The monitor is regular and widescreen. How to choose a good monitor? Screen resolution and aspect ratio

In the previous post we already talked about this briefly, but I think this issue is worth covering in more detail...

So, there are two common monitor formats today: 4:3 (or 5:4) - i.e. classic, and 16:10 - widescreen. Let's see what these formats are intended for.

P.S. Although, as I already said, you should choose a monitor based on your preferences (so that YOU would be comfortable), but the COMFORT criteria differ based on the tasks in which the monitor and the computer as a whole are used... Let's continue about the formats:

4:3 (5:4) - classic monitor aspect ratio, example:

Traditional screen format, suitable for ordinary (or rather ordinary) computer work (office tasks, Internet surfing, mail, etc.). Not suitable for watching movies, because... Often all films are in widescreen format, and the picture is displayed on the monitor as a narrow stripe in the middle.

Also not suitable for computer games, because In dynamic games, coverage in width is mainly valued rather than in height - hence the inconvenience.

Also not entirely convenient for serious computer work. Working with several programs at the same time, editing audio and video, working with several documents, etc.

16:10 (16:9 – modern standard)- widescreen format.

Wide-format monitors today are steadily pushing the classic 5:4 ratio out of the market, for many reasons...

Firstly: a wide-format monitor is very well suited for watching movies, working with photos and videos, as well as with 3D graphics, and is good for computer games - the viewing width is sufficient. It's also just great when you need a lot of desk space.

Often, width space is more important than height space. IN widescreen monitor there is just significantly more space in width.

And secondly, such a monitor also adds convenience to simple office work and browsing the Internet. The reasons are, again, a sufficient amount of space in width: useful when working with several documents (you can, for example, hold two on the screen at the same time open windows) is a big advantage, especially considering that even a simple office work often involves MULTITASKING, and therefore parallel work with several documents or files.

But a particular user needs to CAREFULLY choose the format of the monitor he purchases.

To do this, you need to determine the tasks that are set for the computer, as well as personal preferences - the space occupied on the table (dimensions, picture quality, etc.) plus you MUST take into account the technical parameters of the device (and this is a separate and very voluminous question), therefore , specialist help is needed.

Personally, at first I worked on a monitor with a classic aspect ratio, I got used to this ratio, but then I decided to buy a widescreen one.

At first it was unusual (the monitor seemed somehow “wrong”), but then, after working for 3-4 days and getting used to the new one, I appreciated all the advantages of a wide screen - the convenience of work and entertainment.

Recently I was faced with the problem of choosing a new monitor due to the breakdown of the old 19” Benq T905, which served me faithfully for more than 5 years. I abandoned the 16:9 format almost immediately, and the task of choosing a monitor with a 16:10 aspect ratio turned out to be non-trivial, since they almost disappeared from store shelves. Advertising articles and commercials beautifully and fabulously describe the advantages of monitors of the new 16:9 format, but not all of their advantages are justified; I will say more - the 16:9 computer display format was created not for the convenience of the consumer, but for the greater benefit of the manufacturer, as well as sellers.

Let’s look at the mythical “advantages” of 16:9 format displays point by point:

1. First of all, store sellers defend the 16:9 aspect ratio format by saying that on such a monitor HD movies are displayed without black bars.

In fact, they don’t say that only series in 16:9 format are displayed without stripes (the resolution of such video is 1920x1080). Films in the literal sense of the word that are shown in cinemas are shot in 47:20 format (HD resolution 1920*816, without black bars), therefore, due to the incompatibility of screen and video formats, all cinema films will be displayed on 16 monitors: 9 with stripes.

Thus, the statement about the absence of stripes is either incompetence of the seller or deliberate misleading of the buyer.

2. Sellers emphasize that on a 16:9 format monitor with a resolution of 1920x1080 HD video is supposedly displayed “point to point,” while on a 16:10 monitor with a resolution of 1680x1050 (“not native” to HD), the picture will lose in quality.

This statement is true only for TV series in 16:9 format with a resolution of 1920x1080 (and then with reservations). In a 47:20 movie, you will be stretching (zooming in) in any case until the horizontal stripes disappear. It turns out that after enlarging the video, the point no longer matches the point, and accordingly, it no longer matters at what aspect ratio (16:10 or 16:9) or resolution to play HD video in 47:20 format.

