I currently have a 19" at 1280x1024 and wanted to find out if the text
would appear smaller since the resolution is higher or if the
increased size would make up the difference? The 22" is 1680x1050.
"Chris" <chris95008@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d4b4f17d-4ac8-4ce2-b5a6-d2ceb6f09c19@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>I currently have a 19" at 1280x1024 and wanted to find out if the text
> would appear smaller since the resolution is higher or if the
> increased size would make up the difference? The 22" is 1680x1050.
You are talking about moving from a standard format 19" to a widescreen 22".
The vertical pixel height is the value to examine. On the 19" screen
(asuming 4:3 aspect ratio), the physically height of the display is 16.45"
and fits 1024 pixels into that size, so each inch has 62.23 pixels. The 22"
screen (asuming 16:9 aspect ratio) the physically height of the display is
16.5" and fits 1050 pixels into that size, so each inch has 63.64 pixels.
With my assumed aspect ratios, there will be a tiny difference in text
height on those 2 displays, but to the human eye it will not be noticable.
If you know the aspect ratio of the screens (ratio of screen width to
height), then we can calculate this more accurately. If you know the
physical height of the display, then you can skip to the last step here:
aspect ratio = screen width / screen height.
This should give an aspect ratio greater than 1.
physical display height = square root of ( (diagonal * diagonal) / aspect
ratio )
number of pixels per inch = vertical screen resolution / physical display
height
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:06:42 -0800 (PST), Chris
<chris95008@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I currently have a 19" at 1280x1024 and wanted to find out if the text
>would appear smaller since the resolution is higher or if the
>increased size would make up the difference? The 22" is 1680x1050.
>
>Thanks,
>Chris
Text size is determined by the pixel or dot pitch which is
lower on 22" but not much, so text appears slightly smaller
on 22" widescreen. The difference is less than with some
other monitor size changes, it shouldn't be hard to get used
to the difference unless you have particular vision problems
(and you could always move the monitor a couple inches
closer to you).
"GT" <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:478ddef3$0$1235$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> "Chris" <chris95008@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d4b4f17d-4ac8-4ce2-b5a6-d2ceb6f09c19@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>I currently have a 19" at 1280x1024 and wanted to find out if the text
>> would appear smaller since the resolution is higher or if the
>> increased size would make up the difference? The 22" is 1680x1050.
>
> You are talking about moving from a standard format 19" to a widescreen
> 22". The vertical pixel height is the value to examine. On the 19" screen
> (asuming 4:3 aspect ratio), the physically height of the display is 16.45"
> and fits 1024 pixels into that size, so each inch has 62.23 pixels. The
> 22" screen (asuming 16:9 aspect ratio) the physically height of the
> display is 16.5" and fits 1050 pixels into that size, so each inch has
> 63.64 pixels. With my assumed aspect ratios, there will be a tiny
> difference in text height on those 2 displays, but to the human eye it
> will not be noticable.
I used the wrong figures here - I got the height of the screens wrong (used
width by mistake)! The correct screen sizes are:
19" screen - 12.4" high (aspect 4:3)
22" screen - 13.2" high (aspect 16:9)
This means pixels per inch:
19" screen - 82 pixels per inch (1024 verticle pixels)
22" screen - 77.5 pixels per inch (1050 verticle pixels)
This then means that text height per inch:
19" screen - font size 10 - 8.2 lines of text per inch
22" screen - font size 10 - 7.7 lines of text per inch - larger text, but
not a big difference
However, you didn't say what type of screens we are talking about, because
the above is based on a 19" LCD. If you are comparing with a 19" CRT, then
the vertical height is more likely to be around 10.7", which means 95 pixels
per inch and 9.5 lines of text per inch, so a 22" LCD replacing a 19" CRT
(using the stated resolutions) would result in larger text.
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:19:33 -0000, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I used the wrong figures here - I got the height of the screens wrong (used
>width by mistake)! The correct screen sizes are:
>19" screen - 12.4" high (aspect 4:3)
>22" screen - 13.2" high (aspect 16:9)
>
>This means pixels per inch:
>19" screen - 82 pixels per inch (1024 verticle pixels)
>22" screen - 77.5 pixels per inch (1050 verticle pixels)
>
>This then means that text height per inch:
>19" screen - font size 10 - 8.2 lines of text per inch
>22" screen - font size 10 - 7.7 lines of text per inch - larger text, but
>not a big difference
>
>However, you didn't say what type of screens we are talking about, because
>the above is based on a 19" LCD. If you are comparing with a 19" CRT, then
>the vertical height is more likely to be around 10.7", which means 95 pixels
>per inch and 9.5 lines of text per inch, so a 22" LCD replacing a 19" CRT
>(using the stated resolutions) would result in larger text.
