Gateway's FHD2402 trades in pixel count for 16:9

A pleasing design, if nothing else. (There is something else, though...a few things, actually.)

(Credit: Josh P. Miller/CNET)

It's been awhile since we've reviewed a Gateway monitor. The last one was the 19-inch Gateway HD1900 and over a year ago I reviewed the Gateway FHD2400. We skipped the FHD2401 model, as it didn't really offer much that was new.

The FHD2402 is a different story. The biggest change is its move from a 16:10 aspect ratio--with an accompanying resolution of 1,920x1,200--to a 16:9 aspect ratio and a lower resolution of 1,920x1,080. The reason for this change is to bring LCD computer monitors closer to HDTVs in terms of capabilities. A 16:9 monitor can display a full screen 16:9 Blu-ray or digital movie shot in 1.85:1, without stretching the image to fit the screen. A 16:10 monitor will need to stretch the same movie's image a bit to get it to full screen and without any black bars.

So, what you lose in pixel count, you make up in the monitor's capability to display undistorted images of movies. If this is important to you, then you're in luck, since the monitor industry seems to be heading down this 16:9 path. For the rest of you, you're only losing 230,400 pixels, so stop your whining!

Anyway, to see what I really think of the Gateway FHD2402, check my full review and remember to keep checking this page for more new reviews, usually every week--unless I'm off somewhere getting married or something along those lines.

[LVLLN]

I'm getting tired of this switch to 16:9. It's horrible for document and website reading/editing. And on laptops that already have a small 15 or 14 inch screen, the lack of vertical space becomes even more pronounced.

Furthermore, for those of us who like to have one monitor in portrait mode, 16:9 provides only 1080 pixels of width, which is too thin. At least 1200 was close to the 1280 that's enough for most sites/documents.

It's just getting too hard to find LCD monitors and laptops any more that have 16:10 or, even better, 4:3 resolutions at a decent price. And I'm in the market for both right now.

[Henzapper]

Same here. I'll probably be getting a PC when Windows 7 comes out, and I was really hoping for a 16:10 monitor. 16:9 just seems way too wide for my tastes. And I always hated how the entire industry seems to be heading towards that direction.

Also, does having a 16:10 monitor really stretch the size of movies? I thought it just meant that they would put those letterbox things at the top and bottom.

[0DRK0]

A 16:10 monitor will only stretch the size of movies to fit the screen if you set it to do that (media players and TVs have options to stretch the image, along with cropping it to fit). I prefer leaving the aspect ratio alone. The letterboxing isn't too bad for 16:9 content on a 16:10 screen.

[thom2002]

I think it's actually 230,400 pixel loss...man I'm a prick haha (it's ok, i understand the 4 is right under the 7 :P)

[efranklin]

Ha! You actually read it and thought to check my math. Thanks for the tip. It should be correct now.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Acer H243H FTW ! Has been on sale many times at Frys for $229. No shiny screen problems as it is matte. And HDMI AND DVI ports are HDCP compliant. I use one as an HDTV monitor and one for PC side-by-side. Energy consumption after adjusted is like 25 watts per monitor ! They run cool and look great for HDTV , internet , and gaming. They also come with all 3 cables (VGA , DVI , HDMI).

[HentaiTensai]

As previously stated in the above comments, 16:10 monitors DO NOT stretch or distort 16:9 media that is being viewed on them. The default setting for every media player I have ever used is to maintain the media's native aspect ratio. Of course, it is possible to to select a different AR should the need or desire arise.

*Warning: small subsequent rant

It does not bode well for cnet to staff someone who is either so misinformed or ignorant that they could actually list such a fallacy as a selling point for 16:9 monitors over 16:10s. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect someone writing for a tech site to actually understand the subject matter they are reviewing, do you?

[efranklin]

@HentaiTensai On a 16:10 monitor you have a choice when watching a 1.85:1 movie. Either watch it letterboxed at its original 16:9 aspect ratio, or watch it in full screen with the image stretched to fit the screen. On a 16:9 monitor you can watch the same movie in full screen with no distortion. 2.35:1 movies are always letterboxed, whether on 16:9 or 16:10 monitors, unless or course you zoom the image.

What I stated was this "A 16:9 monitor can display a 16:9 Blu-ray or digital movie without stretching the image to fit the screen. A 16:10 monitor will need to stretch the movie's image a bit.". Now that I've read it again, i can see how it could be confusing. What I should have said is this: "A 16:9 monitor can display a full screen 16:9 Blu-ray or digital movie shot in 1.85:1, without stretching the image to fit the screen. A 16:10 monitor will need to stretch the same movie's image a bit to get it to full screen and without any black bars."

That seems to make more sense to me now. Thank you for pointing this out. Much appreciated. Also, I'll edit the blog post to be more clear.

[LVLLN]

I just find it to be an odd comment to make, because no one would stretch the image out just to fill out the screen. Do 16:9 monitor or HDTV owners stretch out 2.35:1 movies just to fill the screen? No. Do 4:3 monitor or SDTV owners stretch out 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 movies/TV shows just to fill the screen? No. In the old 4:3 days, the only options were pan/scan or letterbox, of which letterbox won out.

So why would stretching a 16:9 movie to 16:10 ever occur to someone owning a 16:10 monitor, when letterbox is the default and standard option that also happens to be better?

[wiimonkey9]

uh, I am just going to say I like square big lcd monitors. 1280x1024 has been working fine with me.

[efranklin]

"So why would stretching a 16:9 movie to 16:10 ever occur to someone owning a 16:10 monitor, when letterbox is the default and standard option that also happens to be better?"

Good question. There is no good answer 'cause it makes no sense to me either. That does not mean however that people don't do this. I've known of people who hated "those nasty black bar" and wanted nothing to do with them. They could never shake the feeling that they were not getting the full picture, no matter how much I explained how wrong they were. Go figure.