4 ms·

Ask HN: How many people would buy a 1:1 monitor?

I'm looking for a new monitor and noticed that all midrange monitors are now 16:9 with a vertical resolution of only 1080p. Why are we losing vertical resolution when most people use their computers to browse the web? Honestly if I could buy a 1600x1600 monitor I would love it.

wwortiz 16y ago
Buy one and rotate it sideways (all modern OSs have support for this and plenty of monitors rotate freely).
- jaysonelliot 16y ago
  I remember what a breakthrough it was when Radius came out with a CRT that could be pivoted to display in portrait mode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh5175Q4Vgo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh5175Q4Vgo We had one in the computer lab at my school, I would work late in the evening just to get some time on the Radius monitor.
- zmmz 16y ago
  The problem with rotating displays is that LCD pixels tend to be taller than wider ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pixel_geometry_01_Pengo.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pixel_geometry_01_Pengo.jp... ), hence if you rotate a display it degrades the image quality. Cleartype especially starts looking horrible.
bengarvey 16y ago
I think it's because it's easier to move your head side to side than up and down.
bherms 16y ago
You can still buy 4:3 monitors. I have a 27" center monitor with a 19" monitor on each side. I love it. Unfortunately, though, 1600x1200 monitors are pretty pricey for the size.
- arn 16y ago
  What 27" 4:3 do you have? I looked for large format 4:3's a while back with little success.
  - bherms 16y ago
    Sorry, my 27" is 16x9 and the 19" on the side are 4:3. Didn't make that clear in the post. Just saying it's a good way to go :)
pwg 16y ago
Because 1080 vertical lines equals a HDTV 1080p image size, and economies of scale mean that 1080 pixel tall display panels are less expensive than their cousins (because they double as televisions). And because they are less expensive, every monitor maker has decided that "1080p should be enough for everyone".
arn 16y ago
I don't need 1:1, but I'd love some large format 4:3 sizes. I have a 30" 16:10 Apple Cinema display as my main monitor and a rotated 4:3 20" HP LCD on my right. While I like the 30" monitor, I'll admit the sides of the screen go to waste. But I love the height, and I like being able to compartmentalize onto the second monitor. In my mind, a great setup would be two 4:3 equivalents of the 30" display side by side. So instead of 2560 x 1600, it would be 2133x1600. Same height, less width. And I like having two because of the organization issue.
michaelelliot 16y ago
Our eyes are positioned next to each other on the horizontal plane. This is why a screen ratio with a larger width rather than height makes sense.
- colanderman 16y ago
  Except it's well-known that humans read more quickly if lines of text are kept short (around 6" or so). The height of a page doesn't significantly affect reading speed (ignoring scrolling). So it makes more sense, for reading, to have a narrow, tall monitor. (This is why LaTeX defaults to wide margins BTW, and I'm pretty sure this is why Kindles etc. are portrait-oriented.)
  - nailer 16y ago
    Even on a narrow monitor, all websites since suck.com use snake text these days, so the width of your text columns is likely to be unaffected. The only exception left seems to email software created by Unix folk who prefer all text to be forced to 80 characters wide monospace. Using a narrow monitor will only lessen the amount you scroll.
  - maushu 16y ago
    Monitors are not only used for reading, for watching movies and playing games 16:9 is better than 4:3.

wwortiz 16y ago

Buy one and rotate it sideways (all modern OSs have support for this and plenty of monitors rotate freely).

jaysonelliot 16y ago
I remember what a breakthrough it was when Radius came out with a CRT that could be pivoted to display in portrait mode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh5175Q4Vgo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh5175Q4Vgo We had one in the computer lab at my school, I would work late in the evening just to get some time on the Radius monitor.
zmmz 16y ago
The problem with rotating displays is that LCD pixels tend to be taller than wider ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pixel_geometry_01_Pengo.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pixel_geometry_01_Pengo.jp... ), hence if you rotate a display it degrades the image quality. Cleartype especially starts looking horrible.

bengarvey 16y ago

I think it's because it's easier to move your head side to side than up and down.

bherms 16y ago

You can still buy 4:3 monitors. I have a 27" center monitor with a 19" monitor on each side. I love it. Unfortunately, though, 1600x1200 monitors are pretty pricey for the size.

arn 16y ago
What 27" 4:3 do you have? I looked for large format 4:3's a while back with little success.
- bherms 16y ago
  Sorry, my 27" is 16x9 and the 19" on the side are 4:3. Didn't make that clear in the post. Just saying it's a good way to go :)

pwg 16y ago

Because 1080 vertical lines equals a HDTV 1080p image size, and economies of scale mean that 1080 pixel tall display panels are less expensive than their cousins (because they double as televisions). And because they are less expensive, every monitor maker has decided that "1080p should be enough for everyone".

arn 16y ago

I don't need 1:1, but I'd love some large format 4:3 sizes. I have a 30" 16:10 Apple Cinema display as my main monitor and a rotated 4:3 20" HP LCD on my right. While I like the 30" monitor, I'll admit the sides of the screen go to waste. But I love the height, and I like being able to compartmentalize onto the second monitor. In my mind, a great setup would be two 4:3 equivalents of the 30" display side by side. So instead of 2560 x 1600, it would be 2133x1600. Same height, less width. And I like having two because of the organization issue.

michaelelliot 16y ago

Our eyes are positioned next to each other on the horizontal plane. This is why a screen ratio with a larger width rather than height makes sense.

colanderman 16y ago
Except it's well-known that humans read more quickly if lines of text are kept short (around 6" or so). The height of a page doesn't significantly affect reading speed (ignoring scrolling). So it makes more sense, for reading, to have a narrow, tall monitor. (This is why LaTeX defaults to wide margins BTW, and I'm pretty sure this is why Kindles etc. are portrait-oriented.)
- nailer 16y ago
  Even on a narrow monitor, all websites since suck.com use snake text these days, so the width of your text columns is likely to be unaffected. The only exception left seems to email software created by Unix folk who prefer all text to be forced to 80 characters wide monospace. Using a narrow monitor will only lessen the amount you scroll.
- maushu 16y ago
  Monitors are not only used for reading, for watching movies and playing games 16:9 is better than 4:3.