16:9 vs 16:10

S

Santa Claus

n00b
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
40
Hi, what is the difference between 16:9 and 16:10?
The question isnt about size but of use.

Which is best when surfing the internet, working in windows and reading documents?
Which size woudla hardcore gamer chose?
Are 16:9 better in any way besides watching movies?

My needs are mainly windows browsing the world wild web and reading documents, i do play games both FPS and racing.
I rarely watch movies in fullscreen, often in a small window in windows.
Im thinking of mounting my next monitor on an arm so i can pivot the screen to get a ridicoulosly high screen while in windows.
Im i right when i think a 16:10 would suit me best?

Regards
 
What size monitor are you looking at?

a 16:10 monitor of any size will permit you more vertical space, so if the web-pages you tend to visit are long, there will be less scrolling.
If you're looking at a 24" monitor, then a 16:10 display is wide enough to hold two full size word documents with a bit to spare, so unless you need anything wider than that, 16:10 is plenty wide.
On small monitors, though, the added width of 16:9 could be helpful in viewing multiple open windows.

and in both cases, the 16:9 ratio tends to be better for modern media, however if you watch old tv shows much (4:3) there will be quiet a bit of black space on the two sides.

and a hardcore gamer should decide if it's PC gaming or console gaming. PC Games will be able to use the extra resolution of a 16:10 (1920x1200) on a 24" monitor but consoles only 16:9 aspect ratios
Not all games currently have 16:9 support, though many do. and if that's your priority and you plan on playing on both pc and console, 16:9 may be more beneficial.
 
squeaky said:
PC Games will be able to use the extra resolution of a 16:10 (1920x1200) on a 24" monitor but consoles only 16:9 aspect ratios
Not all games currently have 16:9 support, though many do. and if that's your priority and you plan on playing on both pc and console, 16:9 may be more beneficial.
Click to expand...

With the NXE Xbox update today, 16:10 ratios are now supported.
 
16:10 is best for browsing the web but you lose about 10% framerate in games compared to 16:9
 
Santa Claus said:
Im thinking of mounting my next monitor on an arm so i can pivot the screen to get a ridicoulosly high screen while in windows.
Im i right when i think a 16:10 would suit me best?
Click to expand...

If you are going to pivot it, I don't think it matters what you get as long as its not 1440x900

all the other choices are above 1024
 
noobman said:
As far as I know, this is only for 1440*990 and 1680*1050. I don't believe that there s 1920*1200 support, but I'll be sure to check tonight.
Click to expand...

640 x 480
848 x 480
1024 x 768
1280 x 720
1280 x 768
1280 x 1024
1360 x 768
1440 x 900
1680 x 1050
1920 x 1080

Supported resolutions, oops. Apparently letterboxing still occurs when using 16:10 resolutions... idk what is going on.
 
All Xbox 360 games render at the same internal resolution (usually 1280x720 or 1152x640) and are upscaled/downscaled/cropped/letterboxed to the output resolution.

A select few actually render internally at 1080p:
[native 1080p] Boogie Bunnies [Xbox Live Arcade]
[native 1080p] Street Home Court
[native 1080p] Virtual Tennis 3
 
NothingIsReal,
The letterboxing is what it's supposed to do. This is for computer monitors that don't have a scaler built in, stretching the image. If you already have a scaler then this doesn't do much for you. The video is still in 16:9 format.
 
16:10 is way better. 16:9 is quite a bit slimmer, which irks me when I'm web browsing (and dont have my monitor vertical) programming doc editing or doing anything productive.

The only real downside of 16:10 is the letterboxing you get when playing movies & games-- but I'll gladly suffer through it for PC games & productivity stuff that fully utilizes 16:10.

Theres quite a few PC games (mostly older) that support 16:10 and not 16:9. In this case, you'd have to drop to 1680x1080 16:10 and you'll have massive letterboxing on the side of your monitor. :eek: Horrendous!
 
16:9 is only good I feel on a big LCD/TV. I know some don't mind a 24" 16:9 as they dont have to worry about pixel mapping and black bars. But, it does look wide though cause the height of the screen is shorter.
 
What's wrong with a small black bar on top and below? :confused:

Just get a good screen, not some cheapass TN that has terrible backlightbleeding in the corners.

