20" 4:3 LCD vs 19" 5:4 LCD

[CWorley]

Do  all 19" lcd monitors have a 5:4 aspect ratio (1280x1024) or 16:9?  Do you have to go to 20" to get 4:3 (1600x1200)?

If that's the case, how do they compare?  Is is worth it to pay more for the 20" over the 19"

Thanks!

[capsule]

I would say 4 years+ LCD monitors will be 5:4, whatever size there are. The ratio difference between 5:4 and 4:3 is unnoticeable. Difference between a 5:4 19" and a 4:3 20"? 1 inch 

[MonMotha]

The difference in aspect ratio is only "unnoticeable" if you're one of those people who watches 4:3 TV stretched to fill a 16:9 screen with nothing more than a passing thought of "huh, those guys look a little fat for basket ball players".  It's not nearly as evident as 16:9 vs. 4:3, but it's still apparent.

However, it may be helpful to you if you want to do both horizontal and vertical without rotating the monitor.  You'll need black bars in either mode to maintain proper presentation aspect ratio, but the bars will be tiny in one orientation and smaller than if you're using a 4:3 when in the other orientation.

Aside from the obvious size difference and resolution difference, consider that most of the 5:4 19" panels are PVA or MVA, while most of the 20" 4:3 panels at 1600x1200 are IPS.  The latter will generally have better viewing angle, especially if you are wanting to mount it rotated from its normal orientation.  This would generally make the 20" more valuable, size difference aside.  Confirm before purchase of course; you don't want to get stuck paying top dollar IPS prices for a POS early-run TN panel.

[Justin Z]

Agreed.  From specific experience, I recommend the HP LP2065.  I got one off eBay for $75.00 shipped.  Its viewing angles are tremendous, response time is great, and it even syncs properly to many CRT timings (rather than just approximating, it actually syncs).  Though I've not tested a ton, in theory it should be able to do something like Mortal Kombat's weird 53.2Hz without a hitch.

[capsule]

The difference in aspect ratio is only "unnoticeable" if you're one of those people who watches 4:3 TV stretched to fill a 16:9 screen with nothing more than a passing thought of "huh, those guys look a little fat for basket ball players".  It's not nearly as evident as 16:9 vs. 4:3, but it's still apparent.

"Not obvious" would indeed be more appropriate but please don't compare this to 4:3 / 16:9 difference :-)
I mean, if you don't have both monitors side by side, it's hard to tell, even more in games.

On CRT monitors, I preferred 1280x1024 resolutions over the real 4:3 1280x960 even 5:4 flattens the image a bit, I don't know why.

[MonMotha]

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to proper video presentation (I am), but I can definitely tell if 4:3 is stretched to 5:4.

That said, I own a 5:4 monitor.  So long as it's displaying content designed for that aspect ratio (computer graphics or TV/movies with appropriate matting), I quite like the extra vertical space.   Just don't pretend that stretching 4:3 to fit is any more "correct" than stretching it to 16:9.  Both are wrong.  One is just more obviously wrong.