You can also add that when watching a movie, an adequate person will not look through a magnifying glass at how the points are distributed across the monitor matrix, unless this is a test or experiment. For example, I have a 32” TV in 16x9 format with a resolution of 1366x768, I compared HD movies on it and on a FULL HD TV. Point blank - of course there is a difference, BUT!!! Normal people watch movies on big screen from the appropriate distance, and I dare to assure you that from a distance of 2-3 meters you will no longer see the difference, no matter what the resolution of the screen matrix is ​​(1920x1080 or 1366x768).

Thus, the statement about the advantage of the same matrix and video format is greatly exaggerated.

3. To the remark that on monitors even 24" (not to mention 23" and smaller) the dot is too small - sellers say that the smaller the pixel size, the better.

A 19” monitor with a resolution of 1280x1024 has a pixel size of 0.294 mm. In terms of the physical size of objects on the screen, and for working with text, this is the most acceptable size. For a 22" monitor with a resolution of 1680x1050, the pixel size is slightly smaller - 0.282 mm. For 16:9 monitors, the pixel sizes are as follows:

20" – 1600x900, aspect ratio 16:9, point 0.277 mm,
21.5" – 1920x1080, aspect ratio 16x9, point 0.248 mm,
23" – 1920x1080, aspect ratio 16:9, point 0.265 mm,
24" – 1920x1080, aspect ratio 16:9, point 0.277 mm,

Thus, on a monitor with a dot size of 0.282 or less, it becomes problematic to layout websites and read texts, but if you plan to play and watch movies, then this is not very important. Moreover, changing the resolution to a lower one further aggravates the situation, since the text becomes blurry due to the “non-native” resolution.

It should also be noted that manufacturers cut 100 16x9 matrices from a standard sheet, but if you cut other formats, the number of finished matrices turns out to be 90 or less.

Therefore, the only justifiable advantage of 16:9 monitors is their low cost. There are no other advantages. Further, as the aspect ratio increases, the diagonal increases, and the useful area of ​​the panel decreases (mathematics for 2nd grade). A large diagonal is a marketing ploy, because with a larger diagonal, the buyer receives a smaller monitor screen area.

4. And the last, philistine statement that the 16:9 format is simply convenient and that’s all.

The main thing in choosing a monitor is what you need it for. Sellers say it’s more convenient to watch movies and play games. I agree about games, but the phrase “watching a movie”... causes irony. After all, the most convenient way to watch a movie is not on a monitor (whatever format it may be), but on a TV, preferably from 40”.

I wish you a good choice, I settled on a model with LED backlight– 22” LG W2286L led. This is a monitor with an aspect ratio of 16:10 and a resolution of 1680x1050 pixels.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 5

✪ Best monitor what I saw. HUGE 4K monitor Philips BDM4037UW review.

✪ UltraWide Video plugin – installation and configuration. Removing black bars along the edges of the screen in YouTube. 2H