For anything else then watching movies, 16:10 is the better choice.

And since 16:9 in PC monitors is all TN, you could just ignore anyway.
 
16:9 monitors are just a new way how to make more money off the customers - "Lookie here, we have new HD 16:9 monitors for you, very cold!" But they are simply smaller, i.e. less pixels for the same diagonal size, so manufacturers save some money. For 16:9 gaming they may be better, bot for everything else 16:10 is a way to go (don't tell me there are people who use a monitor only for movies... and some movies or series are still 4:3).
 
Thanks for the input everyone, seems like i have to reconsider what i chose yet again.

Have not checked up on 16:10 24" but could end up with benq g2400w or possibly LG W2452T-PF but will spend a couple of hours searching before i decide if any of them suits my need.
 
Meh,

I prefer 16:10 so I don't have to scroll down as much compared to 16:9 when surfing or viewing documents. Also 16:9 is not a universal aspect ratio for movies since there is also 2.35:1 and a whole bunch more. So you'll end up with black bars anyway.
 
16:10 feels pretty natural than 16:9 ( comparing from a native 16:10 to a native 16:9 )
 
my next PC monitor will be a 24" at least, and it will be 16:9, 1920x1080. I much prefer having my screen be as wide as possible. Newer games all have native support for 1080p including COD 4 and 5 , Far Cry 2 , Fallout 3, Crysis, Dead Space etc..
 
LawGiver said:
my next PC monitor will be a 24" at least, and it will be 16:9, 1920x1080. I much prefer having my screen be as wide as possible. Newer games all have native support for 1080p including COD 4 and 5 , Far Cry 2 , Fallout 3, Crysis, Dead Space etc..
Click to expand...

Way not just cut it down to 16:4 :eek:
 
I'm thinking about picking up a 16:9 monitor as well, but with my budget its going to have to be a 22" (or 21.5", to be exact). I'm running a 19" 16:10 right now, as long as its wider/taller then this I *think* I'll be happy.

I'm going to have both my PC (DVI) and PS3 (HDMI) hooked to it, and maybe even a 360 (VGA) down the line. I'm looking forward to watching a Blu-ray movie here and there and seeing what the PS3 can really do.

...but on the other hand, I am a very heavy computer user and gamer. Mostly Steam/Source games which do support 1080p natively, but I hope the thinner 16:9 won't hurt my normal web usage...but then again, I'm going from a 19" so it may be an improvement, I don't know!
 
just bounced at that Toshiba 32" 1080p 16:9. Its gonna be much taller and much wider than what I have now coming from 22" 16:10.

Oh yeah!
 
Nothing is Real said:
640 x 480
848 x 480
1024 x 768
1280 x 720
1280 x 768
1280 x 1024
1360 x 768
1440 x 900
1680 x 1050
1920 x 1080

Supported resolutions, oops. Apparently letterboxing still occurs when using 16:10 resolutions... idk what is going on.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming that there is no 1920*1200 support. Fortunately, my monitor supports 1:1 pixel mapping. The only dumb thing is that 1:1 doen't work above 1680*1050 over VGA, so I have to tie up my HDMI port for it.
 
Whats the point with 16:9 really? If you have 16:9 and 16:10 monitors of same size side by side, isnt the 16:9 one just shorter vertically but horizontally same? In movies the picture is exactly same size horizontally, 16:10 just has slightly bigger black bars above and bottom? Otherwise you just have for smaller viewing area for PC games and windows usage.
 
MaZa said:
Whats the point with 16:9 really? If you have 16:9 and 16:10 monitors of same size side by side, isnt the 16:9 one just shorter vertically but horizontally same? In movies the picture is exactly same size horizontally, 16:10 just has slightly bigger black bars above and bottom? Otherwise you just have for smaller viewing area for PC games and windows usage.
Click to expand...

for the same size (ie, 24") a 16:9 monitor will be shorter, yes, but also wider.
so instead of black bars in the top/bottom, it extends it to the sides. basically increasing the usable space for 16:9 images
 
squeaky said:
for the same size (ie, 24") a 16:9 monitor will be shorter, yes, but also wider.
so instead of black bars in the top/bottom, it extends it to the sides. basically increasing the usable space for 16:9 images
Click to expand...


