fix'tGR34 wrote:
LG Flatron W226WT I have it and love it
Just looking for any way to disagree with someone..Freezer7Pro wrote:
No, the size of a monitor is measured diagonally. From corner to corner. A 24" 16:10 thus has less height than a 4:3 24".
No, he was referring to screen space, not physical height. That doesn't really matter.
4:3 = 1600x1200
8:5 = 1920x1200
As per the original post, the vertical height (1200 pixels) is the same where you get 320 more horizontal pixels in a 8:5 panel.
fix't x2JoshP wrote:
fix'tGR34 wrote:
LG Flatron W2252TQ I have it and love it
fix't again, Put a 3 instead of a 4Runs_with_sciss0rs wrote:
fix't x2JoshP wrote:
fix'tGR34 wrote:
LG Flatron W2241T I have it and love it
why do they call it 16:10 on monitors when its really 8:5?
Last edited by GR34 (2009-01-17 18:47:36)
Samsung Pebble 20"
MAH (LG) MONITOR SPECS > YOUR MONITOR SPECS FGTS
2ms response 5000:1 contrast
LG 226WT is teh win
2ms response 5000:1 contrast
LG 226WT is teh win
Mine has 10000:1 contrast ratioJoshP wrote:
MAH (LG) MONITOR SPECS > YOUR MONITOR SPECS FGTS
2ms response 5000:1 contrast
LG 226WT is teh win
liesRuns_with_sciss0rs wrote:
Mine has 10000:1 contrast ratioJoshP wrote:
MAH (LG) MONITOR SPECS > YOUR MONITOR SPECS FGTS
2ms response 5000:1 contrast
LG 226WT is teh win
pics or it didn't happen
dammitRuns_with_sciss0rs wrote:
http://www.lge.com/products/model/detail/w2252tq.jhtml
lolol
1up: Samsung 2443 = Contrast Ratio : DC 20000:1(1000:1) (Typ.)JoshP wrote:
dammitRuns_with_sciss0rs wrote:
http://www.lge.com/products/model/detail/w2252tq.jhtml
(Contrast Ratio 10000:1 DFC (Original 700:1))
lolol
As long as it's all arbitrary, why the hell not.
i recently got a BENQ E2200HD 22" full HD widescreen, it was a pretty good buy got it for $296 AUD which is ~134 pounds amirite?
its a pretty good monitor for the price 10000:1 contrast ratio (is reading of the box) 5ms response time has speakers, but there shit and HDMI input
its a pretty good monitor for the price 10000:1 contrast ratio (is reading of the box) 5ms response time has speakers, but there shit and HDMI input
WTF 1920*1200 this is 16:10 not 8:5 should know i own a 24" with that resolutionDefiance wrote:
Just looking for any way to disagree with someone..Freezer7Pro wrote:
No, the size of a monitor is measured diagonally. From corner to corner. A 24" 16:10 thus has less height than a 4:3 24".
No, he was referring to screen space, not physical height. That doesn't really matter.
4:3 = 1600x1200
8:5 = 1920x1200
As per the original post, the vertical height (1200 pixels) is the same where you get 320 more horizontal pixels in a 8:5 panel.
16:10 = 8:5woodrot wrote:
WTF 1920*1200 this is 16:10 not 8:5 should know i own a 24" with that resolutionDefiance wrote:
Just looking for any way to disagree with someone..Freezer7Pro wrote:
No, the size of a monitor is measured diagonally. From corner to corner. A 24" 16:10 thus has less height than a 4:3 24".
No, he was referring to screen space, not physical height. That doesn't really matter.
4:3 = 1600x1200
8:5 = 1920x1200
As per the original post, the vertical height (1200 pixels) is the same where you get 320 more horizontal pixels in a 8:5 panel.
There are entirely equivalent ratios. DUH!
16:10 is typically used only because it is close to 16:9 which cannot be simplified in the same way.
16.10 dammn it im sitting here looking at itBertster7 wrote:
16:10 = 8:5woodrot wrote:
WTF 1920*1200 this is 16:10 not 8:5 should know i own a 24" with that resolutionDefiance wrote:
Just looking for any way to disagree with someone..
No, he was referring to screen space, not physical height. That doesn't really matter.
4:3 = 1600x1200
8:5 = 1920x1200
As per the original post, the vertical height (1200 pixels) is the same where you get 320 more horizontal pixels in a 8:5 panel.
There are entirely equivalent ratios. DUH!
16:10 is typically used only because it is close to 16:9 which cannot be simplified in the same way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10 <------------ see common resolutions
Last edited by woodrot (2009-01-18 02:56:14)
Do you know what a ratio is?woodrot wrote:
16.10 dammn it im sitting here looking at itBertster7 wrote:
16:10 = 8:5woodrot wrote:
WTF 1920*1200 this is 16:10 not 8:5 should know i own a 24" with that resolution
There are entirely equivalent ratios. DUH!
16:10 is typically used only because it is close to 16:9 which cannot be simplified in the same way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10 <------------ see common resolutions
You fail at maths.
4:8 = 2:4 = 1:2woodrot wrote:
16.10 dammn it im sitting here looking at itBertster7 wrote:
16:10 = 8:5woodrot wrote:
WTF 1920*1200 this is 16:10 not 8:5 should know i own a 24" with that resolution
There are entirely equivalent ratios. DUH!
16:10 is typically used only because it is close to 16:9 which cannot be simplified in the same way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10 <------------ see common resolutions
and
16:10 = 32:20 = 64:40 = 8:5
All depends on the monitor. Especially large CRTs can go way beyond 1600x1200. DUs 21" can do 1800something x1440.Defiance wrote:
Just looking for any way to disagree with someone..Freezer7Pro wrote:
No, the size of a monitor is measured diagonally. From corner to corner. A 24" 16:10 thus has less height than a 4:3 24".
No, he was referring to screen space, not physical height. That doesn't really matter.
4:3 = 1600x1200
8:5 = 1920x1200
As per the original post, the vertical height (1200 pixels) is the same where you get 320 more horizontal pixels in a 8:5 panel.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
woodrot wrote:
16.10 dammn it im sitting here looking at itBertster7 wrote:
16:10 = 8:5woodrot wrote:
WTF 1920*1200 this is 16:10 not 8:5 should know i own a 24" with that resolution
There are entirely equivalent ratios. DUH!
16:10 is typically used only because it is close to 16:9 which cannot be simplified in the same way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10 <------------ see common resolutions
You're stupid. Learn maths.