No, my friend.
Not two men. Just one man.
This man is 10e.

My Yellow/Green overlays are precise.
There is a nice tool in Photoshop to check it. Dot for dot.

Now to your new diagrams.
Still not correct.
Aspect ratios are OK now, but you still compare 16:9 with longer diagonal to 16:10 with shorter diagonal. This comparison looks benqy and does not make sense.

I am not putting the overlay this time. I am sure you can correct mistakes yourself.

No, I did not mean you.

Absolutely.

No. You are taking words out of context. If you follow that discussion you'll see this is my "strongest" reaction on extremely rude incompetent attack. They think I talk to them. But when I see that the case is not teachable I continue to post but I talk to the readers of this forum.

Yes, their statistical forecast looks very possible.
Cost cut + aggressive propaganda will work for sure.

I have never said 16:9 was bad.
What I am saying is that 16:9 is another choice. But users need to understand that 16:9 is downgrade from 16:10 of the same diagonal. And they pay less for that. That's their informative chice.


It's amazing how easily people can be tricked.

Funny marketing trick from the nearest past.
Back to 20" Wide (1680x1050) vs 20" 4:3 (1600x1200) adventure.
Marketing speaks diagonally. For them 20" 1680x1050 is 20"W.
Humans don't understand inches, they understand objects.
For us 20" monitor is a certain size we are familiar with.
In the human language making 20" monitor wider means adding something to it's side. So "true" 20"W is nothing else but 23" in "diagonal" language.
What is 20"W? It's 17"Wide in fact.

And nowadays when 16:10 is standard:
What is 24"W(16x9)? It's practically 22" Wide!

Look at this diagram. This is how different aspect ratios are made from the same diagonal.

An imaginary let's say "super wide" 16:X of the same diagonal is close to nothing.
But the diagonal is the same!
16:9 is closer to somethig that is next to nothing - see the trend.
That's why we say that vertical resolution/size is defining parameter for monitors rank.
As soon as minimal standard resolution requirement (1920x1080) is met, the higher the vertical resolution/size the higher the rank of the monitor.

They like to feed us with marketing tricks. "Wide", "178 viewing angles", "Dynamic Contrast", "Wide Color Gamut"... The fresh grimase is "True" HD (LOL).

10e, you see from your own experience how easily people can get confused about diagonals and sizes. You started your diagram over from scratch and made it wrong again.
Even you - not a stranger here - are confused!
So what can we expect from regular users who are "less involved" in the topic?
Who will help them if not you?

That's why I was surprised to see you among those with obvious "16:9 "True HD" Stockholm Syndrome".

As you see from the diagram, there is nothing "revolutionary" in 16:9. It's a bit wider, but much bigger portion from the top of the screen is cut off.
Wide screen movies? Yes, technically wider, but just two hairs wider - nothing to talk about.
Black bars removed? "No" for wide screen movies and "yes" only on condition that the content is strictly 1.77:1 - but remember that those kind men cut portions of black bars and a piece of the screen too.
Scalar not needed? Who said that, who tested 16:9 monitor with no scalar?
HD on TN as 16:9 are TN so far? TN is the worst option for HD because HD means not only resolution, it means picture quality too.
Cheaper? Of course.
What is it better for? Only for certain games and conditionally for movies.
What is it worse for? For the rest of the world of applications: office, internet, photo/video editing, education, etc. uncluding! certain games and some movies.
Market segment? Budget.

This what you should have told victims of "True HD advantages" ads immediately as soon as they started to exhibit Stockholm Syndrom symptoms.

Now, when you finally did the correct comparison diagram, you see - you don't add 2.4:1 movie frame any more. There is no space! The difference is so minimal that two frames will be almost indistinguishable.

16:9 is not a bad thing actually.

I wouldn't mind having 16:9 monitor instead of my 24" but that would have to be a larger monitor (26-30") with higher resolution.
So instead of 24" Standard we'll buy 26"W at least.
That makes sense.

The bad thing is cheating people with fake ads.

By no means I want to get 22" Wide instead of "true" 24".
Regarding 2490, you know I refused 30" because it does not match 2490 quality. There is no alternative so far. Seems to me, 2490 will be working until it's physical end.
By that time something must appear, I hope.