Wide screen viewing has scientifically been proven to lead to a more realistic and stimulating experience when watching movies or gaming. For applications I agree with you. I have resisted the WS monitor for the PC but think that my next purchase will be a 24 or larger WS LCD.
Related resources
February 4, 2008 11:07:38 PM

because 16x10 (1.6) is close to the golden ratio of ~1.618.
February 4, 2008 11:14:04 PM

Just wish IE 7 would allow you to have 2 tabs open at once, so you can fully use the WS space for apps.
February 4, 2008 11:59:10 PM

I recently changed from two 1280*1024 17" CRTs to one 1680*1050 20" Samsung 206BW.
And i love it. I can get two documents, firefox/konqueror windows, spreadsheets, xterms, whatever, next to each other on the same screen without having to turn my head. Perfect for reading something and writing something else in a different app without changing window focus.
February 5, 2008 12:13:24 AM

I completely agree with the OP, I hate widescreen with a passion and wish for nothing more than a good 20+" 4:3 ratio monitor, that's why I still use a 19" CRT.

I hope screen makers get into their senses soon.
February 5, 2008 12:21:11 AM

I used to think I wouldn't like wide screen, but got a 22" last summer as a gift. I absolutely love it for gaming. For web-browsing, I generally "tile windows vertically" so I can be browsing 2 different sites at the same time. I wont ever go back.
February 5, 2008 12:41:09 AM

I use to hate widescreen, but now I can't live without it. I have a 19" 4:3 Samsung LCD at work, but I plan to switch it to widescreen very shortly. 4:3 just doesn't cut it. 16:9 or 16:10 is the way to go. Stop whining!
February 5, 2008 12:46:57 AM

hmmmm... that's funny. Your rant almost sounds identical to that time when web page developers whined about how they had to start coding pages to look good on resolutions higher than the 800x600 "standard".
a c 143 U Graphics card
February 5, 2008 1:02:45 AM

stanb17 said:


The reality is that the human field of focus is much closer to the traditional 4:3 aspect ratio. Our peripheral vision is widescreen... not our clear focal range. It's a Darwinian thing that we have peripheral vision to catch predators sneaking up on us in the caverhood.

This trend toward non-conforming aspect ratios is driving us web developers crazy.


Must admit I haven't been in that many caverns lately. Still, as a Web developer I can tell you I use two widescreen monitors (think of it as 3360x1050) and I love the arrangement. It really improves my productivity.

February 5, 2008 1:05:01 AM

SirChrono, I hated planes till I found out it takes 3 weeks to cross the USA in a wagon. You should be able to buy 4:3 for a few years still, so no worries.
February 5, 2008 1:06:33 AM

I hate widescreens. I hate LCD.

Guess what I got?

Dell 2407. Yep widescreen and a LCD.

The good part. And there really is a good part.

The good part is being able to handle two Word documents side by side in full 11x8 glory. Try it. You can display two documents in actual size onscreen. It is wonderful for editing and comparing documents without straining my eyes. And a 22" widescreen actually might not be big enough by time one adds the application headers etc, so the 24" is the way to go.

Spreadsheets. How nice. One key advantage is having a print size page shown on-screen with extra data or comments visible on the side.


Now to the real world. I size most of my applications down to traditional 4:3 ratios. While I do use the widescreen view from time to time, 95% of the time I am using a 4:3 or something close to that ratio.


But.... Movies are fantastic. I am sitting just slightly under arms length from the monitor. Damn Nice for movies. (BTW, I wear a 35" sleeve for those that must know the actual distace from the screen)


I have developed more than a couple websites, and I am my company's official webmaster. Wide screen is just overload for web development. And there is the problem with my screen versus your screen kind of BS, thus I am still writing websites for 800x600 pixel displays. I know, just about nobody uses a small monitors anymore. But the simple fact is writing for a larger display is not always easy and it sure makes viewing text very difficult...... remember way back when when we were taught typing in college.... there was something about display presentation.... the width of the words/paragraph on the page and why words presented in what we call landscape was difficult to read..... the eyes had to scan back and forth rather than reading the line of text in a single view. Text shown in widescreen, without proper optimization, is difficult to read.
February 5, 2008 1:27:51 AM

SirCrono said:
I completely agree with the OP, I hate widescreen with a passion and wish for nothing more than a good 20+" 4:3 ratio monitor, that's why I still use a 19" CRT.

