16:9 vs 16:10

sethk said:
Consoles do support 16:9 aspect ratios (in fact they are most commonly used at 16:9), so I'm not quite sure I see why a console port in particular wouldn't support 16:9 on a PC.
Click to expand...

I know that; but the developers might assume that PC gamers won't run at 16:9 and will only allow the program to support 16:10. That'd be rather short-sighted of them but I wouldn't be very surprised if it happened. Though nowadays developers will probably choose to only support a certain aspect ratio under the justification that they have to "level the playing field".

Heck, I remember when FreeLancer came out and I was rather surprised at the lack of 1280*1024 support even though it was a common resolution at the time. The game strictly supported only 4:3 resolutions and it was a PC exclusive.
 
16:9 is better for me because

1) All the 16:9 monitors capable of 1080p are quite a bit cheaper than the 16:10 ones at the moment.

2) I play games where I'd rather have more horizontal space than vertical space (racing games where more vertical space simply = more of the cockpit, more horizontal space = more environment visible). Now, I say horizontal SPACE not horizontal resolution, because the space is more important in these games than the actual number of pixels wide the screen is.

3) I use my monitor as a TV a lot, a wider screen without black bars means I can see it better from my couch.

4) Whilst it is annoying to be losing vertical pixels for regular use, it doesn't really bother me given the fact the 19x10 monitors are cheaper than the 19x12 ones.
 
Looks like 16:10 is almost extinct on laptops now. Just checked out the latest Dell and HP laptops, and if you want 16:10, you have to get a 17" laptop (which might be too heavy for some people). Anything under 17" is 16:9 now.
 
my laptop is 1280x800 native which I think is 16:10.

I think there is no best 16:10 or 16:9 will all be down to typical use and personal preference.

When I went from 4:3 to 16:10 the difference in widescreen media was immense and makes it well worth it, the difference from what I see on screenshots between 16:10 and 16:9 on media seems far less of an impact, I do actually find it hard with the full screen width on desktop use still on 16:10 so I think 16:9 would end up been worse for me.
 
I still think 16:10 is a letdown from 4:3, so 16:9 certainly is not enough vertical real estate for me. I like short lines, then read top down (like web pages). I don't like reading long horizontal lines; most people don't. How often does one print in landscape instead of portrait? I'm not sure what scientific research manufacturers are doing to decide that 16:9 is a better idea. Something tells me they aren't - it's purely a monetary decision.

/minor rant off
 
Valnar said:
I still think 16:10 is a letdown from 4:3, so 16:9 certainly is not enough vertical real estate for me. I like short lines, then read top down (like web pages). I don't like reading long horizontal lines; most people don't. How often does one print in landscape instead of portrait? I'm not sure what scientific research manufacturers are doing to decide that 16:9 is a better idea. Something tells me they aren't - it's purely a monetary decision.

/minor rant off
Click to expand...
So buy a non-TN and pivot to portrait.
 
All I really care about is that LCD monitiors using IPS panels will still 16:10 in the future.
 
Yes, I think this is a case of personal preference. I do like the 16:10 though, as the 16:9 just seems TOO wide for a monitor. It's nice to have something big, but I do enjoy the vertical space more often :)
 
A friend of mine has a 16:9 monitor and I have to say that I like that format better than 16:10. It is better to move your head sideways than up and down. And the human eyes suits a 16:9 monitor better. Next time I buy monitor it will be a widescreen.
 
avec said:
A friend of mine has a 16:9 monitor and I have to say that I like that format better than 16:10. It is better to move your head sideways than up and down. And the human eyes suits a 16:9 monitor better. Next time I buy monitor it will be a widescreen.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. You're not supposed to move your head at all.
 
Besides work and web browsing 16:9 is superior. I scroll on web pages so that extra 120pixels doesn't mean much to me.

Nearly Every current Sports/Anime/Prime Time show is in 16:9.

