| Author |
Message |
Niko
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Sep 15, 2005 12:10 am Post subject:
Wide Format 16x10 Aspect Ratio Monitor versus Standard 4x3 |
|
|
I'm processing monitor info for my next purchase. I see the Dell 2005FPW
and it's wide format, but never used one like this. In a 20" size, are
there any opinions as to this format's acceptability (or lack thereof..)
as compared to the standard 4x3 format? Thanks for your thoughts
Nick Chirikos
Housewright Design-Build Ltd.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:10 pm Post subject:
Re: Wide Format 16x10 Aspect Ratio Monitor versus Standard 4 |
|
|
I've been thinking about this issue as well. I think for CAD the
issue is the type of things you draw. I used to work for a company
that made the mobile conveyors that airlines used to load luggage into
an airplane. These vehicles were significantly longer than they were
wide or tall. In this instance the wide format would be very useful.
Now, the company I work for makes theatrical sets, which are
generally more square in their aspect ratio. So, wide format would
not be a benefit.
Finally, the aspect ratio of paper sized 11x17, 17x22, 22x34, etc is
very close to the 4x3 aspect ratio when used in landscape
orientation... so I think that is a major factor for everyone.
Joe Dunfee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clintonG
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:10 pm Post subject:
Re: Wide Format 16x10 Aspect Ratio Monitor versus Standard 4 |
|
|
Briefly, the aspect ratio is only an adverse issue when using the new LCD or
Plasma devices to display broadcast signals; i.e. TV otherwise it is an
advantage and simply a matter of learning to adapt.
--
<%= Clinton Gallagher
METROmilwaukee (sm) "A Regional Information Service"
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://metromilwaukee.com/
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
<cadcoke3@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126801411.460083.206710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | I've been thinking about this issue as well. I think for CAD the
issue is the type of things you draw. I used to work for a company
that made the mobile conveyors that airlines used to load luggage into
an airplane. These vehicles were significantly longer than they were
wide or tall. In this instance the wide format would be very useful.
Now, the company I work for makes theatrical sets, which are
generally more square in their aspect ratio. So, wide format would
not be a benefit.
Finally, the aspect ratio of paper sized 11x17, 17x22, 22x34, etc is
very close to the 4x3 aspect ratio when used in landscape
orientation... so I think that is a major factor for everyone.
Joe Dunfee
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:10 pm Post subject:
Re: Wide Format 16x10 Aspect Ratio Monitor versus Standard 4 |
|
|
I had another thought. When looking at wide-format LCD's vs. the
4x3, for the comparable horizontal resolutions (and prices), the wide
format versions just OMIT pixels vertically. So, in choosing a 4x3 you
get more total pixels to use. So, there is no advantage to looking for
wide format in this way of looking at things.
Joe Dunfee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Niko
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:10 am Post subject:
Re: Wide Format 16x10 Aspect Ratio Monitor versus Standard 4 |
|
|
cadcoke3@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | I've been thinking about this issue as well. I think for CAD the
issue is the type of things you draw. I used to work for a company
that made the mobile conveyors that airlines used to load luggage into
an airplane. These vehicles were significantly longer than they were
wide or tall. In this instance the wide format would be very useful.
Now, the company I work for makes theatrical sets, which are
generally more square in their aspect ratio. So, wide format would
not be a benefit.
Finally, the aspect ratio of paper sized 11x17, 17x22, 22x34, etc is
very close to the 4x3 aspect ratio when used in landscape
orientation... so I think that is a major factor for everyone.
Joe Dunfee
I like your observation comparing paper sizes to the screen size. They |
relate directly to each other, so I did the math, dividing the height by
the width for both screens and four paper sizes
Screens:
Size Ratio
10 : 16 .6250
3 : 4 .7500
Paper:
11 x 17 .6471
18 x 24 .7500
24 x 36 .6667
36 x 48 .7500
Then divided the screen ratios by the paper ratios, and arranged the
results by proportion.
