View Single Post
  #66 (permalink)  
Old November 24, 2012, 11:28 AM
NyteOwl's Avatar
NyteOwl NyteOwl is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 890

I have no ghosting here and my panel is only 6ms response time. I really think in many cases this "low ms craze is like FPS. Beyond a certain point it's moot.

As to 16:10 vs 16:9, I do, some don't (though I don't understand why they don't unless they have never used 16:10 or are conditioned to TV ratio). My 27" is 1920x1200 (16:10) and I find a 27" at 16:9 (1920x1080) uncomfortable. It's still a sizable screen but, for me, it "feels" visually "cramped" for anything but watching videos.

With a horizontal resolution of 2560, 16:9 gives 1440 vertical while 16:10 gives 1600 vertical. 160px vertical height is a noticeable amount of screen real estate across the width of the screen. Sadly the screen manufacturers are pandering more adn more to the TV HD market and 16:10 are getting harder to find (let alone 4:3).
Obsolescence is just a lack of imagination.

Last edited by NyteOwl; November 24, 2012 at 11:30 AM. Reason: Fixed typos
Reply With Quote