No, that's typical for a 20" widescreen LCD. Most monitors are 16x10
rather than 16x9.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Isnt that an odd aspect ratio? neither the traditional 4x3
or the newer 16x9. Whats the deal on that?
JCO
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:43 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
I run my 20-inch Apple Cinema Display (trendy flat panel:-) at 1680 x
1050. It's superb for image editing and is beautifully in synch with my
printer.
Paul
On Nov 12, 2005, at 4:02 PM, William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
FWIW, One thing I did just upgrade regarding image editing and PCing
in general is my monitor. I switched to a 19" super trinitron CRT
running at 1200x1600 and the difference is huge compared to my old
monitor. I would never go back to 960x1280 and that's about all you
can get on the trendy "flat panel" LCD displays at this point.
I'm not ready to give up on CRT monitors yet either. My brother in law
has a really nice 21" screen, I'm not sure who makes it, that I am a
little envious of.
Right now I have a 19" Samsung Syncmaster which has been quite good,
but my video card wont support a big enough screen at a refresh rate I
can live with.
I can see a Matrox video card in my future.
William Robb
