Why is 16:9 popular

16:10 gives you more screen area for the same diagonal screen measurement than 16:9, and to me it's worth it to the point where it'll determine whether or not I buy a monitor. However, different strokes for different folks and their different needs: gaming vs multimedia vs regular office work, etc.
 
Nielo TM said:
PS: If you looks at the charts, consoles (as a whole) have over-taken PC.
Click to expand...

The ps2 almost outsold this generation of consoles (ps3+Xbox+wii) put together. 143.8 million to 146 (36+40+70). With the 40 million for the other 2 (xbox+gamecube), theres less sales for consoles. PC gaming has ALWAYS been a marginal market. The best selling FPS is still half-life...from 1998

People sell 16:9 because ITS THE NEW THING. People see it it and say, wow, theres a new one that does 16:9. Mine only does 16:10. They then buy a new monitor. Its a sale feature. Not a very useful feature, as movies arn't in 16:9...Oh and look a new 3d monitor! It makes things 3d!
 
DeathPrincess said:
The ps2 almost outsold this generation of consoles (ps3+Xbox+wii) put together. 143.8 million to 146 (36+40+70). With the 40 million for the other 2 (xbox+gamecube), theres less sales for consoles. PC gaming has ALWAYS been a marginal market. The best selling FPS is still half-life...from 1998

People sell 16:9 because ITS THE NEW THING. People see it it and say, wow, theres a new one that does 16:9. Mine only does 16:10. They then buy a new monitor. Its a sale feature. Not a very useful feature, as movies arn't in 16:9...Oh and look a new 3d monitor! It makes things 3d!
Click to expand...

The PC games market was not always marginal. In the Atari 800/C64 days it seemed to be pretty huge and I bet even larger than consoles then just to name one point in time. And its only more recently that the PC market seems to have really shrunken down so much and we've gone such an extended time without the PC resurging to the forefront for a little while again.
 
monitorrat said:
The PC games market was not always marginal. In the Atari 800/C64 days it seemed to be pretty huge and I bet even larger than consoles then just to name one point in time. And its only more recently that the PC market seems to have really shrunken down so much and we've gone such an extended time without the PC resurging to the forefront for a little while again.
Click to expand...

"Overall, the Atari 8-bit computer line was a commercial success, selling two million units through its major production run between late 1979 and mid-1985"

Atari 2600 30Million 1977
NES 61.91Million 1983

"During the C64's lifetime, sales totaled 30 million units, making it the best-selling single personal computer model of all time" (1982 - 1994 when Commodore went backrupt)

SNES 49.10 Million 1990
 
Last edited:
monitorrat said:
The PC games market was not always marginal. In the Atari 800/C64 days it seemed to be pretty huge and I bet even larger than consoles then just to name one point in time. And its only more recently that the PC market seems to have really shrunken down so much and we've gone such an extended time without the PC resurging to the forefront for a little while again.
Click to expand...

This isn't so much about the past as it is the current state of affairs, but I feel it's still relevant to the discussion. I posted this in another forum...

Things have really stagnated in terms of graphical advancement, not neccesarily because of UE3, but because of the dominance of console hardware/software sales in the market, and publishers' near catatonic fear of piracy on the PC. Let's boil down a couple of facts:


1. Microsoft isn't helping the issue with it's XBox division.

They have been buying out and paying off developers to switch from PC development to their console. Epic is a good example of this with basically saying sit-and-spin to PC gamers, now focused solely on XBox 360 development. I wonder how many digits were on the check from MS?

http://www.firingsquad.com/news/news...searchid=22770

If facebook is going to be the future of PC gaming, I am having no part of it, although my fiance (and the other hundreds of millions of FB users) wouldn't mind at all. Me? Excuse me while I throw up.

Also, Remedy was originally going to develop Alan Wake for PC (anyone else remember IDF 2006?) to be a showcase for quad core CPUs and DirectX 10. Then it was going to be a PC and XBox 360 game, before MS finally said "it would be best played on a big screen tv from the couch."