✪ How to deal with interlacing (horizontal stripes, comb effect) in video

✪ Remove black bars around the edges of YouTube in 21x9 monitors

✪ LG 29UM69G - gaming monitor review

Subtitles

Hello everyone, today we will look at the largest, most sophisticated monitor that I have ever seen in my life. forty inch 4K (four ka) ice (LED) from Philips (Philips) but you know what I was thinking about? What is the secret of other tech bloggers? why are they viewed so well? maybe it's because of their hype scandals? or maybe just because assistants are throwing packages into the frame? let's try? guys, drop it! *screams* aaaaaaaaaaa Or is that not the point? Doesn't matter! Let's take a look at this very monitor! Let's start with the classic unboxing. this is really the biggest crap... Well, okay, ONE OF the biggest crap that ever came to our studio! forty inch 4K (four ka) monitor. You can actually hide behind the box. coo coo Bear! (speaks to the operator). *Music* Well, the coolest moment of unpacking is, of course, the monitor itself! *surprised* Looks awesome in white. Yes? Package Contents *crunch of package* VGA cable 3.5 to 3.5 (adapter) Thunderbolt Power cable and disk. Probably with the drivers or what? maybe there is 4K (four ka) content? Motion users manual. No, this is a user manual on disk. 2018th year. Without further ado, let's do a cool cut to the music, shall we? Let's demonstrate what the monitor is capable of. after which I will tell you about it in even more detail. Let's go! The monitor is called PHILIPS BDM4037UW acronymic name panel size 101.6 cm that is 40 inches aspect ratio 16:9 resolution 3840 x 2160 at 60 Hz that is pixel density 110 PPI response time 4 ms brightness 300 candelas per square meter viewing angle 178 degrees supported by MHL 1080 P at 60 Hz on the back side there are analog VGA connectors 2 DisplayPorts 1 HDMI standard 1.4 with MHL support and 1 HDMI 2.0 also with MHL support USB 3.0 4 pieces 1 of which supports fast charging the weight of the entire structure with the stand is 11.6 kg. The monitor is attached to the stand very simply and can turn 5-10 degrees only vertically, which is quite enough for work. Still, a monitor is a fairly static device and, as my personal practice with other monitors has shown, the function of torsion along all axes is not really needed. I won’t lie, and the entire StupidMadWorld team was very impressed with the monitor. he's really cool. in life it looks even more epic than the camera conveys. We've never seen anything cooler. The purpose of the matrix curvature is not entirely clear. but apparently there is some sacred meaning in this. There are small highlights on the matrix. if you turn it on cleanly black image. but this is a feature of all LED panels. I’ll say this about pixels: they are not visible at all! If you look closely, you can probably see them. But at a very close distance. After this monitor, I see all the dots on Full HD monitors and each monitor seems tiny to me. but this is more of a nitpick. What else did I notice while using this monitor, besides the fact that you quickly get used to a good thing: firstly, not every computer can handle smooth rendering of the interface at this resolution. for example, as an experiment, we connected my old laptop to it. If it runs a FullHD monitor without problems, then 4K noticeably loads it and even the mouse pointer is drawn jerkily. For a 4K monitor you need good stationary hardware, even for work, I’m not even talking about games. secondly, Windows and a 4K monitor are a pain. If you set the interface scale to 100%, then all the elements will become small, and if you set it to 300%, then they will be large, but a little grainy, and some are simply cloudy. many applications are simply not optimized for this resolution and Windows does not have any built-in tools to correct this. thirdly, the monitor has sound. built-in speakers with one emitter of 5 watts each. They sound mediocre, but the monitor is not required to produce 5-channel sound. Emitters are needed here only for those who do not yet have external speakers. So that before buying good acoustics, you do not watch silent movies, but have at least some kind of sound source. The built-in speakers sound very loud, but very dry. Well, the last thing I noticed is that the monitor may not be just a tool image output, but also an item of luxury and special pride of the owner. Imagine how crazy your guests will be when they see such a miracle in your house. Even I, a seasoned geek, am still impressed by its size and picture quality. what is it for, you ask? Naturally for installation. This unit is perfect for anyone who does graphics or works with small tables. Playing games on such a huge matrix is ​​also cool; watching movies and videos turns into a whole trip to other worlds. It seems to me that even if you run it like a skinny dog ​​pooping alone in the desert, it will be interesting to watch it because the picture is juice! What are the disadvantages of the monitor? Probably none for its price. At the start of sales, when 4k monitors were just starting to appear on the market, similar solution could have cost 2 or 3 thousand dollars Now, with the development and widespread introduction of 4K in all areas from video to games, the technology has begun to become cheaper. and for 700-750 bucks you can quite find it in your city this monitor in new condition. Well, the most offensive thing. 2 months ago I bought my wife a monitor for the same price only with FullHD+ resolution. Technologies are becoming closer and more accessible. This makes me happy. It will take a couple more years and 8K monitors will enter the market, and we will look at 4K as an atavism. Now good time in order to change your full HD screen to an excellent and affordable 4K. Believe me, it's worth it. What can I say in the end? Naturally, based on my first impressions, I liked this monitor so much, but oh well, why should I be the only one? My whole team just got together. She sat down on the sofa. I put on an 8K video and we looked at some views of Patagonia, at how colored birds eat colored flowers and it was so amazing. we looked at every pixel and it was really awesome. The pixels are not visible here, this is a very high quality, very cool monitor. If we talk about the cost, then 700 dollars is, in principle, not that expensive for a 4K monitor of a similar size, of similar design and of similar quality. I’ll make a reservation right away - I’m not a professional in 4K monitors, this is the first and only 4K monitor that I’ve seen live for so long, and based on first impressions, this monitor didn’t just surprise me. I'm FUCKED by how high-quality the image can be in general. The era of FullHD is slowly fading into the background. 4K video, 4K content. Games, movies. Everything is now in 4K and it's great. Because it's progressive. Fine. And this is a new word in content. If you can afford to take a 4K monitor, please take it. I'm not saying this is the best monique. But of all the ones I've ever seen, this is definitely a monitor worth considering. For example, it occurred to us to take regular smartphone and a 4K monitor. and show what can be done from a combination of these two devices. For example, do some game console It’s possible to somehow connect this whole thing in a cunning way. What can be done from a combination of these two gadgets? If you are interested, please like this video. The more likes you get, the faster I will understand that this topic is more interesting to you. And the faster we will make a similar video. Be sure to subscribe to the channel. Join all our social networks. Instagram, telegram, VKontakte. There is very interesting movement there now too. Unique content, which is not on the channel. Thank you all for your attention. Bye everyone!

