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.
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
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.
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
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 .7500Paper:
11 x 17 .6471 18 x 24 .7500 24 x 36 .6667 36 x 48 .7500Then 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
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required