Aaa, then I see why some would prefer 16:9. Thanks.
 
16:9 is the standard ratio for HDTV, can also be reffered to as 1.78:1. Or 1.78 times as wide as high. 16:10 is 1.6 times as wide as high. So when watching most movies on two equally sized displays, say 24", the 16:10 displays will have BIGGER black bars on top and bottom as compared to the 16:9 model. And when playing 16:9 content, the 16:10 monitor will have small black bars on top bottm while the 16:9 screen will be filled completely.
 
My post was a series of facts. Yours brings degree and subjective statements, such as "miserable", the table, for which a response from me is not warranted.
 
What is the second comparison even supposed to prove? Why not demonstrate that you would less of the original image if you crop it to fit the 16:9 screen? Oh, but that might show 16:9 in a positive light, so let's not do that.

You can call it inferior all you want, but the fact is that some people want a display that reduces, if not eliminates, the black bars on movies (without resorting to butchering them to fit the screen) and console games. Yes, even if it means the image is about the same size, and even if it nets less vertical resolution for computer tasks.
 
For me this is a non argument.
I have a 16:9 TV and love it to bits.
I also browse on a 22" CRT at 1600x1200 when the TV is in other use.
I FAR prefer the 16:9 TV even though it has less vertical resolution.
Many films still show black borders which is fine. I dont understand why this is an issue.

Each to their own, it matters not.
 
That previous post with the photos doesn't show anything that is useful or apparent, Albovin.

16:9 ratio monitors are wider than 16:10 at the same diagonal size, such as 24". This means that a larger 16:9 or 2.4:1 image is shown at equivalent monitor sizes. If a 24" 16:9 has a larger dot pitch than a 24" 16:10, the image is naturally larger. It may be a little bit less sharp, but it is bigger. More image for the size with 16:9 images/sources.

Your first picture with the red, green, and gray is confusing. I don't see the purpose of it. Without seeing the full monitor screen it doesn't show much. You need two 24" monitors (one 16:10 and one 16:9) side-by-side hooked up to a (for example) BluRay player or console and show the difference in image size.

The middle image is (what I believe) a scaled image from the excellent NEC 2490WUXI/2690WUXI which has exceptional image scaling not common on most computer monitors. I don't see how this helps the thread when you are comparing a $1000+ monitor with one less than a third of its price. Additionally the left image looks like one of those movies that has been "resized to fit on TV" except Dame Judy Dench doesn't look like a conehead.

BTW the Samsung 2493HM and 2693HM do this as well with consoles over HDMI and DVI, and presumably Bluray players and it is NOT preferred. They cut off the sides and scale vertically to fill the screen.

The last image clearly shows a racing game screen where the image is cut off top and bottom on the 16:10 screen. Why is this preferable to the image on the right? In addition, these days both ATI and nVidia cards have excellent scaling built in which has two advantages:

1) It does NOT introduce input lag like some monitor scaling does

2) It can make older games look good on monitors with ratios different than the resolution/aspect ratio the game supports. So for example an older game with 4:3 ratio will be properly displayed on both a 16:9 or 16:10 monitor, except in those situations where the game's maximum resolution (such as 1600x1200) physically exceeds the screen's resolution, for example 1080p.

So in that light, why do I care about scaling on a computer monitor used exclusively on PC? One answer: I don't. I could only think of maybe DOS games that could benefit from good monitor scaling and that is debatable. Otherwise the video card will do the job for me without penalty, and as a side benefit, the scaling usually introduces a slight amount of anti-aliasing to smooth things out nicely.

Where I do care about scaling is in use with popular consoles such as Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii so that the image is shown at the right aspect ratio, with minimum or no overscan so there is no distortion or degradation. So far I've used two 16:9 monitors that fulfill this purpose, and they are both cheaper than equivalently sized 16:10 monitors.

I am also interested in the Samsung 2343BW/BWX with its weird 2048x1152 resolution and see how that works with consoles. For the record, this screen has MORE pixels than a 1920x1200 16:10 monitor and is much cheaper here in Canada > $299.99 vs. $399.99 for the average 16:10 TN based 24".

