Find a monitor that beats my 19" CRT without breaking the bank

[J-H]

(Warning: Grumpy Technology Post Ahead)

I have a 32" Philips E-series boxed up and ready to return to Best Buy. I don't play games very often, and mostly use my monitor for reading online, working, etc.

It's widescreen, some absurd number of pixels wide by only 1080 pixels high. I hooked it up to my current PC for a couple of hours to try it. The headache is gone now.
When doing fullscreen browser windows, paragraphs turned into long lines (no word wrap). Going to windowed created a chaotic environment with 5 windows of different sizes sticking out from behind what I'm reading. I had to swap the desktop background to pure black to avoid excessive brightness from the right half of the screen, which remains empty and useless when reading in a browser.

I suppose it would be nice to have side-by-side windows about 1% of the day, when I'm mapping D&D moves while writing the text... but that's about it.

This "nice" "new" monitor actually had a lower image quality than my 19" CRT. When you go from ~10" of vertical space @ 768 pixels to ~15" of space @ 1080 pixels, pixel sizes increase by 15-20%. Text was visibly substantially more pixellated than I am used to. Crazy, and hard to read.

I also had to bork with a ton of settings (on my current PC) to get it dim enough that it didn't hurt my eyes. Some reading online said to leave brightness high, but reduce contrast on the monitor and mess with software-side settings, because low brightness can cause more flickering from due to LEDs flicking on and off to achieve a given level of illumination.

Maybe I need a higher resolution monitor that is smaller? Am I going to have to drop an extra $200 on a whatever a "2K" monitor is to get the extra 400 vertical pixels (but no actual screen space because monitor manufacturers think I just want to watch TV instead of read documents)?

Frustrating. I just want a nice 4:3 CRT, maybe a 21" or 23" to upgrade from my 19", but nobody's making them. Ebay and Craigslist are coming up blank.

edit: Do I need to just get two monitors, and turn one on its side for web browsing/reading, while having the other one in squat-screen mode for games? I am setting up the new computer to work in two different areas (home office in the home and home office in the workshop), so that would be 4 monitors and some extra splitters in the mix to have enough connection ports.

[factotum]

For reading, having a monitor which can be flipped to vertical orientation would be very good, yes. Why did you go for a 32" monitor, though? IMHO that's overkill--when you're sat maybe 2 feet from the screen you just don't need one that large. I'm currently typing this on a computer attached to an Iiyama E2280HS 22" monitor, and that's more than large enough.

Does the reading have to be done on the main computer, though? Could you use a tablet (which definitely *can* be run in portrait orientation) for that, or would that just be too inconvenient?

[snowblizz]

Some of the issues you describe can't be the monitor's fault, it's the website that needs to be coded properly for screensizes. But yes, they than get wonky if you ahve an oversized screen.

High resolution gives you more screen real estate, large screen size just "zooms everything" (given the same resolution). I got a 28" monitor for main computer (it doubles as tv) @ 1920x1080 and it's just about too large I think. Esp if sitting close to it. Though on the upside it blows text up a bit just by it's size. Some games with a chat is much much nicer to read on the bigger screen (with less resolution) compared to my 12" Surface with more pixels, so screen size can work to your advantage even for reading.

That's important to note because if you get a smaller monitor with higher resolution the text will start to become tiny. What you want to do is really to go look at screens live.

[J-H]

Some of the issues you describe can't be the monitor's fault, it's the website that needs to be coded properly for screensizes. But yes, they than get wonky if you ahve an oversized screen.

My test websites were Spacebattles.com forums and Giantitp.

High resolution gives you more screen real estate, large screen size just "zooms everything" (given the same resolution). I got a 28" monitor for main computer (it doubles as tv) @ 1920x1080 and it's just about too large I think. Esp if sitting close to it. Though on the upside it blows text up a bit just by it's size. Some games with a chat is much much nicer to read on the bigger screen (with less resolution) compared to my 12" Surface with more pixels, so screen size can work to your advantage even for reading.
That's important to note because if you get a smaller monitor with higher resolution the text will start to become tiny. What you want to do is really to go look at screens live.