I hope screen makers get into their senses soon.


Newegg lists about 130 non-widescreen monitors, ranging in price from $150 to $1500. You should be able to find something you like in there...

Clint
a b U Graphics card
February 5, 2008 1:33:19 AM

After staring at a HP w2408 at work, my 19" 4:3 LCD is getting quite small. It's nice to see two full pages of text side by side at 100% with no issues on that w2408.
February 5, 2008 2:01:00 AM

I just got a 24 inch BenQ FP241W, it was on the pricy side but it's freakin huge! lol coming from a samsung 19 inch flat crt, was a bit to get used to but now, I'm a fan boy for sure.
Though I only use mine for gaming and surfing the web, I don't think I could live without it now.
Playing COD4 online with a 24 incher is grrrrrrrrrrreat!
I'm also a video snob and was surprised that most games don't have a very bad ghosting effect but you need the horsepower to run at 1920x1200 (which I have) but still can be a pricey switch.
February 6, 2008 4:18:25 PM

Thank you all for your replies.
You're cracking me up.

I just spent the last 48 hours on the phone and email with the owner/CEO of tomshardware.com. Apparently something was wrong at their hosting company that blocked tomshardware.com, pkpublishing.com and bestofmedia.com (the actualy owners of tomewardware.com) from being see by anyone in the US using Comcast. This was HUGE. Antoine lost tens of thousands of ad generated dollars in that time.

Back on subject: I do think the 24 inch idea is good. Given the fact that our Kenmore front loading washer just kicked and would cost $500 to fix... so we're buying new, means that fund for a 24 inch just evaporated.

There are some good points made in your replies and some insightful ideas I will consider... next time I have some cash.

To ganpachi... I actually cheered when the teeter tottered to 1024x768. More real estate and easier on the eyes. My beef is really with these crazy, non-conforming aspect ratios that resemble 16:9 but often have pixel ratios that are whacked out. Also... the field of available 4:3's is but a speck compared to the WS's. The WS's are now cheaper. The good 4:3's are getting hard to find at the same price point.

Thanks for all the input.
SB
February 6, 2008 4:44:22 PM

Quote:

The good part is being able to handle two Word documents side by side in full 11x8 glory. Try it. You can display two documents in actual size onscreen. It is wonderful for editing and comparing documents without straining my eyes. And a 22" widescreen actually might not be big enough by time one adds the application headers etc, so the 24" is the way to go.
This is one of my favorite things about my Sammy245BW... that and I can watch Blu-ray and HD movies in all their glory. :D 

I agree with the others 24"+ is the way to go. (22" is still acceptable imo, but 24" is... bigger! :sol: )

*edit* I also have to admit, that I too didn't like widescreens at first. I always went to BB or somethign and looked a 20" 4:3 and a 20" 16:10 and just though the 16:10 looked silly. A few weeks ago, I plunged and bought the 24" sammy 245BW (coming from a 17" 4:3 here) and wow... I don't think I'll ever use a smaller monitor ever again. The workspace, as mentioned above, is fantastic. Especially since I have to compare documents often, and it just makes it easier when you don't have to continuously scroll or alt+tab to reference where you left off. Anyhoo, that's my $0.02.
February 6, 2008 4:58:02 PM

stanb17 said:
This trend toward non-conforming aspect ratios is driving us web developers crazy. Specially when our clients are all saying it looks different on their non-conforming wide screen with some convoluted screen resolution like 2480 by 1047 pixels. The vast majority of screens are still 1024 by 768.. yes.. and 4:30 aspect.


