Help with an NEC monitor Aspect Ratio please

[xpatUSA]

To my simple mind, 1920x1280px is 3:2, assuming square pixels. So today I got to wondering why I bought a 1920x1080px monitor which, again to my simple mind, is 16:9 - when all my serious cameras have a 3:2 aspect ratio. Along those lines, why do I have to keep cropping images so they show correctly at full-size *** on my monitor - which is all I do (I don't print or view on 4K TV or tablets).

So off I go to look for a 96 dpi or better 1920x1280px monitor . . .

. . . and the very first link I find says:

. . . the E231W sports a Full HD (1920x1280) 16:9 widescreen . . .

Here it says:

. . E231W . .
Image Aspect Ratio 16:9

But the outside dimensions 21.7" x 15" look closer to 3:2 than 16:9!

I'm sure there's simple explanation apart from rectangular pixels (glurk).

*** yes, I realize that 3:2 isn't always the "best" aspect ratio for an image . . .

Help!

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Ted,

A quick look on Amazon and NEC shows the pixel size as 1920 x 1080, therefore 16:9, so basically; hothardware have got it wrong! (when they say 1280, not 1080)

Probably a simple typo on a numeric keypad.

Dave

PS, you could always tell them of the error and see if they'd like to give you a discount
Only problem being, it doesn't solve the original problem!

[xpatUSA]

Hi Ted,

A quick look on Amazon and NEC shows the pixel size as 1920 x 1080, therefore 16:9, so basically; hothardware have got it wrong! (when they say 1280, not 1080)

Probably a simple typo on a numeric keypad.

Dave

PS, you could always tell them of the error and see if they'd like to give you a discount
Only problem being, it doesn't solve the original problem!

Makes sense, Dave, never even thought of that . . and, had I looked at others instead of going off half-cocked, . . (moi?) . .

Sod's Law strikes again!

[dem]

Rotating images must be a right nightmare when your monitor doesn't have square pixels...

[xpatUSA]

Rotating images must be a right nightmare when your monitor doesn't have square pixels...

Yep, on a related note, I can't tell you how many night's sleep I lost when I read that my Nikon sensor had rectangular pixels. Sold it in the end because of worrying about asymmetric MTF . . .

[pnodrog]

Buy a Dell 27" Ultrasharp UP2716D or similar and mask off the extra pixels to end up with your required 1920x1280.....

You could just mask the width to 2160px and end up with a 3:2 aspect.

[xpatUSA]

Buy a Dell 27" Ultrasharp UP2716D or similar and mask of the extra pixels to end up with your required 1920x1280.....

Good suggestion but . . .

I like NEC and only got space for a 23" sad to say . . . (sob)

[pnodrog]

Good suggestion but . . .

I like NEC and only got space for a 23" sad to say . . . (sob)

It pains me to say this but you are beyond any help I can offer.

[xpatUSA]

It pains me to say this but you are beyond any help I can offer.

Probably a good thing that, LOL, with offered help like:

You could just mask the width to 2160px and end up with a 3:2 aspect.

Hmmm . . .

[pnodrog]

Probably a good thing that, LOL, with offered help like:



Hmmm . . .

It is OK sometimes even lateral thinkers look sideways at me....

[Black Pearl]

Oddly having viewed images and watched TV on 16:9 screens for so many years I actually prefer the ratio over 3:2 so most of my images are framed with that in mind and get cropped to it. Actually it is rare that I keep an image 3:2 ad when I do it almost looks wrong.

[xpatUSA]

Oddly having viewed images and watched TV on 16:9 screens for so many years I actually prefer the ratio over 3:2 so most of my images are framed with that in mind and get cropped to it. Actually it is rare that I keep an image 3:2 ad when I do it almost looks wrong.

I can understand that POV. I used to like my Panasonic GH1 with it's over-size sensor and the ability to select aspect ratios but at a constant diagonal angle of view instead of the usual in-camera cropping:



http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1

So 16:9 got you a 4352x2448px raw image as opposed to the G1's 4000x2248px. Quite a difference, eh?

Yes, you do get used to visual stuff. I used 5:4 monitors for years and only recently changed to 16:9 - I'm still not quite used to it, I'm afraid.

[xpatUSA]

Buy a Dell 27" Ultrasharp UP2716D or similar and mask off the extra pixels to end up with your required 1920x1280.....

You could just mask the width to 2160px and end up with a 3:2 aspect.

After due consideration, I did some research and discovered the so-called WUXGA 'business' aspect ratio.

Sticking with NEC, I decided that the P242W model with 1920x1200px (16:10) suits both my poor eyesight and my desk space.

Bought a used one on eBay (yeah, I know) for $200 US w/free shipping

Plan now is to have my viewing output images as 1920x1280px to match my cameras, or possibly 1920x1200px if scrolling gets irritating . . .