For reading, having a monitor which can be flipped to vertical orientation would be very good, yes. Why did you go for a 32" monitor, though? IMHO that's overkill--when you're sat maybe 2 feet from the screen you just don't need one that large. I'm currently typing this on a computer attached to an Iiyama E2280HS 22" monitor, and that's more than large enough.

Live screens usually just have a static image, not text I can pull up and read.

I think I need to calculate the pixels/inch ratio on my current monitor, and find something that's roughly the same when accounting for size distortion & resolution changes.

I had assumed that bigger was better.

Does the reading have to be done on the main computer, though? Could you use a tablet (which definitely *can* be run in portrait orientation) for that, or would that just be too inconvenient?

No tablet, for a number of reasons. If you include work and exclude music in the background, the written word is 95% of what I use my computers for.

[halfeye]

(Warning: Grumpy Technology Post Ahead)

I have a 32" Philips E-series boxed up and ready to return to Best Buy. I don't play games very often, and mostly use my monitor for reading online, working, etc.

It's widescreen, some absurd number of pixels wide by only 1080 pixels high.

Those things are meant for films. Film makers love wider and wider screens, I don't understand why.

This "nice" "new" monitor actually had a lower image quality than my 19" CRT. When you go from ~10" of vertical space @ 768 pixels to ~15" of space @ 1080 pixels, pixel sizes increase by 15-20%. Text was visibly substantially more pixellated than I am used to. Crazy, and hard to read.

Yeah, I know what you mean, I had a nice CRT for years, then the tube died. However, 19 inch and a vertical resolution of 768? Ew. You can still get 1600 * 1200 screens, but they are ridiculously expensive now.

Frustrating. I just want a nice 4:3 CRT, maybe a 21" or 23" to upgrade from my 19", but nobody's making them. Ebay and Craigslist are coming up blank.

4:3 is unfortunately almost dead, it's all widescreen this decade, maybe they'll see sense in 2020?

I wouldn't go for 2k, I have gone for UHD and I really like it. It's 16:9, but with a decent pixel depth to it, "real 4k" is wider, but no deeper. I sit at arms length or a few inches more from my screen, I have since I was using 1600 * 1200.

[AMX]

4:3 is unfortunately almost dead, it's all widescreen this decade, maybe they'll see sense in 2020?

There are still a few 4:3 monitors around for specialty purposes, but they have "specialty pricing" of course.

Plenty of 5:4 monitors available though (apparently all 1280x1024, sizes from 17" to 19").

[J-H]

Where do I find UHD?
I have about $250 in credit at Best Buy, mostly from a return.

I hope HDMI supports splitting. The eventual setup is 2 monitors on my PC tower, and the monitors and inputs (including sound) mirrored 150' away in my home office space. That's 4 monitors so I can do stuff on my computer whether I'm "working" or in the house after hours.
(I spend a good chunk of time on hold or waiting).


768 keeps things nice and big.
768 pixels (vertical) in 10.5" = 73 ppi. If I want to achieve the same resolution (ppi) with a x1080 monitor, scaling up says the screen should be about 14.8"H. However, the 32" monitor I just returned was about 15.7"H and was very grainy. This is confusing.

Should I just get a couple of cheap(ish) 22" widescreens with one vertical & 1 horizontal, for reading & gaming?

(side note: In RTS games, the prevalence of widescreen monitors means it's better to attack from the north or south - your opponent has less viewing range in those directions and will be fractionally slower).

[factotum]

4:3 is unfortunately almost dead, it's all widescreen this decade, maybe they'll see sense in 2020?

No, they won't. The reason widescreen aspect ratios are so common in computer monitors nowadays is simply down to economies of scale--you can use the same LCD panel that you put into your widescreen television set. 4:3 aspect ratio monitors are so expensive precisely because you can't use the panels for anything else, so they cost a lot more to produce.