..7500/.7500 1.000 (18x24 or 36x48 on 4:3)
..6250/.6471 .9659 (11x17 on 16:10)
..6250/.6667 .9375 (24x36 on 16:10)
..7500/.6667 1.125 (24x36 on 4:3)
..7500/.6471 1.159 (11x17 on 4:3)
..6250/.7500 .8334 (18x24 or 36x48 on 16:10)
I do mostly 2D architectural on 24x36 and 11x17, so it looks like the
wide aspect would be fine for me (if my math is correct...)
Nick C
.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael (LS)
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:19 am Post subject:
Re: Wide Format 16x10 Aspect Ratio Monitor versus Standard 4 |
|
|
"Niko" <nickc@sbcworld.com> wrote in message
news:2IkWe.760$nF3.370@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
| Quote: | cadcoke3@yahoo.com wrote:
I've been thinking about this issue as well. I think for CAD the
issue is the type of things you draw. I used to work for a company
that made the mobile conveyors that airlines used to load luggage into
an airplane. These vehicles were significantly longer than they were
wide or tall. In this instance the wide format would be very useful.
Now, the company I work for makes theatrical sets, which are
generally more square in their aspect ratio. So, wide format would
not be a benefit.
Finally, the aspect ratio of paper sized 11x17, 17x22, 22x34, etc is
very close to the 4x3 aspect ratio when used in landscape
orientation... so I think that is a major factor for everyone.
Joe Dunfee
I like your observation comparing paper sizes to the screen size. They
relate directly to each other, so I did the math, dividing the height by
the width for both screens and four paper sizes
Screens:
Size Ratio
10 : 16 .6250
3 : 4 .7500
Paper:
11 x 17 .6471
18 x 24 .7500
24 x 36 .6667
36 x 48 .7500
Then divided the screen ratios by the paper ratios, and arranged the
results by proportion.
.7500/.7500 1.000 (18x24 or 36x48 on 4:3)
.6250/.6471 .9659 (11x17 on 16:10)
.6250/.6667 .9375 (24x36 on 16:10)
.7500/.6667 1.125 (24x36 on 4:3)
.7500/.6471 1.159 (11x17 on 4:3)
.6250/.7500 .8334 (18x24 or 36x48 on 16:10)
I do mostly 2D architectural on 24x36 and 11x17, so it looks like the
wide aspect would be fine for me (if my math is correct...)
Nick C
|
Not to throw a kink in your calculations but you should consider "drawing
area" as opposed to monitor area. With Title bar, drop down menu, toolbar
buttons, etc. your actual usable area is not only less, but quite possibly a
different aspect ratio (most people probably have more "stuff" along the top
than on the side.
That said, regardless of the screen aspect, you can adjust AutoCad's
toolbar, palettes, etc. to give you an appropriate usable area.
HTH,
Michael (LS) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
veg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:10 am Post subject:
Re: Wide Format 16x10 Aspect Ratio Monitor versus Standard 4 |
|
|
"Michael (LS)" <NoSpam@MyEmail.com> wrote in message
news:wYpWe.73767$3S5.28750@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
| Quote: |
"Niko" <nickc@sbcworld.com> wrote in message
news:2IkWe.760$nF3.370@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
cadcoke3@yahoo.com wrote:
I've been thinking about this issue as well. I think for CAD the
issue is the type of things you draw. I used to work for a company
that made the mobile conveyors that airlines used to load luggage into
an airplane. These vehicles were significantly longer than they were
wide or tall. In this instance the wide format would be very useful.
Now, the company I work for makes theatrical sets, which are
generally more square in their aspect ratio. So, wide format would
not be a benefit.
Finally, the aspect ratio of paper sized 11x17, 17x22, 22x34, etc is
very close to the 4x3 aspect ratio when used in landscape
orientation... so I think that is a major factor for everyone.