As Nenu said, at the end of the day "to each their own". I personally prefer 16:10 computer monitors, but it took me a long time and a lot of effort to find ones that can be used properly with 16:9 sources, with no overscan and with proper pixel mapping. I prefer them because I need them for PC use more than console use, but for those (as I've said before) that also want to use them a fair bit with consoles or 1080p video players, 16:9 monitors can be a compelling choice.

I think in this light, you need to learn to "agree to disagree", Albovin.

albovin said:
Those who dislike words can just open eyes.
Pictures provided.

BTW what you posted is the most innocent inferior resolution apology.:)
There is much worse.
Click to expand...
 
Most definately 16:10

Not all games and other full screen apps will support 16:9 resolutions which is a bit of a problem, however 16:10 monitors support all the 16:9 resolutions quite nicely, 1280x800 nicely fits 1280x720 (low res HD format) and 1920x1200 nicely fits 1920x1080 (high res HD format)

My 16:10 2560x1600 handles widescreen movies well, theres quite thin black borders at the top and bottom.

If you play absolutely no games, and watch loads of media on your monitor, then 16:9 would be alright but I see no real difference when it comes to desktop space, they're quite similar.
 
A lot of games look great in 16:9 and made for TV HD shows look best with a 16:9 display, but I can empathize with people being upset about losing choices...
 
Ok Albovin,

Let's re-cap:

- You come in here with your first post, and show some photos and links to the E2400HD thread. Nothing wrong with that. That grey/green/red thing is not good at showing anything. You need a full screen to show the clear differences. You can use these at the bottom to show the difference is not earth shattering.

- Post #2 you come in and insult LawGiver, then proceed to post pix which are not normal 16:10 monitors, but caption them True 16:10. This is more common of HDTVs with their zoom mode, not monitors. I have returned screens that had overscan with consoles because parts of the HUD were cut off. You lose part of your HUD, you lose information. If you actually played a game in this mode, you would not like it. Unrealistic. Stop going off on tangents please.

I know you are trying to show that a 16:10 monitor can show a bigger picture at same diagonal, I just don't understand why you would show it that way. Most 16:10 monitors don't do that zooming.

As for my experience with 16:9 "monitors" remember I used an LG 37" TV as a monitor for 8 months, and it was glorious except for input lag. The 16:9 ratio didn't bother me one bit. I just prefer 16:10.

Thanks Master for the life advice. I'll study study study now.

Here's some advice back. Stop surfing www.dictionary.com, and learning (Greek sourced) words that no one (who) speaks English uses like logorrhea, demagoguery and (my favourite) graphomania. It makes you sound like a weird-O who's trying way too hard to sound smart. Forget these words, everyone else has.

Learn some new words like propriety, respect, and (n)etiquette. Stop insulting the users on this "supposedly" [H]ousewifes' forum. I don't think they like it. The gamers make this forum, as they are the enthusiasts. I haven't asked, but it's a hunch. You often give good info, but you wrap it in snide remarks and general nastiness. Mean people suck haven't you heard?

So illustrations=facts? Here you go:

These are diagrams that I had made a while back for a future post, but I'll share them so all can see a comparison of 24" 16:10 and 24" 16:9 sizes/ratios and make decisions based on that. I made them in Visio which allows "size specific" boxes to be drawn based on measurements. I used 24" as a template because that's all I have at 16:9 and 16:10 same size.

Take them and use them. They are far more illustrative than that grey thing you show people.

They compare both ratios and 2.39:1 movies (most common these days) on a 24" 16:9 and 16:10 screen.

What they show is a size difference full screen:

3065794828_3d35513ce7_o.jpg


And a size difference with 2.39:1 movies:

3064921756_65eed1590d_o.jpg




albovin said:
10e, you think logorrhea is more useful than illustrations?


Why write about it?
It's in the picture, 10e!
Just look.


<snipped junk>


I post illustrations = facts.
Who I disagree with? Gamers seeking cheaper 16:9 monitors?
I agee, 10e.
One more time especially for you, 10e: I agree. The God will bless them.
But when someone says "I don't understand why lower resolution is inferior" - I post pictures.
Anything wrong with illustrations? No?
Then you can agree or diagree with them (not me) until the world ends.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top