The Games I play (TF2, CSS, etc...) have a higher FOV in 16:9.

16:9
1dya1w.jpg


16:10
wr1is1.jpg



The Majority of movies, which are 2.35 : 1, look much better on a 16:9 monitor.

Finally console lovers will rejoice. I personally only hook up my consoles to my HDTV.
 
Last edited:
wow great screeenshots- the 16:9 does look better... I never really thought one was better than the other for PC gaming since most games have good support for both aspect ratios

Still, I would prefer a 16:9 just to avoid letterboxing in fullscreen youtube videos

I totally disagree about widescreen being good for text. Try reading a lengthy Wikipedia paragraph in 16:9 fullscreen... It's a bitch if you're like me and easily loose track of where you're reading. Yeah I usually go to windowed mode for that. (Makes me feel like a mac noob... Mac people do everything in windowed mode because you can't maximize windows in OSX)
 
Last edited:
A13X said:
wow great screeenshots- the 16:9 does look better... I never really thought one was better than the other for PC gaming since most games have good support for both aspect ratios

Still, I would prefer a 16:9 just to avoid letterboxing in fullscreen youtube videos
Click to expand...

You mean a full widescreen. Fullscreen is usually reserved for 4:3 aspect ratio movies and shows.
 
A13X said:
...I totally disagree about widescreen being good for text. Try reading a lengthy Wikipedia paragraph in 16:9 fullscreen... It's a bitch if you're like me and easily loose track of where you're reading. Yeah I usually go to windowed mode for that. (Makes me feel like a mac noob... Mac people do everything in windowed mode because you can't maximize windows in OSX)
Click to expand...

Thing is, its just as wide in 16:10.
If the text is too small, zoom in.
 
Nenu said:
Thing is, its just as wide in 16:10.
If the text is too small, zoom in.
Click to expand...

I never said 16:10 was better than 16:9 in that regard, I was just disagreeing with someone who apparently liked widescreen for text. The whole issue is completely subjective though... If you like widescreen for text, then widescreen (for you) is better for text.

And no, the size of the text is not an issue, it's the long lines of unbroken text that make it hard for me to find my place when I loose track. Going into windowed mode solves this problem because Wikipedia adjusts the text to fit into your browser window, which lets you dictate the length of lines of text.
 
Krycek1 said:
You mean a full widescreen. Fullscreen is usually reserved for 4:3 aspect ratio movies and shows.
Click to expand...

No, I mean fullscreen. As in "full-screen"; the screen is full. The aspect ratio of the monitor in use no bearing on the matter.
 
A13X said:
I never said 16:10 was better than 16:9 in that regard, I was just disagreeing with someone who apparently liked widescreen for text. The whole issue is completely subjective though... If you like widescreen for text, then widescreen (for you) is better for text.

And no, the size of the text is not an issue, it's the long lines of unbroken text that make it hard for me to find my place when I loose track. Going into windowed mode solves this problem because Wikipedia adjusts the text to fit into your browser window, which lets you dictate the length of lines of text.
Click to expand...

Cool
Zooming in will achieve the same thing as going into windowed mode, text will be bigger too, double win.
 
Xec said:
The Games I play (TF2, CSS, etc...) have a higher FOV in 16:9.

16:9
1dya1w.jpg


16:10
wr1is1.jpg
Click to expand...

Honestly the only difference I see is that the 16:10 looks like it was squished horizontally but still has the same horizontal FoV. The vertical FoV looks increased. But I will admit with those two pictures the difference vertically is not THAT significant, but it could be nice.
 
A13X said:
wow great screeenshots- the 16:9 does look better... I never really thought one was better than the other for PC gaming since most games have good support for both aspect ratios

Still, I would prefer a 16:9 just to avoid letterboxing in fullscreen youtube videos

I totally disagree about widescreen being good for text. Try reading a lengthy Wikipedia paragraph in 16:9 fullscreen... It's a bitch if you're like me and easily loose track of where you're reading. Yeah I usually go to windowed mode for that. (Makes me feel like a mac noob... Mac people do everything in windowed mode because you can't maximize windows in OSX)
Click to expand...