Most common ratios

If for cinematic systems the screen aspect ratio is technical parameter, taking into account the size of the frame window and the anamorphic ratio, then for television systems and computer monitors this same value is directly tied to the standard of decomposition and resolution in pixels at a certain aspect ratio. However, in most cases the pixel is considered square. The vast majority of video content uses a horizontal frame, so the first number indicating the horizontal size is always larger than the second. The exception is mobile video with a vertical frame of 16:9, which has become widespread thanks to the Snapchat application. This is the only case where a large number indicates the vertical side of the frame.

1:1

Until recently, the square frame was used only in photography. The advantage of this aspect ratio was the ability to design equipment that did not require rotation to select a vertical or horizontal frame layout. The most well-known square frame formats are medium format 6x6 centimeters and small format type-126 with a frame of 28x28 millimeters. Much more widely known is the square format of 7.9 × 7.9 centimeters of integrated kits for instant photography of the Polaroid “SX-70” and type-600 series. It is believed that the features of these technologies and the frame format became the basis for the square images of the social network Instagram. In cinema, a square frame of 18.67x18.67 millimeters was used for film copies of the Superscope system, which, when projected, gave a widescreen image. Currently, the square frame has become widespread in mobile video. Played a big role in this social network Instagram with square photo format.

1,25:1 (5:4)

Early models of computer monitors with a resolution of 1280x1024 pixels had this aspect ratio. In everyday practice, they are often attributed a 4:3 ratio, which is not entirely true. In the 2010s, they are gradually being replaced by 16:10 and 16:9 widescreen monitors.

1,33:1 (4:3)

1,375:1

1.66:1; 1.85:1 (Flat)

1,78:1 (16:9)

2:1

One of the standards for cassette films and the image format of the contact film copy “Vista-Vision” with a frame size of 18x36 mm (according to other sources, the film copy frame had a ratio of 1.96:1). The Superscope film system was based on a square frame of film print, which was projected onto a screen with double anamorphicity, giving an image with 2:1 aspect ratio. The same aspect ratio is considered standard for modern widescreen film formats “Univizium” and “Maxivision” (English: Univisium, Maxivision) with a shortened frame pitch and without an analog optical soundtrack.

2,2:1

The aspect ratio of most wide-format cinema systems based on the use of wide 70 mm film and spherical optics. The first of these systems was the American “Todd-AO”, on the basis of which the Soviet wide-format cinema system NIKFI (Sovscope70) with the same aspect ratio of 2.2:1 was developed. Currently, it exists only as a format of film copies printed from a negative shot in the Super-35 format or, less commonly, in one of the anamorphic formats.

