Teach me why Widescreens are better: having issues

[a_gunslinger]

Greetings forum! After reviewing the sentiment of this forum, I am wondering if my dislike of widescreens is due to my not knowing how to properly set them up. I am one of the few that actually prefer non-widescreens.

I have never liked WS because photos, desktop wallpapers, and games seem to stretch wide. My wife complains that everyone in family photos looks short and squat because they are stretched laterally to some degree - that nothing is true to form. Same with documents and thier fonts. So maybe I just need some education and guidance. Just maybe, I dont have it setup correctly.

This all came to a head when I just purchased a Dell XPS 720 with Vista Ultimate on it, with a higher end Nvidia 8800 GT 512 MB vid card. I paired that with a Samsung 226BW 22". I have the monitor set to max resolution (an odd 1600x1050) and the video card at the same. Updated drivers for both the monitor and the video card. HOWEVER, the screen resolution appears nowhere near what I expected. The icons are largish (despite smallest setting I could find in Vista). It appears like how my old XPpro system with high vid card would show 1024x768. At this high res on my old system I would have a large destop with tiny icons, small taskbar, nice tight resolution. I still have good vision so this is preferred :)

So here are my specs. Help make my resolution small and tight:

Vista Ultimate (32) (set at screeb dpi 96 - lowest) (resolution 1600x1050)
Nvidia 8800 GT 512 MB (resolution 1600x1050)
Samsung 226BW 22" (looked in monitor setting but nothing other than appearance settings).

It almost seems like a Vista issue, because I suspect when I get the dual boot to XP setup, the drive runnign XP will run at the high tight small resolution I am expecting thru this card and monitor.

Thoughts? Condolnces? Humorous antecdotes? :shrug:

[KillrBuckeye]

I assume you are running at 1680x1050 (not 1600x1050). I think there are two key points here. First, almost all widescreen computer monitors have a 16:10 aspect ratio, so as long as you run at the monitor's native resolution, your images should NOT appear "stretched wide". The only way images and games will seem "stretched" on a widescreen monitor is if you're running a resolution with a 4:3 (1600x1200, 1024x768) or 5:4 (1280x1024) aspect ratio. In that case, the monitor stretches the image to fill the entire monitor, and it will interpolate resulting in a blurry image. You need to make sure you set all of your games to run at your monitor's native resolution. Otherwise, most games will default to 1280x1024 or something close to that, and the image will be stretched. (Note: Some games don't support widescreen aspect ratios, and although sometimes there are workarounds, you may be out of luck in certain cases.) Likewise, with your Windows background wallpaper, you need to find a picture with a 1680x1050 resolution in order to avoid stretching. If you choose to use a picture with a 4:3, 5:4, or 3:2 aspect ratio, then you have the option to either stretch the image to fill the screen, or you can center the picture (this will not fill the screen).

The second key point is that LCD monitors have a fixed pixel size, so if you think the icons, fonts, taskbar, etc. on your 22" monitor look "largish" when you're running its native 1680x1050 resolution, then you're pretty much out of luck. It is a simple matter of pixel size. Consider that I have a 20" widescreen monitor running the same resolution as your 22" monitor. My pixels are much smaller and closer together than yours, so my image is going to appear crisper and "tighter" than yours. On the other hand, some people have bad eyes and prefer everything to be larger, which is the reason that manufacturers started making larger LCD panels running the same resolution as the smaller panels. This was once common with 17" and 19" 5:4 LCD monitors: both monitor sizes used 1280x1024 resolution, but everything was bigger and blockier on the 19" screens. It's a matter of personal preference. My wife couldn't stand how grainy the 19" 5:4 LCDs looked, so I got her a 20" 4:3 LCD running a 1600x1200 resolution. Everything looked much smaller and crisper.

I hope this helps answer some of your questions, although the information is probably pretty disappointing to you.

[a_gunslinger]

I assume you are running at 1680x1050 (not 1600x1050). ..., so I got her a 20" 4:3 LCD running a 1600x1200 resolution. Everything looked much smaller and crisper. I hope this helps answer some of your questions, although the information is probably pretty disappointing to you.

I think that is probably the case. My old monitor was a 20" (Samsung 204B), more than at 4:3, this the nice "small" GUI elements. Also explains why the family photos are always smashed - not likely 1680x1050 original resolution!

Thanks for the thorough response and explanation - that helps alot. While I am dissapointed, I now get it more. What I need is a 24" non widescreen 4:3 ratio - somethign they either dont make or that is $1000+

PS - you an Ohio Buckeye fan? Im from Cincinnati. :cool:

[Kendan]

Thanks for the thorough response and explanation - that helps alot. While I am dissapointed, I now get it more. What I need is a 24" non widescreen 4:3 ratio - somethign they either dont make or that is $1000+



What the hell are you talking about? Just find out what the native resolution is for the monitor then set your computer to display that resolution. That is it.

[a_gunslinger]

What the hell are you talking about? Just find out what the native resolution is for the monitor then set your computer to display that resolution. That is it.

Nice to meet you too.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It is at native resolution (1680x1050), just still on the large side.