Sure. They can't collect licensing fees or sell more consoles if its on the PC, now is it? Same thing with Halo. Wasn't it supposed to be for PC and Mac before Bungie got bought by MS?

Wikipedia seems to agree with me.

And their latest comments about PC gaming being very important come off as hollow and empty. Don't tell me PC gaming is important to you, f'ing prove it.


2. BitTorrent.

Piracy is also a huge factor among publishers. If you were to do a search, there really isn't a game you can't find that doesn't have a torrent file associated with it, PC or console (with the exception of the PS3 because BluRay burners are expensive, ISO sizes are massive, and nobody has worked out how to crack the system/firmware). Publishers have the rationale that if you're smart enough to build a gaming PC, you know how to use BitTorrent. Modded consoles aren't as common, and with the 360, hooking up to Live will likely get it banned. Publishers have a consensus that consoles are the safer bet for making sure more people buy your game. Especially when you're spending $20-40M on the development and marketing of just one title. Economies of scale are in full effect here.


3. The economic downturn.

With unemployment at an all time high, and people pinching pennies like it was the great depression, few people want to spend nearly $1000 for a high-end or at least competent gaming PC every two years, especlially when they can buy one console for $300-500 every five years (or is it going to me more like 10 with this generation? MS and Sony seem to think so...) The misconception that you need to spend a freaking fortune on a gaming PC is probably left from the mid-to-late 1990's, in which you would spend $2000-3000 for a bitchin' system.

Now, with graphics cars costing less than $200 you can have a fantastic gaming experience as long as you aren't using a 30" 2560x1600 LCD monitor, and cheap quad cores with stellar performance for the same, I call BS, but this is how the general public thinks. And until OEMs (and also Intel, I'm looking squarely at you, bubby) stop including god-awful integrated graphics with the majority of systems, PC gaming won't reach the masses, either. However, I have very high hopes for AMD's Fusion tech. An equivalent or better gaming experience to a console at 1366x768 on a cheap 15.4" laptop, sure, it's far better that what we have now.


4. For the average consumer, they want things to just "work."

You know, like Macs are supposed to? No messing with drivers, crashes, incompatibilities, just pop in the disk and go. Unless you get an RRoD. Wait, what? Most people are too stupid to figure out how to upgrade or fix problems, or simply just don't want to bother. That's why you've got places like Geek Squad (shudders).


5. For the average gamer, console graphics are more than enough.

Why? Because they probably don't know that there is hardware capable of much, much more. Or just don't care.


6. Not everyone wants to sit at a computer desk, they'd rather be on the couch in front of a big screen.

I can understand this to a point, but to me, comfort takes a back seat to visual fidelity. But that doesn't mean I don't have one comfortable-ass computer chair.
Click to expand...

Sorry for going off topic but I felt it was relevant...
 
Last edited:
Nielo TM said:
PS: If you looks at the charts, consoles (as a whole) have over-taken PC.
Click to expand...
Exactly: as a whole.
But the pc market has, more or less, the same revenue as a market of a single console, which, from my point of view, seems like a very good thing.
If a pc, which is "warez ridden" (or so they say), can have the same revenue as a console (which, again as they say), isn't, doesn't that mean that all the "warez is killing us" is crap?

Nielo TM said:
Maybe it's just me but I find 16:10 the ideal ratio for 4:3 and 16:9 content.
Click to expand...
Second that.
I watched School Rumble on the hz281, and it was better than on the 19''. :D


DeathPrincess said:
People sell 16:9 because ITS THE NEW THING. People see it it and say, wow, theres a new one that does 16:9. Mine only does 16:10. They then buy a new monitor. Its a sale feature. Not a very useful feature, as movies arn't in 16:9...Oh and look a new 3d monitor! It makes things 3d!
Click to expand...
True.
And that's exactly why I hate fashion. Because sells crap as good things...
Though, about the 3d monitors I have to disagree: the 120hz refresh is a very nice evolution, because it gives a better playing experience and, thanks to the fact that 120hz is a multiple of 24hz and 30hz, a helluvalot better video playback experience.
I really hope that all the monitors become 120hz, 30'' included (though, they would have to be displayport driven to do 2560x1600@120hz). :)