Joe Dunfee
I like your observation comparing paper sizes to the screen size. They
relate directly to each other, so I did the math, dividing the height by
the width for both screens and four paper sizes
Screens:
Size Ratio
10 : 16 .6250
3 : 4 .7500
Paper:
11 x 17 .6471
18 x 24 .7500
24 x 36 .6667
36 x 48 .7500
Then divided the screen ratios by the paper ratios, and arranged the
results by proportion.
.7500/.7500 1.000 (18x24 or 36x48 on 4:3)
.6250/.6471 .9659 (11x17 on 16:10)
.6250/.6667 .9375 (24x36 on 16:10)
.7500/.6667 1.125 (24x36 on 4:3)
.7500/.6471 1.159 (11x17 on 4:3)
.6250/.7500 .8334 (18x24 or 36x48 on 16:10)
I do mostly 2D architectural on 24x36 and 11x17, so it looks like the
wide aspect would be fine for me (if my math is correct...)
Nick C
Not to throw a kink in your calculations but you should consider "drawing
area" as opposed to monitor area. With Title bar, drop down menu, toolbar
buttons, etc. your actual usable area is not only less, but quite possibly
a
different aspect ratio (most people probably have more "stuff" along the
top
than on the side.
That said, regardless of the screen aspect, you can adjust AutoCad's
toolbar, palettes, etc. to give you an appropriate usable area.
HTH,
Michael (LS)
and dont forget as with the dell 24" wuxga screen you can turn it 90 degrees |
to a portrate ratio |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Niko
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:10 pm Post subject:
Re: Wide Format 16x10 Aspect Ratio Monitor versus Standard 4 |
|
|
veg wrote:
| Quote: | "Michael (LS)" <NoSpam@MyEmail.com> wrote in message
news:wYpWe.73767$3S5.28750@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"Niko" <nickc@sbcworld.com> wrote in message
news:2IkWe.760$nF3.370@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
cadcoke3@yahoo.com wrote:
I've been thinking about this issue as well. I think for CAD the
issue is the type of things you draw. I used to work for a company
that made the mobile conveyors that airlines used to load luggage into
an airplane. These vehicles were significantly longer than they were
wide or tall. In this instance the wide format would be very useful.
Now, the company I work for makes theatrical sets, which are
generally more square in their aspect ratio. So, wide format would
not be a benefit.
Finally, the aspect ratio of paper sized 11x17, 17x22, 22x34, etc is
very close to the 4x3 aspect ratio when used in landscape
orientation... so I think that is a major factor for everyone.
Joe Dunfee
I like your observation comparing paper sizes to the screen size. They
relate directly to each other, so I did the math, dividing the height by
the width for both screens and four paper sizes
Screens:
Size Ratio
10 : 16 .6250
3 : 4 .7500
Paper:
11 x 17 .6471
18 x 24 .7500
24 x 36 .6667
36 x 48 .7500
Then divided the screen ratios by the paper ratios, and arranged the
results by proportion.
.7500/.7500 1.000 (18x24 or 36x48 on 4:3)
.6250/.6471 .9659 (11x17 on 16:10)
.6250/.6667 .9375 (24x36 on 16:10)
.7500/.6667 1.125 (24x36 on 4:3)
.7500/.6471 1.159 (11x17 on 4:3)
.6250/.7500 .8334 (18x24 or 36x48 on 16:10)
I do mostly 2D architectural on 24x36 and 11x17, so it looks like the
wide aspect would be fine for me (if my math is correct...)
Nick C
Not to throw a kink in your calculations but you should consider "drawing
area" as opposed to monitor area. With Title bar, drop down menu, toolbar
buttons, etc. your actual usable area is not only less, but quite possibly
a
different aspect ratio (most people probably have more "stuff" along the
top
than on the side.
That said, regardless of the screen aspect, you can adjust AutoCad's
toolbar, palettes, etc. to give you an appropriate usable area.
HTH,
Michael (LS)
and dont forget as with the dell 24" wuxga screen you can turn it 90 degrees
to a portrate ratio
Thanks for your input. I've ordered the Dell 2005. I'll post my |
observations after I've had a chance to get familiar with it.
Nick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in