What is the deal with production monitors; 4:3 or 16:10?
November 14, 2006 5:43 PM
I have the option of buying either 3:4 or 16:10 (regular or widescreen for you and me) and I don't know what the better choice would be.
I do multimedia work (flash, AE, and the sort) and want to be able to impress clients with the widescreen goodness but I want to be able to design and it show on end users machines correctly.
Is there an issue in development between screens or ratios that I should I be worried about?
I do multimedia work (flash, AE, and the sort) and want to be able to impress clients with the widescreen goodness but I want to be able to design and it show on end users machines correctly.
Is there an issue in development between screens or ratios that I should I be worried about?
I guess the real question here is what do you edit (I assume were talking about video monitors) and where you edit it - if you're talking computer editing and it's supposed to be native 16:10, then I'd go that way. If you're doing non-HD TV (and don't anticipate doing that sometime before your next upgrade), I'd say 4:3 would do nicely.
posted by plaidrabbit at 6:09 PM on November 14, 2006
posted by plaidrabbit at 6:09 PM on November 14, 2006
And I'm an utter moron for not seeing that line you put in after the question. [d'oh]
I'd go with the 16:10 widescreen - it's all futuristic and stuff, and if all you're going for is sex appeal for your clients, that'll look better than the regular-old box look.
I'll shut up now.
posted by plaidrabbit at 6:11 PM on November 14, 2006
I'd go with the 16:10 widescreen - it's all futuristic and stuff, and if all you're going for is sex appeal for your clients, that'll look better than the regular-old box look.
I'll shut up now.
posted by plaidrabbit at 6:11 PM on November 14, 2006
Most wide monitors can "barn-door" or stretch (your choice) if you use 4:3 output. I'd suggest getting the wide one and switch to 4:3 as needed for demos.
An alternative is to pick up 2 4:3 monitors and use them side by side. This gives you lots of real estate and also lets you view at 4:3.
posted by chairface at 6:14 PM on November 14, 2006
An alternative is to pick up 2 4:3 monitors and use them side by side. This gives you lots of real estate and also lets you view at 4:3.
posted by chairface at 6:14 PM on November 14, 2006
You don't know whether your end-users are going to have 3:4 or widescreen monitors, so it's not like you can match their environment exactly. Ideally, your presentations should work either way.
I'd go with the widescreen, just to be more future-proof. Over the next few years, people will be transitioning more and more to HD, so you might as well optimize your work environment for that.
On the other hand, if you can get a 3:4 monitor that's the same horizontal size & resolution as the 16:10 monitor for the same price, then hey, free pixels. Go for it.
posted by designbot at 6:28 PM on November 14, 2006
I'd go with the widescreen, just to be more future-proof. Over the next few years, people will be transitioning more and more to HD, so you might as well optimize your work environment for that.
On the other hand, if you can get a 3:4 monitor that's the same horizontal size & resolution as the 16:10 monitor for the same price, then hey, free pixels. Go for it.
posted by designbot at 6:28 PM on November 14, 2006
Everything is moving (or has moved) towards a wide-screen format. Go widescreen.
posted by JPowers at 6:32 PM on November 14, 2006
posted by JPowers at 6:32 PM on November 14, 2006
16:10 monitors absolutely.
First, it looks cool (as in larger).
Second, when you design, you're more likely to use the left/right areas (whether your work is 16x9 or 4x3) for your palettes.
Last, when it's a 16x9 in AE (such as HD), you'll really show off the screen.
When it's 4x3, you'll have black vertical bars, but it's still impressive.
Some video software can show "true pixels" for playback (a 1:1 correspondence of what's being shown).
(I'm totally avoiding the fact that your software will be adapting nonsquare pixel work (if any of it is video) to square pixel spaces. Just not worth the discussion)
posted by filmgeek at 6:53 PM on November 14, 2006
First, it looks cool (as in larger).
Second, when you design, you're more likely to use the left/right areas (whether your work is 16x9 or 4x3) for your palettes.
Last, when it's a 16x9 in AE (such as HD), you'll really show off the screen.
When it's 4x3, you'll have black vertical bars, but it's still impressive.
Some video software can show "true pixels" for playback (a 1:1 correspondence of what's being shown).
(I'm totally avoiding the fact that your software will be adapting nonsquare pixel work (if any of it is video) to square pixel spaces. Just not worth the discussion)
posted by filmgeek at 6:53 PM on November 14, 2006
Also, I have read that 4:3 actually gives you "more" pixels for your money. But I don't know if that actually equals more bang for your buck or better quality or better anything.
This is true -- they are usually higher resolution (in the vertical direction) than the same-size (by diagonal) widescreen monitors produced by the same company. But my experience is that widescreen feels like it is bigger, even though I know logically that it has less vertical space in terms of pixels. And illusion is everything in interfaces.
posted by advil at 6:54 PM on November 14, 2006
This is true -- they are usually higher resolution (in the vertical direction) than the same-size (by diagonal) widescreen monitors produced by the same company. But my experience is that widescreen feels like it is bigger, even though I know logically that it has less vertical space in terms of pixels. And illusion is everything in interfaces.
posted by advil at 6:54 PM on November 14, 2006
My last monitor upgrade took me from 1600x1200 (4:3 - 20") to 1920x1200 (16:10 - 24") and I didn't lose vertical space either physically or in pixel resolution.
To chime in one the actual question, I'd side with the widescreen every time, the extra space at the sides is a godsend for design work as filmgeek says.
posted by Gamecat at 7:03 PM on November 14, 2006
To chime in one the actual question, I'd side with the widescreen every time, the extra space at the sides is a godsend for design work as filmgeek says.
posted by Gamecat at 7:03 PM on November 14, 2006
I'll see your Widescreen and I'll raise you a pivoting display. Provided you have the right video card...
posted by Gungho at 7:01 AM on November 15, 2006
posted by Gungho at 7:01 AM on November 15, 2006
I agree with the widescreen-ophiles...I just got a 19-inch widescreen for work 6 months ago and it may be the best purchase I have made for myself computer-wise. I think I hug my monitor every day.
However, in my work I develop and maintain an intranet site and the "regular" people with 17inch 4:3 CRTs see the site differently. It is a consideration when trying to add functionality...sidebars are no problem for me, but on the 17inch screens, the page gets a little cluttered with a left and right bar, and it seems that things are slightly "mashed". Not a huge deal but definitely a factor when designing.
I suppose my situation is different than yours, but we are moving towards widescreen for everybody here at the office. I wouldn't go back to 4:3 (personally) if you paid me.
posted by dozo at 10:48 AM on November 15, 2006
However, in my work I develop and maintain an intranet site and the "regular" people with 17inch 4:3 CRTs see the site differently. It is a consideration when trying to add functionality...sidebars are no problem for me, but on the 17inch screens, the page gets a little cluttered with a left and right bar, and it seems that things are slightly "mashed". Not a huge deal but definitely a factor when designing.
I suppose my situation is different than yours, but we are moving towards widescreen for everybody here at the office. I wouldn't go back to 4:3 (personally) if you paid me.
posted by dozo at 10:48 AM on November 15, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Botunda at 6:05 PM on November 14, 2006