[halfeye]

No, they won't. The reason widescreen aspect ratios are so common in computer monitors nowadays is simply down to economies of scale--you can use the same LCD panel that you put into your widescreen television set. 4:3 aspect ratio monitors are so expensive precisely because you can't use the panels for anything else, so they cost a lot more to produce.

Yeah, but by then they might also reach the conclusion that 4:3 is good for TV too. They can only push wider and wider so far (granted it hasn't necessarily reached peak idiocy yet), then they have to go back.

[veti]

Some widescreen monitors have a configuration that allows you to use just the middle part of the screen, so you can view a 4:3 image even if the monitor itself is more like 2:1. There will be black margins down both sides, and obviously a fair bit of "wasted" screen estate, but that sounds like it's what you want in this particular use-case.

I imagine, if you look for a monitor that advertises itself as having a "TV" display mode, it should include that option.

[J-H]

Ok, I have 2 Asus 21.5" monitors on the way. I'll mount one vertical and one horizontal.
$109 each at Best Buy... cheap.
If I like these enough, I will order two more for my remote setup.

[factotum]

Yeah, but by then they might also reach the conclusion that 4:3 is good for TV too. They can only push wider and wider so far (granted it hasn't necessarily reached peak idiocy yet), then they have to go back.

They don't need to push wider, and why would 4:3 necessarily be better for TV than widescreen is? It's better on a computer monitor, but I see no evidence that it is for TV programmes or films. Furthermore, they're not going to throw away the millions already invested in widescreen because a few computer nerds don't like the aspect ratio of their monitors.

[halfeye]

I'm glad the OP found something, hope it works, let us know if it's good, or if it's not.

They don't need to push wider, and why would 4:3 necessarily be better for TV than widescreen is?

The pupil of the human eye is more or less circular, we see as much up and down as we do side to side. Film makers like the spectacular, so they get fixated on wide horizons, but that only makes sense on the ground, in the air and in space there is less to no horizon.

It's better on a computer monitor, but I see no evidence that it is for TV programmes or films. Furthermore, they're not going to throw away the millions already invested in widescreen because a few computer nerds don't like the aspect ratio of their monitors.

It's exactly about the already invested, because the already invested is the already sold, and people don't usually replace what they've already bought unless it breaks, in which case if it's relatively new they look for a different brand. Sometime, the only way to sell lots of new TVs is going to be to make them deepscreen, or some such name. The investment in hardware at the studios is trivial compared to the investment in homes.

[AMX]

The pupil of the human eye is more or less circular, we see as much up and down as we do side to side. Film makers like the spectacular, so they get fixated on wide horizons, but that only makes sense on the ground, in the air and in space there is less to no horizon.

You forget that humans have two eyes, mounted side by side, and evolved on a planet that does have a horizon.
As a result, 16:9 is a much better fit for a healthy human's natural FOV.

Note also that cinemas have used even wider aspect ratios since the 1950s.

[factotum]

Note also that cinemas have used even wider aspect ratios since the 1950s.

Yeah, Cinemascope is usually around a 2.4:1 aspect ratio, so the 1.78:1 of a standard widescreen display is positively narrow compared to that.

[halfeye]

Yeah, Cinemascope is usually around a 2.4:1 aspect ratio, so the 1.78:1 of a standard widescreen display is positively narrow compared to that.

I agree that's what they do. I believe they are making a mistake.

Film is a very new medium, it's less than 150 years old in total. Photographs are still mainly taken in an aspect ratio of 4:3. Then there's the golden mean, that's a ratio with 400 years of experimentation and thought behind it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

[Mando Knight]

I agree that's what they do. I believe they are making a mistake.

Film is a very new medium, it's less than 150 years old in total. Photographs are still mainly taken in an aspect ratio of 4:3. Then there's the golden mean, that's a ratio with 400 years of experimentation and thought behind it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Standard widescreen (16:9, or 1.7778:1) is closer to the golden ratio (1.6180:1) than 4:3 (1.3333:1) is.