Mr. Bluntman said:
This isn't so much about the past as it is the current state of affairs, but I feel it's still relevant to the discussion. I posted this in another forum...
Sorry for going off topic but I felt it was relevant...
Click to expand...
Nice post. Thanks for posting it. ;)
 
As a lot of people have said, it's just money. They can produce 16:9 panels cheaper than 16:10, while still charging the customer the same price all the while being able to market them as "Full HD" as they have convinced the general public that 1080p is the highest resolution that is, or ever will be.

They do it because they can get away with it. When my secondary monitor went out, I had a hard time finding a decent replacement 24" @ 1920x1200. 1920x1080 just isn't the same. It's less. It may be good enough for some folks, and some may even prefer the aspect ratio... but I'm not one of those people. I could possibly understand their position, if those 16:9 monitors were @ 2133x1200 or better. But they're not. 1080 is a downgrade from 1200 any way you slice it (resolution wise).

And that's why people don't like 16:9. For them, it's a downgrade. It's less. For someone coming from a lower resolution or a 4:3 monitor (possibly excluding 1600x1200), I'm sure 1920x1080 feels excellent. It's an upgrade. For those of use who have been above that resolution for quite a few years it's a downgrade, and people don't usually like to downgrade.

Just my 2¢ ;)
 
God you people are such conspiratorial fanatics. This whole evil scheme to take away your precious black pixels exists only in your imagination.

This whole "conversion" to 16:9 is really just a correction of the 16:10 trend that should have never existed in the first place. Whether you like it or not, 16:9 has ALWAYS been the standard for widescreen media.
 
A13X said:
God you people are such conspiratorial fanatics. This whole evil scheme to take away your precious black pixels exists only in your imagination.

This whole "conversion" to 16:9 is really just a correction of the 16:10 trend that should have never existed in the first place. Whether you like it or not, 16:9 has ALWAYS been the standard for widescreen media.
Click to expand...

Except that widescreen media is not the only media, and 16:10 was good because it was halfway, permitting to enjoy widescreen and square media with the same pleasure, where a 16:9 monitor has far too big black bars when watching square media, thus killing enjoyment.
 
A13X said:
God you people are such conspiratorial fanatics. This whole evil scheme to take away your precious black pixels exists only in your imagination.

This whole "conversion" to 16:9 is really just a correction of the 16:10 trend that should have never existed in the first place. Whether you like it or not, 16:9 has ALWAYS been the standard for widescreen media.
Click to expand...

If it was an evil scheme we were calling out, someone else would have said intel/nvidia at least 3 times by now. It is how things work.

But there never has been a widescreen standard format that covers film and television. Thats why they stretch and squish things into the 16-9 box with pixel ratios and other black magic. It was chosen because it was an inbetween size that would fit all of the various film aspects for widescreen. (The most common ratios used in cinema features are 1.85:1, 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 there is loads...) The 16:9 format has only really been around since the 90's, and even the first HDTV was 5:3. Which is why high end video cameras have variable ratios. Even low end HD cameras will do 1440x1080p and 1920x1080p and both are still sold as 1080p widescreen. Also 16:10 fits better if you're not watching films that aren't 16:9. Cameras are closer to 16:10. Things like webpages, word processing look stupid in wider acpect ratios because vertical size is more important. I mean,,,look at early computer monitors. Oh try using a "widescreen"monitor in portrait. Paper sizes are 1.64:1 (legal) and 1:29 (letter) or 1.41:1 for A4, rest of the ISO sizes.

