# Question about LCD "Aspect Ratio"



## halcour (Mar 2, 2005)

I'm considering buying the BenQ FP241W 24" LCD monitor. I've read mostly excellent reviews. However, on Newegg there were these comments:

*"Newegg's stock is outdated still: as of 2/27/07 these monitors will not maintain aspect ratios and instead fill the display with the source."

"received 1st March 2007 and STILL OLD FIRMWARE what's wrong with newegg!! If I want the new fix I'll need to send it to BenQ and pay the shipping (the fix is so that 16:9 material from dvd/ps3 etc.. isn't stretched to 16:10)"*

What do they mean by the aspect ratio? I'm not a gamer and I don't watch movies on my computer. Would this affect me? I would prefer to buy from Newegg.

Thanks,
Harold


----------



## shadypac (Mar 30, 2007)

16:9 is true widescreen mainly for viewing HD DVDs or anything in high def or widescreen. If you dont do any of that i doubt as if it will affect you at all


----------



## Noyb (May 25, 2005)

Aspect Ratio = the Ratio of the Width divided by the Height of the display area.

That monitor's maximum resolution is listed as 1920 x 1200 .. (the width and height in pixels)
So .. 1920 divided by 1200 = 1.6 ... or in fractions 16:10 .. or 8:5
... This is normal for most computer monitor widescreen LCDs .. which is not really a 16:9 widescreen.

In order for the display to look right ... without being stretched or shrunk in width...
You'll have to choose a display setting that matches the 1.6 aspect ratio of the monitor.

YES .. This might affect you if your computer doesn't have a good choice of drivers.
Unless you really want a wide screen, the safest choice would be a monitor with a 4:3 aspect ratio = 1.333
This aspect ratio matches the old CRT monitors. ... It's found in most 20.1 inch LCD monitors.


----------



## shadypac (Mar 30, 2007)

Noyb said:


> Aspect Ratio = the Ratio of the Width divided by the Height of the display area.
> 
> That monitor's maximum resolution is listed as 1920 x 1200 .. (the width and height in pixels)
> So .. 1920 divided by 1200 = 1.6 ... or in fractions 16:10 .. or 8:5
> ...


Actually im a bit confused here, as long as the video card can display those resolutions for the 16:10 (1920X1200) then how would the images be stretched? It would only apply to things such as hi def videos which only display in 16:9 would it not?


----------



## Noyb (May 25, 2005)

That&#8217;s usually the problem &#8230; You don&#8217;t have other settings .. that&#8217;ll fit a 1.6 AR wide screen

Other than wide screen movies &#8230; most computer displays are a 4:3 ratio &#8230;.
such as a Google search page&#8230; a M$ Word page &#8230; or pictures from your Camera.

Displaying one of these on a wide screen will get you a wider screen &#8230;
But you&#8217;ll see less of it in height .. about 20% less .. so you&#8217;ll have to scroll more.

If you&#8217;ve set your display Driver to the monitors native resolution .. 1920x1200 &#8230;
The display icons and tool bars might be too small to see or easily hit with the mouse.

Most monitors only provide a driver setting to match the monitors native resolution&#8230;
And using other driver settings will probably result in distortion.

IMO &#8230;
Wide screens just don&#8217;t fit a normal computer operation &#8230; are an inefficient use of space&#8230;
And you may have a problem getting it to &#8220;fit&#8221; without distortion&#8230; or a screen that&#8217;s too small to see.

This is why I chose to run Twin 20.1 inch Samsung monitors&#8230; who are a 4:3 ratio.
A 1024x768 driver setting seems to be the most preferred driver setting .. (displayed size)
The comparable wide screen setting would be something in the 1228x768 range... (trying to match the height)

If this perfect circle/square doesn&#8217;t look as such ... displayed full screen &#8230;
Then your display setting doesn&#8217;t match the monitor's AR


----------



## alwrmc (Jan 13, 2004)

Noyb has provided a good explanation and solution for himself and his needs. However, the television industry is moving to a HD and WideScreen standard. Also many computer games are also moving to cover both "normal" and "widescreen" displays. I have a widescreen display and I certainly do not find that it is an ineffecient use of space. All the games that I play display and play well. I also find that being able to put two full sized Word 2007 documents on screen side by side is very nice. The only downside I have found thus far is pricing. The LCD is cooler, lighter and more adjustable. However once the display is set to your personal adjustments (up, down, tilt) that part becomes moot. The circle/square thumbnail that Nyob gave displays great on my monitor. It ultimately boils down to personal like/dislike. I much prefer the LCD widescreen. Nyob prefers his two CRT's (we both agree on Samsung I notice (smile)). If you can, try before buying to see which display you personally prefer.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I use a pair of 19" 1280x1024 screens for my normal system. Other than my new multi-media laptop, I've yet to join the wide screen generation.


----------



## Noyb (May 25, 2005)

FYI ... My Samsung's are LCD's ..http://www.compusa.com/products/pro...8612&Pn=SyncMaster_204B_20_1_inch_LCD_Monitor

One suggestion here ... I will never buy a Monitor from somewhere .... 
That I can't quickly exchange if it has a bad pixel .... Or take it back if I just don't like it.

I've been tempted to try a Wide Screen for my primary monitor to help when using Photoshop.... 
Or when I have several windows open.
But I wouldn't be thinking about it .. If my New computer didn't already have a 1224 x 768 or a 1152x720 display driver setting for the 1.6 AR wide screens.

My response was geared to Halcour's question and non gaming or video application.
I think it may also apply to the negative comments posted on Newegg.
Caution when reading negative comments ...
They're sometimes written by people who don't know what they're talking about.


----------



## Frank4d (Sep 10, 2006)

I also have a Samsung 204B. I didn't like 1600x1200, so I set it to 1280x960.


----------



## halcour (Mar 2, 2005)

Thanks for the explanations, guys.

Actually, after I posted I remembered why I'd never bought an LCD online - the return policy sucks. 3 - 9 dead pixels for an exchange for most manufacturers. So one might well pay $700 for a defective monitor! That is sooooo unfair.

So I was going to buy the Gateway 24" from Best Buy here where I live, would have been about $720 w/tax. Then I found an incredible deal on ebay, got a HP 24" (LP2465) for $485, including shipping, brand new, AND they check to make sure there are no dead pixels. The reviews I read were pretty good, so I think I got a good deal.

H


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

A 24" monitor would be nice, but two of them would cost me $1000!


----------



## halcour (Mar 2, 2005)

Got the monitor yesterday. Gawd, it's a thing of beauty!

Anyway, one question: The recommended setting is 1920x1200 at 60hz refresh, which is what I have it at now. In my Display settings under Refresh I have "Hide nodes this monitor cannot display" checked and it has 60/70/72 available. Does that mean it's ok to bump the refresh rate up to 72?

Thanks,
Harold


----------



## Frank4d (Sep 10, 2006)

It should be ok at 72Hz (unlike CRT monitors, you can't hurt an LCD with too high refresh rate). If you experience display quality problems, bump it down to 60Hz. 

If you don't like 1920x1200 (text too small) you can usually use a lower resolution, so long as it is the same 1.6:1 ratio.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

You also won't notice any quality improvement running at the higher refresh rate, but your video card will be working harder. I'd run it at 60hz.


----------



## halcour (Mar 2, 2005)

Ah, good point. Thanks.

H


----------



## HappyWarlock (Jul 6, 2003)

What happens when a video card works too hard or you have it at the highest resolution it can be on?
Can you damage the card that way?


----------