>
Your calculations are off, a typical 22" widescreen is not
actually 16:9 (1.77:1) ratio, it is 1680 / 1050 = 1.6 ratio
or 8:5
Also, just because a 22" monitor is advertised as 22", that
doesn't necessarily mean it actually is. Sometimes it's
really >= 21.5" rounded up to 22". Come to think of it, I
think this is true with most 22" monitors when they have the
same pixel pitch.
Manufacturers do spec dot pitch as smaller for a 22" than a
19" meaning slightly smaller text.
The pixel pitch of a 5:4 19" is typically 0.294mm
On a 22" it's typically 0.282mm
Taking 0.282 cm pitch * 1050 pixels vertical / 2.54 cm per
inch we end up with a 22" vertical size of 11.7". This must
not be entirely accurate either as I just measured my
1680x1050 22" (actual size 21.6") and it is spec'd by
manufacturer (and actually measures with a ruler) 11.4"
vertical viewable area size.
That makes the 19" monitors' text about 9% larger.
There are some other size options closer to 19" pixel pitch
but some of these are odd resolutions, and others are much
more expensive than a typical TN paneled 22".
A 28" with 1920x1200 would have even larger text but the
price jump is significant, and pixels that large tend to
look blocky unless the monitor is scooted further away to
the point where it might as well have been a smaller monitor
sitting closer to the user for the purposes of text size
(though of course it still has higher resolution so more
on-screen). http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824254026
The roughly 26" size group would also be a reasonable
alternative except the prices are still quite high relative
to the screen size.
IMO, if someone is looking for a budget priced LCD then 22"
is the best value at present. If the only goal were very
large text because of a sight impairment then it might also
be worth looking at LCD TVs.
"Chris" wrote:
>I currently have a 19" at 1280x1024 and wanted to find out if the text
> would appear smaller since the resolution is higher or if the
> increased size would make up the difference? The 22" is 1680x1050.
>
You can always increase the size of screen fonts in Display Properties.
Chris wrote:
>
> I currently have a 19" at 1280x1024 and wanted to find out if the
> text would appear smaller since the resolution is higher or if the
> increased size would make up the difference? The 22" is 1680x1050.
The vertical resolution is almost the same (1050 versus 1024) so
all you have to do is measure the height (not the diagonal) of the
two systems. That will compare text sizes.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:ud0so3lokvqpmmginn9lsird5vvp14k8mk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:19:33 -0000, "GT"
> <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I used the wrong figures here - I got the height of the screens wrong
>>(used
>>width by mistake)! The correct screen sizes are:
>>19" screen - 12.4" high (aspect 4:3)
>>22" screen - 13.2" high (aspect 16:9)
>>
>>This means pixels per inch:
>>19" screen - 82 pixels per inch (1024 verticle pixels)
>>22" screen - 77.5 pixels per inch (1050 verticle pixels)
>>
>>This then means that text height per inch:
>>19" screen - font size 10 - 8.2 lines of text per inch
>>22" screen - font size 10 - 7.7 lines of text per inch - larger text, but
>>not a big difference
>>
>>However, you didn't say what type of screens we are talking about, because
>>the above is based on a 19" LCD. If you are comparing with a 19" CRT, then
>>the vertical height is more likely to be around 10.7", which means 95
>>pixels
>>per inch and 9.5 lines of text per inch, so a 22" LCD replacing a 19" CRT
>>(using the stated resolutions) would result in larger text.
>>
>
> Your calculations are off, a typical 22" widescreen is not
> actually 16:9 (1.77:1) ratio, it is 1680 / 1050 = 1.6 ratio
> or 8:5
Fair enough - I did guess at the aspect ratio!
> Also, just because a 22" monitor is advertised as 22", that
> doesn't necessarily mean it actually is. Sometimes it's
> really >= 21.5" rounded up to 22". Come to think of it, I
> think this is true with most 22" monitors when they have the
> same pixel pitch.
>
> Manufacturers do spec dot pitch as smaller for a 22" than a
> 19" meaning slightly smaller text.
>
> The pixel pitch of a 5:4 19" is typically 0.294mm
> On a 22" it's typically 0.282mm
>
> Taking 0.282 cm pitch * 1050 pixels vertical / 2.54 cm per
> inch we end up with a 22" vertical size of 11.7". This must
> not be entirely accurate either as I just measured my
> 1680x1050 22" (actual size 21.6") and it is spec'd by
> manufacturer (and actually measures with a ruler) 11.4"
> vertical viewable area size.
>
> That makes the 19" monitors' text about 9% larger.
You are assuming the same thing as I did at first - that his 19" monitor is
TFT, not CRT. If it is CRT, visible diagonal will be just over 17", making
the text smaller than a 22" widescreen!
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:04:04 -0000, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> That makes the 19" monitors' text about 9% larger.