I don't think the probability that there is a limit to how much wider screens will get implies or indicates at all that the industry will somehow bounce back to 4:3. CRTs heavily incentivized squarer proportions due to the mechanics of how they recreate images, but newer technology doesn't.

[halfeye]

Standard widescreen (16:9, or 1.7778:1) is closer to the golden ratio (1.6180:1) than 4:3 (1.3333:1) is.

I don't think the probability that there is a limit to how much wider screens will get implies or indicates at all that the industry will somehow bounce back to 4:3. CRTs heavily incentivized squarer proportions due to the mechanics of how they recreate images, but newer technology doesn't.

It wouldn't if they didn't have to sell it. They sell on the basis of difference, more different than widescreen means more different in the direction of 1:1. I remember the Corvus Concept. It went too far the other way with a ratio of 560 * 720, and didn't sell as many units as the IBM PC.

[Mando Knight]

The aspect ratio is already fairly settled on 16:9. A cursory look at TVs as displayed online turn up little to nothing being marketed on being wider than the competition, and everything being focused on other features like HDR/contrast ratio (allowing darker black and brighter white and everything in between all at the same time for a better picture), overall size (which has also stabilized to some extent, as you can't sell most people a 2000" TV), resolution (currently 3840x2160, aka 4K Ultra HD, is the high-end/hype resolution), and Smart TV functions (ability to connect directly to Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/NSA).

[halfeye]

The aspect ratio is already fairly settled on 16:9. A cursory look at TVs as displayed online turn up little to nothing being marketed on being wider than the competition, and everything being focused on other features like HDR/contrast ratio (allowing darker black and brighter white and everything in between all at the same time for a better picture), overall size (which has also stabilized to some extent, as you can't sell most people a 2000" TV), resolution (currently 3840x2160, aka 4K Ultra HD, is the high-end/hype resolution), and Smart TV functions (ability to connect directly to Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/NSA).

TV used to be set on an aspect ratio of 4:3, that changed because everyone already had TVs so to sell more they needed to sell a change, which they have. As soon as the change to UHD stops selling new sets because almost everyone has got one, it will be time for the next new thing.

That monitor the OP originally bought? That's extra widescreen (I think it's stupid, but they're definitely trying to sell it). If the extra-widescreen does take off, then the return to deepscreens will be after most people have bought into that, if not, then it will happen sooner. There are cycles, they are quite long term, but they are definitely there.

[factotum]

TV used to be set on an aspect ratio of 4:3, that changed because everyone already had TVs so to sell more they needed to sell a change, which they have.

They were selling colour TVs with a 4:3 aspect ratio for the best part of forty years, and they never had a problem selling as many as they needed because TVs break, just like any other electronic equipment does. The main driver to widescreen was because the technology was available, and since movies are already various types of widescreen (and have been for more than a hundred years) it made it easier to show movies in a decent quality without having to cut out half the frame or introduce distortion. I'll also note that the current 16:9 widescreen format has been in common use for two decades now--if they were going to revert to 4:3, or go to some even wider format, they would have done it by now!

[halfeye]

They were selling colour TVs with a 4:3 aspect ratio for the best part of forty years, and they never had a problem selling as many as they needed because TVs break, just like any other electronic equipment does.

Valves were terrible for breaking, transistors are better. CRTs are fancy valves, and pop but LCDs are more reliable. The TV market is saturated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_saturation

The main driver to widescreen was because the technology was available, and since movies are already various types of widescreen (and have been for more than a hundred years)

Nope, 60 years or so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinerama

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope

I'll also note that the current 16:9 widescreen format has been in common use for two decades now--if they were going to revert to 4:3, or go to some even wider format, they would have done it by now!

The above definition of market saturation suggests it takes about 20 years, so no, now is about when they should be expected to start planning to change formats.

Not that I approve of constantly changing formats, I certainly don't, I'm hoping that the change this time (in this case), might be in a good direction, but generally it's not a good thing.