2,3:1 (21:9)

Screen format of LED TVs produced by some manufacturers. For the first time such a 56-inch diagonal screen was created by Philips in 2009. This aspect ratio in the best possible way Suitable for watching movies shot using CinemaScope or its modern versions with a frame of 2.39:1. However, such screens have not become widespread due to difficulties in coordinating with existing digital content. High-definition video of the 1920x1080 standard is displayed on such screens with a black mess on the top, bottom and sides in Windowbox mode. Fitting a widescreen frame onto a screen without black margins is only possible through interpolation with loss of clarity. The screen format, contrary to expectations, was not included in the options of the new Blu-Ray Ultra HD standards, which sharply reduced the demand for monitors of this format. As a result, most manufacturers household appliances refused to release them, and Philips was the first to do so in 2012.

2,35:1

2,55:1

Aspect ratios of early anamorphic formats, including Cinemascope and Cinemascope-55. This screen aspect ratio existed until 1954, when a standard optical one was added to the four-channel magnetic phonogram, which occupied part of the film copy space allocated to the image. Currently not in use.

2,6:1

To increase the horizontal field of view and enhance the perception of the film, the film company Cinerama (eng. Cinerama) invented and commercially introduced a panoramic system of three-film filming and film projection on special, highly curved huge screens up to 30 m wide with a frame width-to-height ratio of 2.6 :1. The Cinerama system provided a high-quality method for recording and playing back seven-channel surround sound from a separate 35mm synchronized magnetic phonogram. With this system, the sound followed the image on the screen through playback by different speakers located around the audience.

The first film shot using the Cinerama system - documentary-video (English travelogue) “This Is Cinerama” (English “This Is Cinerama”) was first shown to the public in 1952 in a specially built and equipped cinema. The success of the film was so great that it did not leave the screens for two years. Despite the complexity and cumbersomeness of the Cinerama system, 7 more films were created, including three feature films: “How the West Was Won” and “The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm” (Eng. "The Wonderful World Of Brothers Grimm") (both in the city) and “Sailboat: The Voyage of Christian Radick” (eng. "Windjammer: The Voyage of Christian Radich"- filming using the “Cinemiracle” system, rental in halls and using the “Cinerama” system. The Soviet Kinopanorama system was developed based on and taking into account the errors of Cinerama. The image has the same aspect ratio of 2.6:1.

2,75:1 (11:4)

In 1959, Panavision acquired the film production department of MGM studios. In the same year, the Super Panavision 70 system appeared, which was practically a copy of Todd-AO, but used much more compact cameras.

Other aspect ratios

There are movie attractions with a different screen aspect ratio (for example, a circular panorama with a 360° view). All this is designed to immerse the viewer in the atmosphere of the film and enhance the viewing experience.

See also

Notes

Sources

1. , With. 36.
2. The Rich Man"s Poor Man"s Version of CinemaScope(English) . The American WideScreen Museum. Retrieved August 3, 2012. Archived September 7, 2012.
3. Sergey Asmakov. Wide format: pros and cons (Russian). Reviews. Computer Press (July 2009). Retrieved March 16, 2015.

When we talk about 4:3 and 16:9 screen formats, we mean the proportions or the ratio between the horizontal and vertical sides of the screen rectangle. Standard TV previously had a screen with an aspect ratio of 4:3. This means for every four units in width there are three units in height. Standard HDTVs use a 16:9 aspect ratio screen, so there are 9 units of height for every 16 units of width. Therefore, an HDTV with a 16:9 aspect ratio is wider horizontally than a regular TV, whose screen appears almost square.

Here's the problem: any projector or TV has its own screen format, usually 4:3 or 16:9. On the other hand, films, videos and other content are produced with a different image frame format. Traditional television programs and videos are now most often made in the 4:3 format, which is also referred to as “1.33:1”. 4 divided by 3 equals 1.33. Likewise, content created for HDTV in 16:9 format is designated 1.78:1 (16 divided by 9 = 1.78).