Don't forget that while 1024 x 768 is the norm now, it a little while it would move up to 1280 x 1024 (just the natural progression of things). And then that 4:3 ratio would be gone anyways.
a c 145 U Graphics card
February 6, 2008 5:02:14 PM

Quote:
I just spent the last 48 hours on the phone and email with the owner/CEO of tomshardware.com. Apparently something was wrong at their hosting company that blocked tomshardware.com, pkpublishing.com and bestofmedia.com (the actualy owners of tomewardware.com) from being see by anyone in the US using Comcast. This was HUGE. Antoine lost tens of thousands of ad generated dollars in that time.


LOL... And I thought I was going completely nuts last night... Had me deleting cookies, checking my firewall logs, running anti-spyware apps most of the evening! Really irked me when I got in to work and the site came up fine. Now I know.

Back on Topic. Work on a 19" 4:3. Have another one at home. Also have a 22" Widescreen that I absolutely love for games; not so much for surfing... until I remembered I didn't have to run the browser window full-screen. ;) 

-Wolf sends
February 6, 2008 5:04:21 PM

what i really hate about lcd is its color reproduction. those are the worst displays for any graphic desing work.
February 6, 2008 5:13:01 PM

stanb17 said:
, every day web development stuff I want a 20+ inch 4:3 aspect ratio, monitor with at 5ms response time, 800:1 contrast ratio LCD for under $200. This trend toward non-conforming aspect ratios is driving us web developers crazy. Specially when our clients are all saying it looks different on their non-conforming wide screen with some convoluted screen resolution like 2480 by 1047 pixels.


well then your not very good at creating websites, use css to make everything centre then scale it so it looks good on your lowest acceptable resolution i use 1024*768... once thats done no matter what resolution your customer uses it will look the same, i personnally think a widescreen is awesome for web design, Scite on the right and mozilla/IE on the other half so i can see what changes im making... its a brilliant platform for web design.

i agree with the person above about colour reproduction an lcd just doesnt really cut it.

end of the day if you use CSS properly in your web design you will only need to design for your lowest acceptable res.
a b U Graphics card
February 6, 2008 6:49:36 PM

Quote:
While it does provide a wider create palette to tell stories on, it has little or no valid reason to be in you office space.



yeah... Try and tell that to anyone who spends their days with their noses jammed in Spreadsheets.... No Joke: Widescreen monitors are a godsend for that.
February 6, 2008 7:23:10 PM

CNeufeld said:
Newegg lists about 130 non-widescreen monitors, ranging in price from $150 to $1500. You should be able to find something you like in there...

Clint


Now if I lived in USA that'd be great, sadly where I do live all new screens are LCD widescreens.

And Newegg be damned for not shipping internationally.
February 6, 2008 8:04:07 PM

If it wasn't for the lack of universal support, ie lots of games, widescreen would be great.
a c 130 U Graphics card
February 6, 2008 8:17:43 PM


To SirCrono
Im in the same boat as you i hate wide screens and want to get a new 19 inch but they are dissapearing from the shops at a rate of knota here in the UK sure you can still get them at the min but i need to wait 3 ish months before i can get the whole build shipped together, just hope they still have them where im getting it from by then.
Mactronix
PS TV as well, Dont know what its like in the states but nobody seems to screen tv in one size in uk its either heads getting cut off or short fat dumpy people on screen. Does this happen on a widescreen monitor or are they all 1:1 or do they scew the image to fit.
February 6, 2008 8:19:18 PM

I read recently that the widescreen format is being "pushed" for PC monitors because it simplifies turning out a larger number of LCD's. The ratio is thus the same for PC's and TV's.

I can't wait to get a widescreen 20" Viewsonic within a month. I watch movies on my PC (even have one DVD-ROM drive set for region 2 for Japanese DVD's). It will be much nicer with a 16:9 aspect and a ratio of 1650 x 1200.

Still have an old Viewsonic A71f 17" CRT!
February 6, 2008 8:26:16 PM

I thought 17-20" Monitors were only 1440x900 and 22" was 1680x1050 res?

I'm probably just getting my self confused >_<;
February 6, 2008 8:39:14 PM

I , as a web dev , cannot see a reason why you should build webpages for a certain resolution , you can either build liquid layouts , or just pixel fixed layouts (like this forum)...