Oh and reason for 16:9 monitors. 1920x1080 = 2mp. 1920x1200 = 2.3mp. Using crappier hardware you can push "the same" pixels.
 
Last edited:
saving .3m pixels is not going to save much money.

The main reason is that the panels are interchangeable. So there's no need to manufacture two set of panels (one for monitors and the other for TVs/hybrids).

It will also give them the excuse to use the Full 1080p logo.


IMO, it's better to have both 16:10 and 16:9 to give consumers more choice in the manner.
 
Nielo TM said:
saving .3m pixels is not going to save much money.

The main reason is that the panels are interchangeable. So there's no need to manufacture two set of panels (one for monitors and the other for TVs/hybrids).

It will also give them the excuse to use the Full 1080p logo.


IMO, it's better to have both 16:10 and 16:9 to give consumers more choice in the manner.
Click to expand...

Can't they have 2.35:1 and be properly cinematic???
 
A13X said:
God you people are such conspiratorial fanatics. This whole evil scheme to take away your precious black pixels exists only in your imagination.

This whole "conversion" to 16:9 is really just a correction of the 16:10 trend that should have never existed in the first place. Whether you like it or not, 16:9 has ALWAYS been the standard for widescreen media.
Click to expand...

Agreed about the conspiratorial comment, disagree on the black bars. My PC doesn't make those :)

Mr. Bluntman thanks for posting that. Funny that I make my living on computers (in IT) and I first got into them because of the great games that attracted me to them over 25 years ago.
 
Nielo TM said:
IMO, it's better to have both 16:10 and 16:9 to give consumers more choice in the manner.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it would also be better to have different pixel densities for every resolution, but it doesn't seem that the people on the top think about what is better for the consumers, but only about what is better for their wallet... :mad:
 
Because the panel manufacturers are lazy, cheap bastards. I in no way shape or form like those assholes dictating the aspect ratio I have to use. Loved my 16x 10 ratio 24" monitor. Now about all there is is crappy 16 x9 ratio 1920 x 1080 res instead of 1920 x 1200 res screens. They can suck my nuts.:mad:
 
Akogot said:
I currently run a 16:10 1920-1200 monitor for my comp and cant seem to figure out why they make more of the 16:9 ones.

Inform me
Click to expand...
Because it is better.

1) No/smaller black bars
2) Better for multitasking
3) Better for gaming (wider view)
4) Better for movies (wider view)

16:10 is just so old. In 5 years 16:10 is gone nobody will miss it. You prefer 16:10 now simply because you are used to it and are against changes.
 
I really don't get the point of widescreen. It's basically taking a big monitor, and chopping part of the top off. You lose so much viewing area. I'm happy with my 5:4 Acers.

Eventually I want to upgrade my 19" Acers but I'll probably have a hell of a time finding 4:3 or 5:4 screens. Widescreen sucks for most computer tasks. At work I have two wide screens and cant stand it. When I remote into a server, or someone else's PC I have to scroll up and down all the time.

Even for movies I don't get why they ever went widescreen, not to mention there are too many standards so no matter what you'll end up with some black bars, which is basically wasted viewing area. With widescreen you lose so much vertical viewing area and everything has to be shrinked to fit.
 
Red Squirrel said:
I really don't get the point of widescreen. It's basically taking a big monitor, and chopping part of the top off. You lose so much viewing area. I'm happy with my 5:4 Acers.
Click to expand...

widescreen format conform to the human visual perception. So the resolution is chopped-off but rather reallocated where it can do more good.
 
Yeah I heard that reason before, but you can basically just put a piece of cardboard to cover the top of a 4:3 to get the same effect lol. I rather have more overall screen area.
 
Oled said:
Because it is better.

1) No/smaller black bars
2) Better for multitasking
3) Better for gaming (wider view)
4) Better for movies (wider view)

16:10 is just so old. In 5 years 16:10 is gone nobody will miss it. You prefer 16:10 now simply because you are used to it and are against changes.
Click to expand...

