"most" monitiors are 16x10? I don't get it. I was talking about the pixel array which of course could be different than the screen aspect ratio ( at least on a crt it can). jco
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 7:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame 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 >> >> >>