The look of the website shouldn't really change with resolution.
February 6, 2008 8:40:44 PM

mactronix said:
To SirCrono
Im in the same boat as you i hate wide screens and want to get a new 19 inch but they are dissapearing from the shops at a rate of knota here in the UK sure you can still get them at the min but i need to wait 3 ish months before i can get the whole build shipped together, just hope they still have them where im getting it from by then.
Mactronix
PS TV as well, Dont know what its like in the states but nobody seems to screen tv in one size in uk its either heads getting cut off or short fat dumpy people on screen. Does this happen on a widescreen monitor or are they all 1:1 or do they scew the image to fit.


You shouldn worry for a timeframe of 3 months, I know they'll be around for at least a couple of years, but still, widescreen is slowly replacing the 4:3 standard.

I guess we'll just have to get used to it, still I plan to get as much life as I can from my old CRT.
February 6, 2008 8:43:28 PM

I agree that our peripheral vision should not be excluded. It's our peripheral that also gives us a more submersive, more realistic experience. Also games that support wide screen resolutions may even give us an advantage over standard aspect ratios. Just as you said, our peripheral vision is used "catch preditors," the higher concentration of motion sensitive Rods used for our peripheral vision helps us to stay alert, so when that bastard is trying to sneak up on you in Call of Duty, you can kill his ass.

But also in everyday applications I think widescreen definitely has its place. After using Exel on a widescreen monitor, I never want to go back to 4:3. Its so nice being able to go from A-AC without having to scroll horizontally. I specially love the extra work space that I get with my 24" monitor and have my windows evenly spaced out without to much clutter.

Also just a note, our eyes will naturally scan across the screen. Even people with scotomas (small blind spots due to small lesions in the occipital lobe) may never notice these blind spots because our eyes are always making tiny involuntary movements, therefore filling these blind spots. So although the outer rims may immediately be a part of our peripheral vision, at some point it will come in contact with our center field of vision.
February 6, 2008 8:47:41 PM

yipsl said:
I read recently that the widescreen format is being "pushed" for PC monitors because it simplifies turning out a larger number of LCD's. The ratio is thus the same for PC's and TV's.

I can't wait to get a widescreen 20" Viewsonic within a month. I watch movies on my PC (even have one DVD-ROM drive set for region 2 for Japanese DVD's). It will be much nicer with a 16:9 aspect and a ratio of 1650 x 1200.

Still have an old Viewsonic A71f 17" CRT!


... PC monitors do NOT have the same ratio as TVs. PCs use 16:10, TVs use 16:9, and for a good reason too - at least from my perspective - as while 16:9 would be even better for media, it's just way too wasteful for work (see pro-4:3 posts above). Thus 16:10 is used as a compromise for most monitors, I personally do find it more comfortable to work on those than 16:9.

4:3 vs 16:10 though, I'm not exactly biased towards either, even at work; I think 16:10 already offers decent vertical space, and while 4:3 does give you a single bigger workspace, it's harder to line up windows side-by-side, and hence imo worse off for multitasking purposes.

There is one definitive advantage for widescreen in general, though. If you do the math, you'll notice that widescreen panels of the same diagonal size will ALWAYS have less actual area than a similarly "sized" 4:3 panel. Hence the cost is lowered, and the manufacturers get to brag about the "widescreen advantage". Bleh.

a c 130 U Graphics card
February 6, 2008 8:49:01 PM

To rgeist554
You can get a 20" 1650x1200 but its 16:10 not 16:9.

SirCrono
Guess your right what do you recon shall i get 2 or three and store them incase one goes bad and i cant get a replacement. :lol: 
Mactronix
February 6, 2008 9:05:50 PM

I'll toss in my 2 cents worth. I have three computers, one using a 22" Sony CRT, another a standard screen Viewsonic LCD and a third with a 22" Samsung widescreen. The widescreen took a bit of getting used to, but now I don't like having the standard screen Viewsonic. So I'm planning on a 24" widescreen to replace it. The only thing that I don't like with the LCDs are that they don't provide the clarity of color which the Sony CRT gives. But the LCDs are a lot lighter when moving them and take less desk space, so I'll be satified with that.
February 6, 2008 9:34:07 PM

coltz said:
... PC monitors do NOT have the same ratio as TVs. PCs use 16:10, TVs use 16:9, and for a good reason too - at least from my perspective - as while 16:9 would be even better for media, it's just way too wasteful for work (see pro-4:3 posts above). Thus 16:10 is used as a compromise for most monitors, I personally do find it more comfortable to work on those than 16:9.