Not everyone gives a crap about how movies or games look on their monitor (your first point only matters to people who are easily distracted, your second point is not worth refuting). Frankly, I think 16:9 aspect ratio games and movies look just great on my 16:10 monitor, probably because I and many others don't give a crap about black bars (I'm usually too busy watching the movie or playing the game to notice them). Movies and games are not the be all, end all metrics for the worth of a monitor and/or aspect ratio. There are more than a few people who place more importance on total amount of pixels and vertical space, rather than horizontal. More pixels for the money is generally considered to be a good metric for buying a monitor. This is seriously the first time in my entire life where people have tried to legitimately argue that getting more for your money is a bad thing, that you should settle for less due to factors that not everyone cares about.

I bought my 24-inch 1920x1200, and many of this forum have similar, for just under $300. If I need to switch to a new monitor now, I'm shit out of luck unless I'm willing to around $500. There are no choices in the price range of my monitor, and having that lack of choices is what people are complaining about. Its being assumed by manufacturers that all budget conscious buyers want 16:9, and thats obviously not the case. As an anecdote, I have a 100% computer illiterate friend who was interested in buying a new monitor for around $200. We went over to Best Buy to have a look at their selection (since he's kind of apprehensive about buying a monitor online since he can't look at it first). He saw the shelves full of 16:9 monitors and his very first comment was "Why are they so narrow?", and after telling him about the 16:9 transition his opinion on the matter was "that's dumb" (of course, I then had to explain why that didn't matter for him, since his current monitor is complete garbage).

Thankfully 16:10 isn't going anywhere any time soon, even though its more expensive. New desktop monitors are still being released, and business laptops and desktops still use it in abundance (my university just upgraded 3 computer labs with new Core 2 Duo E8400-based machines, and every single one uses a 1440x900 monitor). And far as what things will look like 5 years from now, there's absolutely no way to know. For all we know 16:9 will have been supplanted by 14:9 by then.
 
Last edited:
Red Squirrel said:
Yeah I heard that reason before, but you can basically just put a piece of cardboard to cover the top of a 4:3 to get the same effect lol. I rather have more overall screen area.
Click to expand...

I've heard that reason too but I've seen no justification for it. Does anyone have a link or something that explains how that's supposed to work?
 
Red Squirrel said:
Yeah I heard that reason before, but you can basically just put a piece of cardboard to cover the top of a 4:3 to get the same effect lol. I rather have more overall screen area.
Click to expand...

This really makes no sense to me. Wouldn't 4:3/5:4 just a be a wide screen with the sides chopped off by this logic?

Your reasoning only holds water if you can get a comparable 5:4 LCD with the exact same horizontal resolution and viewing width for the same cost of the wide screen monitor.

If you are going by actual screen area and cost, a 21.5 inch 16:9 monitor has more viewing area then a 19 inch 5:4. A 19 inch Acer 5:4 on newegg is $165(1280x1024), and a 21.5inch 16:9 Acer is $169 (1920x1080).
 
limitedaccess said:
This really makes no sense to me. Wouldn't 4:3/5:4 just a be a wide screen with the sides chopped off by this logic?

Your reasoning only holds water if you can get a comparable 5:4 LCD with the exact same horizontal resolution and viewing width for the same cost of the wide screen monitor.

If you are going by actual screen area and cost, a 21.5 inch 16:9 monitor has more viewing area then a 19 inch 5:4. A 19 inch Acer 5:4 on newegg is $165(1280x1024), and a 21.5inch 16:9 Acer is $169 (1920x1080).
Click to expand...

Only problem is you are comparing a 19 inch with a 21.5 inch. A 19 inch wide screen will be about as wide as the non wide screen, but have less top room, and probably be about the same price give or take. It also takes up more space for nothing on a desk when you get into 2-4 monitor setups. But yeah, a 21.5 inch wide would be better then a 19 inch none wide, can't really argue that. Guess the good thing is lot of monitors can be turned around 90 degrees so I suppose a wide screen turned around would rock for coding, and doing other tasks of that nature.
 