>
>You are assuming the same thing as I did at first - that his 19" monitor is
>TFT, not CRT. If it is CRT, visible diagonal will be just over 17", making
>the text smaller than a 22" widescreen!
>
True, I suppose when 1280 x 1024 was mentioned I had assumed
it was an LCD since that resolution on a CRT would distort
the aspect of things viewed on screen, since CRT would be
4:3 instead of 5:4.
In the case of CRT, the text could be even a bit smaller on
an LCD (especially if it uses a matte anti-reflective screen
instead of glossy) than on a CRT and still be more readable
mere due to that aspect of per-pixel discrimination being so
much better on an LCD.
> However, you didn't say what type of screens we are talking about, because
> the above is based on a 19" LCD. If you are comparing with a 19" CRT, then
> the vertical height is more likely to be around 10.7", which means 95 pixels
> per inch and 9.5 lines of text per inch, so a 22" LCD replacing a 19" CRT
> (using the stated resolutions) would result in larger text.
I'm looking at Dells E228WFP. I'm going to buy one of there computers
and its an extra $100 for the 22". Or I could get the ultrasharp 19"
again for $195 so figure the 22" I could increase the dpi to either
120% or 150% and should increase the font size plus give me extra
space on the screen for extra browser windows.
Somewhere on teh intarweb "CBFalconer" typed:
> Chris wrote:
>>
>> I currently have a 19" at 1280x1024 and wanted to find out if the
>> text would appear smaller since the resolution is higher or if the
>> increased size would make up the difference? The 22" is 1680x1050.
>
> The vertical resolution is almost the same (1050 versus 1024) so
> all you have to do is measure the height (not the diagonal) of the
> two systems. That will compare text sizes.
Yes, I've come to the same conclusion in the past when looking at monitors.
However, that only works if you have the monitor in front of you. I'm yet to
find a website that gives those dimensions. (Maybe I haven't looked hard
enough?)
<rant>
I'm bloody sick of the trend towards widescreen monitors! What? Don't people
have TVs and DVD players? I can understand the logic behind a widescreen on
a laptop as it fits the form-factor quite well (the keyboard can be closer
to 'normal' size and layout). However, for a desktop monitor why the hell do
the manufacturers think I want to move my head from side-to-side when
reading text? IMO 4:3 or 5:4 is far superior to widescreen for *all*
computer uses except maybe viewing DVDs or (most likely illegally
downloaded) Divx/xvids.
I have a 19" 5:4 monitor and was considering upgrading a while back.
However, as the marketers/manufacturers have decided to concentrate on
widescreens the tradition aspect monitors are really quite expensive. To
upgrade from a 19" I'd want 22" minimum, preferably 24". (Not much point in
spending lots of food stamps on something only *marginally* better.)
However, not only are they hard to source (I'm in NZ) but, when found they
are really silly prices! Frell it pisses me off!
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:26:37 +1300, "~misfit~"
<misfit61nz@yahoot.com.au> wrote:
>I have a 19" 5:4 monitor and was considering upgrading a while back.
>However, as the marketers/manufacturers have decided to concentrate on
>widescreens the tradition aspect monitors are really quite expensive. To
>upgrade from a 19" I'd want 22" minimum, preferably 24". (Not much point in
>spending lots of food stamps on something only *marginally* better.)
>However, not only are they hard to source (I'm in NZ) but, when found they
>are really silly prices! Frell it pisses me off!
Widescreen is unfortunately taking the market, though in
your case it's probably just a few months wait until prices
are in parody with the lower cost market(s).
Just recently in the US 24" dipped below $300, but they will
sell well and be pushed into other markets.
> Also, just because a 22" monitor is advertised as 22", that
> doesn't necessarily mean it actually is. Sometimes it's
> really >= 21.5" rounded up to 22". Come to think of it, I
> think this is true with most 22" monitors when they have the
> same pixel pitch.
Here's what my screens measured:
19" CRT monitor actual size: 18"
22" LCD monitor actual size: 22"
19" LCD monitor actual size: 19"
17" CRT TV actual size: 19" <<< Too bad it's going to die in a
year. :(
Snookums wrote:
> kony wrote:
>
>> Also, just because a 22" monitor is advertised as 22", that
>> doesn't necessarily mean it actually is. Sometimes it's
>> really >= 21.5" rounded up to 22". Come to think of it, I
>> think this is true with most 22" monitors when they have the
>> same pixel pitch.
>
> Here's what my screens measured:
> 19" CRT monitor actual size: 18"
> 22" LCD monitor actual size: 22"
> 19" LCD monitor actual size: 19"
In general you can expect CRTs to be about 1" smaller than
advertised, because the outer edges of the tube have been covered.
LCDs can be expected to be accurately measured.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
Somewhere on teh intarweb "kony" typed:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:26:37 +1300, "~misfit~"
> <misfit61nz@yahoot.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>> I have a 19" 5:4 monitor and was considering upgrading a while back.