Okay, thanks. I was remembering the following article from the Inquirer, which kvetched about resolutions, but got the 16:9 TV and 16:10 monitor ratios correctly.

There still seems to be a convergence based on how many panels can be had.

Quote:

Or, will they? This CES show seems to point to something different - yet another format change, this time leaving us, the users, worse off.

Basically, some beancounter must have come up with a "bright idea" to somehow cut the LCD panel mother glass the same way for both those el cheapo TVs and computer monitors. Screw the game or software compatibility, or pixel-matched earlier resolutions - everyone goes 16:9 !


http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/01/11/...

It seems that some convergence TV's/monitors were shown at CES that had a 16:9 ratio.

Can't wait to get a 20" 1650 x 1200 LCD for our two major PC's. We don't have a separate HDTV yet, so we watch HDTV with a TV Wonder HD card on the PC and leave the old Magnavox for the legacy PS, PS2, Dreamcast, N64 and Gamecube.


February 6, 2008 9:41:59 PM

When one of my CRT's finally dies, I'll be getting a 24" widescreen LCD.

One of the most fun things I've done is hook my computer up to my 60" HD TV. That was a blast. Almost too big for most things, although racing games were fantastic.
a b U Graphics card
February 6, 2008 11:21:19 PM

pauldh said:
Forget widescreen, Surround is the way to go.


Yeah, but who would get a setup like that? :hello: 

Oh no it's beyond widescreen, now what will developers do? [:mousemonkey:1]
a b U Graphics card
February 7, 2008 12:12:52 AM

;) 

Just wait until people buy the TH2Go and try the featured game Crysis. Then they will start anti crysis threads since it's not playable at 3840x1024 very high details. But I'm sure an 8600GT owner will join the discussion to tell how his is smooth as silk at those settings. :lol: 
February 7, 2008 12:14:43 AM

Gryphyn said:
When one of my CRT's finally dies, I'll be getting a 24" widescreen LCD.


:pt1cable:  Good luck with waiting for the crt to die. I still have an ancient 14 or so inch GAteway 2000 crt from before 1998 that STILL RUNS. Somehow, I use to game on that beast! Luckily, i don't use that computer much anymore. My parents use that computer, so I hope that someday soon the monitor will finally kick the bucket and they will have to buy a new lcd. Otherwise, that thing will still be running until the day I die!
Hehehe, I even debated a while ago taking a magnet to the screen and screwing it up so we'd have to get a new monitor! lol

consider the magnet ;)  :whistle: 

And yes, surround is the way to go! When I got my 5.1 setup on my custom pc, I was blown away! I'll never go without having a 5.1 setup for my pc!
a b U Graphics card
February 7, 2008 12:51:37 AM

pauldh said:
Just wait until people buy the TH2Go and try the featured game Crysis. Then they will start anti crysis threads since it's not playable at 3840x1024 very high details. But I'm sure an 8600GT owner will join the discussion to tell how his is smooth as silk at those settings. :lol: 


Yeah Crysis at 38x12/10 on high, I doubt even your SLi rig would push those kinda pixels fast enough.

Just remember for the GF8600GT owner, it's on 'Very High' with a bunch of 'mods'. :lol: 
February 7, 2008 12:56:05 AM

ws4life
February 7, 2008 12:59:28 AM

0.02 cents... just received a th2g de on christmas... yeah, 4 megapixels (30" lcd) is too much for games like crysis currently, but you can always run it at lower supported DX9 resolutions of triple 640x480, 800x600, or 1024x768 instead... like, the first dungeon siege for example, isnt capable of running at much wider than 1920x480, without it crashing due to the game engines limitations... but 1920x480 with bezel management is certainly better than a 'keyhole view', as someone had said before in another forum, it certainly does seem that way after you get used to it though

as far as resolution limitations though, DX10 i believe expanded upon DX9s 4 megapixel limitation, to 8 megapixels or so... allowing that much more viewability with something as simple as a downloadable firmware or driver upgrade, or it might not even be that involved

so, imagine having 3*24" lcds @ 5760x1200 res... or higher
February 7, 2008 1:00:38 AM

So you want 20" that is 4x3?