Honestly, my main complaint is that there isn't a 16:9 30 inch. Now that would be pretty epic and any loss due to switching ratios would be somewhat miniscule in the size of the screen.
 
Oled said:
Because it is better.

1) No/smaller black bars
2) Better for multitasking
3) Better for gaming (wider view)
4) Better for movies (wider view)

16:10 is just so old. In 5 years 16:10 is gone nobody will miss it. You prefer 16:10 now simply because you are used to it and are against changes.
Click to expand...

1) If you are viewing 16:10 content, then a 16:10 monitor won't have black bars but a 16:9 one will. Likewise, if you are watching 4:3 content (old TV shows, for example), then 16:10 will have smaller black bars.

So basically point 1 isn't true.

2) Only if the extra width makes it just wide enough to comfortably fit two windows side by side whereas 16:10 can't, otherwise it is no different than 16:10.

So point 2 is unlikely

3) True

4) Kind of. This is really just a subset of #1, but if you are making a screen for movie watching then 2.35:1 (the AR of most movies) is far superior to 16:9

Now for the downsides:

1) Web surfing is worse
2) Office work is worse
3) Anything with a vertical list is worse (IM friend list, steam game list, etc...)
4) Modern UI is still designed for screens with more vertical space (menu bars, tool bars, the windows task bar, window decorations, etc...)

Thus, 16:9 is *WORSE* than 16:10 for most computer usage, since web browsing and office work are the dominant use of computers.

Also, doing programming on 16:9 sucks ass. Ditto for using a command line.
 
Nielo TM said:
Not all movies use 2.35:1 and it's simply too wide for monitor use as it exceeds the field of view
Click to expand...
It isn't too wide for monitor use, necessarily. It would require turning of the head, certainly, but that wouldn't necessarily be a problem. Curved display technologies would help, but I don't think a curved panel would be mandatory for a 2.35:1 display.

The 'catch' with a 2.35:1 monitor is not so much an issue of its aspect ratio but what its optimal resolution might be. To that end, a 2538x1080 resolution might be suitable but it would confer no real benefit for 1080p 2.35:1 movie playback (which would be pillarboxed unless stretched — not a particularly attractive solution), and a 1920x800 display would have far too low vertical resolution to be useful as a monitor for any machine intended to be used productively.

Still, a 2.35:1 display would rock. Even it would be typically less than ideally suited for movies, it'd be the absolute ultimate for first-person gaming, particularly with some slight panel curvature. There is a curved 2.35:1 display available currently, but it's a whopping $10k.
 
phide said:
Still, a 2.35:1 display would rock. Even it would be typically less than ideally suited for movies, it'd be the absolute ultimate for first-person gaming, particularly with some slight panel curvature. There is a curved 2.35:1 display available currently, but it's a whopping $10k.
Click to expand...

Was the DOOM movie shot in 2.35:1???
 
Nielo TM said:
Not all movies use 2.35:1 and it's simply too wide for monitor use as it exceeds the field of view
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, not even close. I game on a 4.8:1 aspect ratio and I can still see the left and right edges of the screen. They are pretty far in my peripherals, sure, but it certainly isn't exceeding the field of view.
 
You may be able to detect moments around the edges but it the majority of information is wasted if the viewing distance is close.

I find it difficult to keep track of a 22" 16:10 monitor from the distance of 22". However, from the recommended distance of 44" (2X the diagonal size for motion picture), I can just about cover the entire screen straining me eyes.
 
Last edited:
both 8:6/4:3/1600x1200 and 8:5/16:10/1920x1200 are VESA standards designed by computer people for computer people.

16:9/1080p/720p are movie and tv industry standards designed for movies and tvs.

stick with the originators or stink with the imitators.
 
I do not like 16:9 at all. As soon as I move, I'm grabbing 3xU2410's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top