>> However, as the marketers/manufacturers have decided to concentrate
>> on widescreens the tradition aspect monitors are really quite
>> expensive. To upgrade from a 19" I'd want 22" minimum, preferably
>> 24". (Not much point in spending lots of food stamps on something
>> only *marginally* better.) However, not only are they hard to source
>> (I'm in NZ) but, when found they are really silly prices! Frell it
>> pisses me off!
>
>
> Widescreen is unfortunately taking the market, though in
> your case it's probably just a few months wait until prices
> are in parody with the lower cost market(s).
>
> Just recently in the US 24" dipped below $300, but they will
> sell well and be pushed into other markets.
Oh well, I'll hang onto my 19" 5:4 as long as I can. Hopefully some monitor
manufacturers will see the light by then and be making (and moving) some 5:4
monitors again. I mean, widescreen just eats deskspace IMO without any real
advantage outside watching movies. Sure, you can have windows open
side-by-side but I'm only ever working in one at a time anyway...
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:50:39 +1300, "~misfit~"
<misfit61nz@yahoot.com.au> wrote:
>> Widescreen is unfortunately taking the market, though in
>> your case it's probably just a few months wait until prices
>> are in parody with the lower cost market(s).
>>
>> Just recently in the US 24" dipped below $300, but they will
>> sell well and be pushed into other markets.
>
>Oh well, I'll hang onto my 19" 5:4 as long as I can. Hopefully some monitor
>manufacturers will see the light by then and be making (and moving) some 5:4
>monitors again. I mean, widescreen just eats deskspace IMO without any real
>advantage outside watching movies. Sure, you can have windows open
>side-by-side but I'm only ever working in one at a time anyway...
One problem I see with every increasing sizes in 5:4 or 4:3
monitors is that the cheaper TN panels sell in highest
volume but when a monitor gets very tall the viewing angle
starts to mess with the contrast and color, making the top
and bottom of a same colored page start looking like a
gradient from white to greyish-blue.
Somewhere on teh intarweb "kony" typed:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:50:39 +1300, "~misfit~"
> <misfit61nz@yahoot.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>> Widescreen is unfortunately taking the market, though in
>>> your case it's probably just a few months wait until prices
>>> are in parody with the lower cost market(s).
>>>
>>> Just recently in the US 24" dipped below $300, but they will
>>> sell well and be pushed into other markets.
>>
>> Oh well, I'll hang onto my 19" 5:4 as long as I can. Hopefully some
>> monitor manufacturers will see the light by then and be making (and
>> moving) some 5:4 monitors again. I mean, widescreen just eats
>> deskspace IMO without any real advantage outside watching movies.
>> Sure, you can have windows open side-by-side but I'm only ever
>> working in one at a time anyway...
>
> One problem I see with every increasing sizes in 5:4 or 4:3
> monitors is that the cheaper TN panels sell in highest
> volume but when a monitor gets very tall the viewing angle
> starts to mess with the contrast and color, making the top
> and bottom of a same colored page start looking like a
> gradient from white to greyish-blue.
You have a point. However, it would have to be a big monitor, or very close
to the eyes for that to be a big worry. (I've just moved up and down looking
at my cheap, locally-branded 19" TFT-LCD which I'm pretty sure is TN.)
I've recently changed from a TN LCD Television to a Samsung PVA panel. I'm
an invalid and have to spend some of my day lying down, that's when I watch
whatever I've recorded or otherwise want to watch. With my old (20" Philips)
TN panel on the top of the stand in my room it had to be tilted forwards
considerably and it was still noticably 'grey' even though I was only ~15°
off center. (I can't afford a wall-mount and am in a rental property anyway.
I couldn't tilt it forward anymore without it wanting to fall forward) The
Samsung (32" PVA widescreen) has an excellent vertical viewing angle. I
don't have it tilted so am around 40° off center it doesn't change from
viewing it head-on.
I guess I'll just have to stick with this monitor and hope it hangs in for a
few more years. LOL, I have to pay the TV off (that I "bought" myself for
Xmas. Thank God for good credit) anyway. <g>
Strange that the Philips 20" TV (800x600) and this locally-branded budget
19" monitor (1280x1024) were bought around the same time and the monitor has
a considerably better vertical viewing angle. Even stranger when you
consider that the TV cost 2.5x what the monitor cost. NZ$1,250 compared with
NZ$499 and they're similar sized panels. Less than 2 years later and I got a
far better specced Samsung 32" (1,360x768) TV for NZ$1,100. The second-hand
Philips is worth maybe $300 if I'm lucky. Talk about depreciation. Makes me
wonder what'll be available in another couple years.
Text Size on 22" 1680x1050 
Linear Mode