Get a 22" 16:10 and just simple don't use
the 1 inch on the right and you are getting 4x3 around 20inch.

Better yet, put that 1 inch to some use with some sticky window
that displays what you like to have at a glance.
a b U Graphics card
February 7, 2008 1:26:20 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Yeah Crysis at 38x12/10 on high, I doubt even your SLi rig would push those kinda pixels fast enough.

Just remember for the GF8600GT owner, it's on 'Very High' with a bunch of 'mods'. :lol: 
:)  sorry forgot to add the mods.

And yeah, I doubt my rig would handle medium at that res, but will try it someday for fun. Kinda cracked me up that crysis was the features game. Anyway, still Just wish I could have bought two EP-716 projectors when the closed em out at $499 at CC. (My wife would have freaked though). They would have been perfect upscaled to 12x10 for (fairly) cheap side screens. AH, 12 foot wide, 90 degree wrapped, triple screens with near-zero bezel is still my TH2go dream.
a b U Graphics card
February 7, 2008 1:31:29 AM

Quote:
so, imagine having 3*24" lcds @ 5760x1200 res... or higher

That would be nice, but I still dream about 3 projectors set up for just about bezelless surround gaming. I'll take that 57x12 res you mention but blown up about life size. :)  Oh man I would have to buy a better wheel than my MOMO even for that.

a b U Graphics card
February 7, 2008 1:40:49 AM

I think DX11 brings support for 27 megapixels for direct visual cortex input. [:thegreatgrapeape]

J/K

BTW, I forget the limits for DX10 too, may look them up when I get home, I rememeber the texture size change, to 8k x 8k, but there's so many spec changes it's had to keep track.

Yeah it would be nice to have more projectors, I think Oblivion is still the game that would benefit most since you have alot of things happening around you, but driving would also be awesome if you had the corner setup as it increases that 'tunnel vision' you get when driving really fast.

I'm not sure Crysis would be a game I would get more out of with surround gaming, as I don't find it one that I used my peripheral vision alot on, only in the alien water situation and maybe the flying or tank level would I probably appreciate it more.

I think I would want it more on COD4 than Crysis as I'd be more concerned about my flanks and action happening to the sides that either I would want to support and go towards or else reposition away from.
February 7, 2008 1:46:21 AM

sailer said:
I'll toss in my 2 cents worth. I have three computers, one using a 22" Sony CRT, another a standard screen Viewsonic LCD and a third with a 22" Samsung widescreen. The widescreen took a bit of getting used to, but now I don't like having the standard screen Viewsonic. So I'm planning on a 24" widescreen to replace it. The only thing that I don't like with the LCDs are that they don't provide the clarity of color which the Sony CRT gives. But the LCDs are a lot lighter when moving them and take less desk space, so I'll be satified with that.


I too had problems with color reproduction on my first lcd's, but after my 22" unit a few years back, I got a calibration dvd and squared it away. My last several lcd's ( Dell, gateway, now HannsG) all needed a good bit of adjustment on the color temps and brightness side.

Night and day differences.

And YES, 2 FULL size word docs side by side is nirvana to a paper pusher......
a b U Graphics card
February 7, 2008 1:48:04 AM

I agree on Oblivion. I may still try and build a couple cheap projectors someday. But my eyes and ears are always open for some cheap quiet Optoma's.

I did try a projector and two 21" CRT's. Worked OK, as I could hide the bezel. Problem was matching brightness, positioning the projector as it had to be front projected which pushed me a bit back, and the fact I needed a bit larger size (22" diag) in order to focus. It wasn't great, but did work and was fun to test out. Surely not the corner setup we talked about in the past.

!