[Shiggity]

I think that is probably the case. My old monitor was a 20" (Samsung 204B), more than at 4:3, this the nice "small" GUI elements. Also explains why the family photos are always smashed - not likely 1680x1050 original resolution!

Thanks for the thorough response and explanation - that helps alot. While I am dissapointed, I now get it more. What I need is a 24" non widescreen 4:3 ratio - somethign they either dont make or that is $1000+

PS - you an Ohio Buckeye fan? Im from Cincinnati. :cool:

Hey cool I got the 204B :)

Believe it or not, this is one of the biggest 4:3 monitors I could find. I'll keep looking.

The only resolution I'm seeing over 1600x1200 (4:3) is 1920x1200 which is widescreen. I don't even think they make monitors that are 4:3 bigger than 22", and if you find one it will most likely be outrageously expensive.

[a_gunslinger]

Hey cool I got the 204B :)

Believe it or not, this is one of the biggest 4:3 monitors I could find. I'll keep looking.

Let me know what you find. Seems like I saw a 22 but it was like $1400 :confused:

[billb]

4x3, 16x9, 16x10...none is "best". It depends on what you are viewing.

Hold an 8-1/2" x 11" sheet of paper up to any aspect ratio 19" monitor. It only fits on a 4x3.
The internets are still 4x3 too.
So basically, if your working in text based mediums, 4x3 (at least 19") is "best"
gaming...16x9/16x10.
Personally, I find dual 19" 4x3 monitors overall the most useful.

[pejsaboy]

Hope a small threadjack isn't minded here, but it's sort of on topic:
taking the example of the 20" and 22" ws, both run native at 1680x1050. Buckeye commented that desktop icons will look 'tighter' due to the smaller pixels on the 20" as opposed to the 22". Does that extend beyond icons into full-screen images like games?

I'm [hopefully] going to be upgrading to a ws pretty soon but am having a tough time deciding between the 20" and 22". On one hand, the 22" is bigger which can be good. On the other hand, if the 20" looks 'crisper' or 'tighter' overall that might be better for my liking. If it's just the desktop and icons, I'll take the bigger one :)

[Neuromancer]

I know what you mean about the "stretching"

But actually its the exact opposite. 4:3 at super high resolutions squishes the icons on the desktop into a vertical rectangle rather then the square they are supposed to be.

If you spend time on the widescreen you will actually find yourself going to a CRT monitor and scaling down to 1280x960 to get the correct shape back.

The other thing to consider is...

Do all photographs look stretched? or just when you make them your wall paper? the latter I can see. you will need to make a seperate folder and crop photographs/wallpapers to a 16:10 AR to get them looking right. If you are a digital photographer then most likely your pictures are natively MUCH larger then your desktop resolution anyway and windows is scaling it down to be viewable on your screen... a good photoeditting software will let you trim the top and bottom to get back to 16:10 vice 4:3 :) but just looking at pictures in windows picture viewer for instance the images should not be distorted at all, I had a problem recently where I told my video card to display 1680x1050 and it decided to display something much lower and I did get that stretched look as my monitor stretched itto fill the screen... maybe uninstall and reinstall drivers as a last resort (if you already have the WS monitor)

[Kendan]

I know what you mean about the "stretching"

But actually its the exact opposite. 4:3 at super high resolutions squishes the icons on the desktop into a vertical rectangle rather then the square they are supposed to be.

If you spend time on the widescreen you will actually find yourself going to a CRT monitor and scaling down to 1280x960 to get the correct shape back.

The other thing to consider is...

Do all photographs look stretched? or just when you make them your wall paper? the latter I can see. you will need to make a seperate folder and crop photographs/wallpapers to a 16:10 AR to get them looking right. If you are a digital photographer then most likely your pictures are natively MUCH larger then your desktop resolution anyway and windows is scaling it down to be viewable on your screen... a good photoeditting software will let you trim the top and bottom to get back to 16:10 vice 4:3 :) but just looking at pictures in windows picture viewer for instance the images should not be distorted at all, I had a problem recently where I told my video card to display 1680x1050 and it decided to display something much lower and I did get that stretched look as my monitor stretched itto fill the screen... maybe uninstall and reinstall drivers as a last resort (if you already have the WS monitor)


Thats what I was thinking. His pictures should not look stretched unless he has the wrong resolution for his monitor.

The wallpaper issue is simple just get one the right size for his resolution.

[billb]

taking the example of the 20" and 22" ws, both run native at 1680x1050. Buckeye commented that desktop icons will look 'tighter' due to the smaller pixels on the 20" as opposed to the 22". Does that extend beyond icons into full-screen images like games?Whatever resolution you set, there will be that many pixels displayed horizontally and vertically on your monitor:
No matter what it's size is
No matter what it's aspect ratio is
No matter what it's native resolution is
No matter what program it's running.

And if you set a resolution different than the native resolution (native resolution is how many pixels there actually are in your monitor) there will have to be some "guessing" on how to interpret the number of pixels you have set the monitor to display to match how many it actually has. You can see an example of this with any graphics program. Create a checkerboard that is 6 x 3 pixels (actual pixels, not a 6 x 3 ratio!), then resize it to 9 x 5 pixels...ugly huh!