[Gnoman]

If market saturation was the primary reason for switching, they would never have done it. Just switching from CRT to LCD and putting the same size screen in an infinitesimally smaller package would have done it.

Movies switched to widescreen to compete better with television in the 1950s - since televisions were the same 4:3 that movies were, there was no fundamental difference in the experience, and the film studios (which in those days were incestuously intertwined with the theaters) feared that movie broadcasting would replace theaters and kill off most of their profits.

The obvious counter was to push a "television impossible" experience. A much wider screen not only gave a much bigger experience in the theater, cutting a widescreen movie for televison would be a very difficult task. Several formats were tried, and they eventually settled on the 2.39:1 ration in 1970. By this time pan-and-scan versions of movies were becoming a common television staple, and it would not be too many more years before consumers gained the ability to purchase copies of their favorite films on Betamax or VHS cassettes. The limitations of pan-and-scan were very obvious at the time, and in 1980 a new format that was equidistant between television and cinema was unveiled - the 16:9 ratio we use today. The only thing that prevented widespread deployment of this new standard 37 years ago was the limitations of CRT technology - it wasn't until LCDs became cost-effective that they were able to deploy the new format.


There is not the slightest trace of evidence that market saturation was the cause of the switch, nor is there any reason to believe that they're going to "have" to come out with a new one soon - particularly since more than a few aspect ratios have come and gone without much effect. Interestingly, that INCLUDES the 21:9 screens that you've cited as proof for your theory - 21:9 TVs were only manufactured for about 3 or 4 years, and practically nobody bought them. There is a niche market for computer monitors in this format, but that is primarily as a replacement for dual 16:9 screens.

[factotum]

The only thing that prevented widespread deployment of this new standard 37 years ago was the limitations of CRT technology - it wasn't until LCDs became cost-effective that they were able to deploy the new format.

I agree with everything else you say, but will point out here that CRT widescreen TVs were a thing for years--I owned two of them, and only actually bought an LCD widescreen last year. They even briefly sold high-definition CRT widescreen TVs--my brother had one, which he passed on to my mother when he upgraded to an LCD.

[Gnoman]

I agree with everything else you say, but will point out here that CRT widescreen TVs were a thing for years--I owned two of them, and only actually bought an LCD widescreen last year. They even briefly sold high-definition CRT widescreen TVs--my brother had one, which he passed on to my mother when he upgraded to an LCD.

I am aware - I owned such a thing myself not too long ago, getting rid of it because it didn't make my NES look very good. They were, however, a late iteration of the tech, and quite expensive relative to the 4:3 versions. By the time they were available, the LCD and Plasma systems were taking CRT behind the woodshed.

[factotum]

Again, I disagree. The reason I owned two CRT widescreen TVs is because, at the time I purchased them (which would have been sometime in the last 20 years, I can't narrow it down more than that), they were the cheapest TVs available. That might be more of a UK thing, though--we started getting widescreen TV channels in the 1990s, when did they start appearing in the US?

[Gnoman]

There was never an NTSC extention the way you had PALplus over there. TV didn't start broadcasting in widescreen over here until around the big digital switch -that would have been mid-2000s.

You probably got the CRT TVs cheap because retailers were dumping them for the newer and better LCD and plasma technologies.

[factotum]

You probably got the CRT TVs cheap because retailers were dumping them for the newer and better LCD and plasma technologies.

Those two TVs were bought a minimum of five years apart--that's a really long time for them to be being "dumped" in favour of new technologies. No, because we had widescreen channels earlier than the US did, widescreen TVs became a commodity item much earlier over here than they did for you, so there was a significant period of time when LCDs and plasma TVs were too expensive and so CRT widescreens were commonplace.

[J-H]

I finally got my VESA stand today. Apparently, the two monitors I got are not designed to be viewed sideways. Landscape is fine, but portrait has a bunch of visual distortions.

Also, Crusader Kings 2 really, really does not want to open on the widescreen monitor.