However, video materials are not produced only in these two formats. For movies, music, videos and other content on optical disks ratios such as 1.33, 1.78, 1.85, 2.00, 2.35, 2.4, 2.5 and so on are used. HD content from Blu-ray discs is usually presented in 1.78:1 or in super widescreen formats 2.35 and 2.4. Thus, there is no universal standard for the aspect ratio of an image. Therefore, it is worth understanding: no matter what format your projector is 4:3 or 16:9, it will NOT accommodate all video materials that you want to watch in a natural frame format. It turns out that it doesn't exist perfect solution when choosing the optimal aspect ratio for your home theater system?

The most popular choice for home theater Now there is a projector and screen with support for 16:9. But some viewers still remain adherents of the classic 4:3 format, since all the classic films before 1953 were made in this format. There is also a lot of interest in systems in the special 2.35:1 super-wide aspect ratio. Each of these three configurations has certain unique advantages, as well as certain disadvantages that should be considered before making your final choice.

4:3 aspect ratio: advantages and disadvantages

Advantages: If you want to watch primarily classic films, TV series, or specials like those shown in IMAX theaters, the 4:3 aspect ratio in in this case most convenient compared to 16:9. Using vertical electronic masking, you can easily cover the top and bottom of the screen when someone wants to watch 16:9 or 2.35:1 content, and open the screen to its full vertical height for viewing 4:3 content.

Flaws: Most, if not all, high-end home theater projectors sold today support the native 16:9 aspect ratio. It's hard to find a 4:3 aspect ratio projector that can compete with 16:9 projectors in image quality in a home theater system. And since most 4:3 projectors support resolutions of 800x600, 1024x768, 1400x1050, this means that all video footage must be scaled to match the natural resolution of the projector.

16:9 aspect ratio: advantages and disadvantages

Advantages: For HDTV, widescreen DVDs, and Blu-ray movies, a 16:9 aspect ratio projector is the logical choice. All materials supporting HDTV broadcasting in 16:9 format will be displayed in full glory, without black bars at the top and bottom of the screen image. A lot of materials today are made in the 16:9 format, and there is a tendency to transfer frames and television programs to this format. There are many 16:9 projectors on store shelves, and many of them are designed specifically for high-end home theater systems.

Flaws: While the 16:9 screen looks great, the 4:3 content it displays is concentrated in the center and can be quite small, sandwiched on the sides by wide black screens. vertical stripes. More expensive projectors may use a video processing system to cover the entire surface of the screen in whatever format is being displayed. The image is artificially transformed. If you don't want the hassle of such electronic masking at extra cost, then you have to put up with black bars on the screen in all formats except 16:9. Fortunately, modern home theater projectors have significantly reduced black levels compared to past models, making those black bars less noticeable in a dark room and reducing the need for electronic masking.

2.40:1 aspect ratio: advantages and disadvantages

Advantages: But there are films wider than 16:9. Today, many of the most popular films on DVD and Blu-ray Disc are made in the 2.35 or 2.40:1 aspect ratio rather than 1.78:1. If many of your favorite pictures are made with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1, then good choice there will be a 2.35:1 system with a constant image height. The traditional method of projecting 2.35:1 films involves using an additional x1.33 anamorphic lens with a 16:9 projector to stretch the image to 2.35:1 (1.78 times 1.33 = 2.35). To view 16:9 and 4:3 materials, you must remove the anamorphic lens from the lens. On the other hand, a good budget option might be to buy a projector with a 1.3:1 zoom lens and a 2.35:1 screen, and then use the zoom system to switch between 16:9 and 2.35:1 projections. A controlled zoom lens with a memory system allows you to automate this process. Whichever method you choose, this system will allow you to enjoy widescreen cinema.

Flaws: The option with a separate lens is expensive. Additionally, to switch between 2.35 movie formats and 16:9 or 4:3 footage, you must use manual or automatic system anamorphic lens controls. This is most easily done with a motorized system, but this option can seriously increase the cost of the system. Cheap anamorphic lenses can degrade image quality somewhat. Can also be used electronic systems conversion to eliminate dark bands on the screen when viewing 16:9 or 4:3 materials, which again increases the cost of the system. The zoom lens option doesn't add any extra expense, but it does require careful mounting of the projector and reduces screen illumination by about 25%. With some projectors this may result in a slightly dim or blurry image.

After choosing the frame format of your future cinema, the next step is to choose the resolution of the projector.