The thing is that that the best format for reading is 4:3 so no matter if you use 16:10 or 16:9 it is best to do it in windowed mode. The difference is that you get more space to multitask with 16:9.

I think within 1-2 years basically all monitors are 16:9. Cheaper and better. 16:10 is kind of a compromize between 4:3 and 16:9 and it doesnt really suits anything perfect. 16:9 is perfect for gaming, TV and many movies. It is not perfect for textreading fullscreen but how difficult is it to use the windowed mode? Not at all.
 
albovin: I also prefer 16:10 but i understand that people will prefer 16:9 to avoid black bars with 16:9 content. All HDTV broadcast is in 16:9, more and more games is made for 16:9 (sadly, since most are originally made for consoles). So it is only natural that people will want a screen with the aspect ratio that is in alignment with their content.
 
albovin said:
16:10 is more universal and more valuable as a product.
Click to expand...

QFT. 16:9 is a reduction in screen resolution from equivalent 16:10 resolutions. It is 100% a means to cut production costs to sell monitors that have less vertical resolution. That's it. If you like the aspect ratio of 16:9 better, then that's your prerogative, but some of us don't like the fact that the LCD market is being invaded by monitors that have less resolution than than equivalently sized monitors used to have in 16:10. Fortunately, 16:9 is relegated to the cheap TN market segment, though 16:9 is getting root in premium IPS/PVA monitors recently as well. Laptops are all but certain to have 16:9 aspect ratios as well.

I never really understood the hatred for letterboxing of 16:9 content in 16:10 monitors. Personally, it's not that all big of a deal for me, but I guess for those who despise letterboxing, 2.35:1 and 4:3 content is also out of the question....
 
albovin said:
16:10 provides all possibilities that 16:9 does in movies and games, plus 16:10 is significantly more convenient for office work, internet, photo editing, etc.

16:10 is more universal and more valuable as a product.
Click to expand...

Jesus, this guy just keeps pushing this BS...16:10 is better because it can still do 16:9?

Come on.

Your whole argument comes down to "16:10 is signifigantly more convenient for office work, internet, photo editing, etc."

You like 16:10 more for office work, internet, photo editing, etc. Good for you. The problem here is that you are using your opinion on a subjective matter to support your claim that 16:10 is "more universal." If you want to say something is "universal," you need to provide empirical evidence, not blast your opinion over and over again as fact.
 
I agree that 16:10 is better. I think 4:3 is even better.

16:9 does nothing better than 16:10 for office work. It has more vertical space for viewing documents, web pages, etc. This of course assumes the same horizontal resolution and monitor size. This is common sense. We do not need to cite common sense.
 
Syntax Error said:
QFT. 16:9 is a reduction in screen resolution from equivalent 16:10 resolutions. It is 100% a means to cut production costs to sell monitors that have less vertical resolution. That's it.

I never really understood the hatred for letterboxing of 16:9 content in 16:10 monitors.
Click to expand...

Try to contradict yourself less in your posting.

You claim that the only reason manufactures are producing 16:9 monitors is to "cut costs to sell monitors that have less vertical resolution." Then later you acknowledge the fact that people hate the letterboxing that occurs on 16:10 monitors, but not on 16:9 monitors. (What?)
 
Whoisthisreally said:
16:9 on a monitor will not get rid of black bars for many common formats.
Click to expand...

If 4:3 is considered to be the "standard" media format, all other common formats (16:9, 1.85:1, 2.39:1) are considered to have "extra resolution", every media format can be purged of black bars via zoom functions and still contain extra resolution save for 4:3.
 
A13X said:
Try to contradict yourself less in your posting.

