# 1920x1080 vs 1680x1050 ???



## leopardforest

Should I go 1920x1080 or 1680x1050? 

I would like to stay under $200 and have great quality for photo editing, also 22". I will use it gaming and movies, but I want good quality for photos. I know that resolution is a little bigger, but is is worth it?

So basically should i go 16:9 or 16:10?


----------



## Bob Jeffery

Just get this monitor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236051
I use 1680x1050 but rarely edit photos. It works pretty good. Its kinda screen size and not always resolution...


----------



## leopardforest

Bob Jeffery said:


> Just get this monitor
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236051
> I use 1680x1050 but rarely edit photos. It works pretty good. Its kinda screen size and not always resolution...



Thank you, I was looking at that one. I forgot to mention that I am looking for a 22in size as well.

What do you use it for?


----------



## Backwoods166

or this one
Acer H213H bmid Black 21.5" 5ms HDMI Full HD 1080P Widescreen


----------



## leopardforest

well is there really any advantage to 1080 vs 1050??


----------



## Intel_man

1920x1080 is stupid. Especially on the 24" LCD's since the regular ones are 1920 x *1200*


----------



## leopardforest

Intel_man said:


> 1920x1080 is stupid. Especially on the 24" LCD's since the regular ones are 1920 x *1200*



well i am referring to the 22" screens. well 21.6 or whatever it is.


----------



## Intel_man

Also pointless, 1920 x 1080 on a 22" LCD is really really small. The resolution's too big for them.


----------



## Archangel

1920 x 1080 on a 22"is excellent imo.
I have a 20"with 1680 x 1050 at the moment, and if the pixel's were slightly bigger on the monitor, I'd really hate it.

besides that, the smaller the pixels on the screen, the less AF you would need when running a game on its native resolution.


----------



## Kornowski

16:10 all the way! 1920 x 1200 any day!

16:9 is way too short, I find. So what if you get some black boarders when watching a movie, it's no big deal. In fact, it piss' me off when I'm watching a movie and the image extends all the way to the edge of the screen. It looks odd...


----------



## leopardforest

Archangel said:


> 1920 x 1080 on a 22"is excellent imo.
> I have a 20"with 1680 x 1050 at the moment, and if the pixel's were slightly bigger on the monitor, I'd really hate it.
> 
> besides that, the smaller the pixels on the screen, the less AF you would need when running a game on its native resolution.



Sorry....AF? That is a new one to me?


----------



## bomberboysk

AF= Anisotropic Filtering


----------



## CdnAudiophile

Intel_man said:


> Also pointless, 1920 x 1080 on a 22" LCD is really really small. The resolution's too big for them.



That doesn't make sense. You want the most resolution in the smallest place for the best picture. 1080 on a small screen looks alot better than on a 46".


----------



## Intel_man

Yes but when it's too small, it strains your eyes.


----------



## leopardforest

Intel_man said:


> Yes but when it's too small, it strains your eyes.



I guess it all depends what you are looking at onscreen?  Words vs gaming...right?


----------