), or more precisely, about the characteristics that you should pay attention to when purchasing it. A properly selected monitor will save your eyesight and effectively perform the tasks for which it was selected.

The most important characteristics should be considered: the type and resolution of the matrix used; uniformity of illumination; contrast, brightness, screen size and aspect ratio, as well as the availability and types of connection ports. Today we’ll talk about monitor resolutions, their sizes and aspect ratios.

Resolution and pixel sizes

Resolution is the number of points or elements bitmap per certain unit of area. More high resolution(there are more elements per unit area) should theoretically provide a more accurate and detailed picture.

The resolution of LCD monitors, unlike their CRT counterparts, is fixed. Each of the T.F.T. LCD displays displays best in only one resolution. This resolution is called physical. It corresponds to the actual number of pixels on the LCD panel. Therefore, from the very beginning, you should choose an LCD monitor with the resolution in which you are most comfortable working.

The operator's habit and vision play a big role here. For example, when working with a 17-inch cathode ray tube monitor with a resolution of 1024x768, the 1600x1200 resolution typical of 19- and 20-inch screens will almost certainly cause complaints, since image details will become smaller. Fortunately, in most modern operating systems You can change the size of system fonts and make working with the physical resolution of the monitor comfortable.

Besides, important characteristic will be the pixel size. A small pixel size can be useful when working with graphics, as it makes it more comfortable to operate at resolutions other than the physical one. Interpolation flaws are less noticeable and image aliasing is less noticeable. On the other side, large size pixel can be useful when manipulating texts and working in system windows, since fonts are reproduced more legibly.

To simplify the selection criteria, I recommend that those who buy a monitor focused on graphics (photography, prepress, films, games) purchase devices with a pixel size of no more than 0.27 mm. This will ensure high-quality display of raster and vector images. In any case, I would advise before purchasing a monitor to see how the applications you use most often look on it. Isn't it small?

Aspect Ratio

Now let's look at aspect ratios. The most typical monitors sold today have ratios of 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9.

Monitors with 4:3 aspect ratio

At the time of writing this article this format is the most common among monitors that users already have. However, practically no new monitors are produced with this aspect ratio, which goes back to classic CRT displays. Such almost square monitors were, at one time, a technical compromise, since cathode ray tubes did not allow the creation of more horizontally elongated formats.

This aspect ratio of the monitor does not do very well convenient viewing modern films, which are usually shot in a wide 21.5:9 format. As a result, when playing on a 4:3 monitor, the screen is not fully used - black bars appear in the upper and lower parts, “eating up” a significant part of the screen. It is clear that in this case the image becomes smaller.

Modern games are also optimized for other aspect ratios. Visibility is degraded when using 4:3 displays. The field of vision of a normal human eye also does not correspond to these proportions. Therefore, I can only recommend purchasing such a display to those who use it to work in office programs. In them this format is quite adequate.

Monitors with 16:9 aspect ratio

This aspect ratio is optimized for watching HD movies. This allows you to view video recordings, expanding almost the entire screen to the movie picture, and not the black bars. This is convenient, because films can be viewed almost in full screen. When watching modern films shot with an aspect ratio of 21.5:9, small dark bands remain, but the image looks much larger than on 4:3 monitors.

In addition to films, such monitors are perfect for working in various editors with a large number tools in side panels. This may be useful not only for Photoshop, Lightroom, etc., but also for office packages latest issues, which are optimized for new monitor aspect ratios. Although, for serious work, such screen proportions are not the most convenient - there is often a lot of unoccupied space left.

Monitors with an aspect ratio of 16:10

Intermediate format. It's not as wide as 16:9 displays, but it has plenty of room on the sides for various sidebars and support tools. Most professional monitors for working with computer graphics, printing and photographs are produced in exactly this aspect ratio.

Interfaces of many software solutions For professional processing two-dimensional and 3D graphics optimized by developers specifically for this format. In addition, the 16:10 aspect ratio provides comfortable sizes visible image for games and text editors.

Movies on this monitor do not look as good as on 16:9 displays, but much better than on 4:3. If you rarely watch movies on your computer, this aspect ratio is probably the best choice.