You claim that the only reason manufactures are producing 16:9 monitors is to "cut costs to sell monitors that have less vertical resolution." Then later you acknowledge the fact that people hate the letterboxing that occurs on 16:10 monitors, but not on 16:9 monitors. (What?)
Click to expand...

When did I state that people don't hate letterboxing? It's a subjective matter. 16:9 aspect ratio and subjective tastes for eliminating letterboxing with 16:9 monitors aren't mutually exclusive, it is a means to cut costs of production. Whether or not people see less vertical resolution as a "plus" is another matter. ;)

Personally, and this is just a personal preference, as your preference towards cheap TN panels and less vertical resolution is to you, 16:9 resolution is simply a cheap cop-out to try to push inferior monitors with less resolution on consumers just because it's "full 1080p". :rolleyes:

Face the facts. 16:10 monitors are just more versatile and feature more resolution than full 1080p monitors. The only real benefit I can see with 16:9 is that they're offering 1920x1080 on 22" sized monitors when most monitors of this size are 1680x1050. However, on monitors less sized than that they are often 1368x768 (rather than the old 1280x800 on those monitors), 1600x900 on some random small monitors, and 1080p on 22"+ monitors.

WUXGA+ is a great resolution and I don't care if I get black letterboxing. Others, apparently, are supremely butthurt by the existence of such letterboxing it seems. :rolleyes:
 
Xec said:
Besides work and web browsing 16:9 is superior. I scroll on web pages so that extra 120pixels doesn't mean much to me.

Nearly Every current Sports/Anime/Prime Time show is in 16:9.

The Games I play (TF2, CSS, etc...) have a higher FOV in 16:9.

16:9
1dya1w.jpg


16:10
wr1is1.jpg



The Majority of movies, which are 2.35 : 1, look much better on a 16:9 monitor.

Finally console lovers will rejoice. I personally only hook up my consoles to my HDTV.
Click to expand...

Interesting, but that looks more like bad game design, like the PC versions of FarCry 2 and Bioshock when they were first released.
 
About using 16:10 monitors for 16:9 games:

Some game developers actually make you lose FOV so the aspect ratio will be correct (intelligent developers use black bars). If a game is made for 16:9 and you use a 16:10 monitor and still get full screen, there is a loss of FOV or the imaged is squiched with a fucked up aspect ratio.

How to fix this:
1.Either turn on 1:1 pixelmapping in your monitor or use the option in your graphics card settings to keep aspect ratio.
2.Change resolution to 1920x1080.
3.Play the game! (with no loss of FOV or fucked up aspect ratio). :)

Now, can somebody tell me how to fix the problem with using 16:9 monitor for 16:10 games, without a loss of FOV or squiched aspect ratio?
 
Any games with Vert- (loss of vertical resolution in-game) will be technically disadvantaged with a 16:9 monitor as opposed to a 16:10 monitor.

Even games with Hor+ (gain of horizontal resolution in-game) will remain the same with 16:9 1080p monitors versus 16:10 1920x1200 monitors as you'll have loss of vertical resolution due to the less screen resolution that comes along with a 1080p monitors, unless it adjusts the FOV which it seems like TF2 does.
 
I wonder which pixels are most uniform, 16:10 or 16:9 monitors? They have the same amount of pixels in the horizontal plane, so that means there is a difference in the size of the pixels between 16:9 and 16:10 monitors...

24-inch-16x9-vs-24-inch-16x10.png
 
Frameless said:
I wonder which pixels are most uniform, 16:10 or 16:9 monitors? They have the same amount of pixels in the horizontal plane, so that means there is a difference in the size of the pixels between 16:9 and 16:10 monitors...

24-inch-16x9-vs-24-inch-16x10.png
Click to expand...

At 24", the dot pitch is .2692mm and .2767mm for 16:10 and 16:9 respectively.
 
Syntax Error said:
When did I state that people don't hate letterboxing? It's a subjective matter. 16:9 aspect ratio and subjective tastes for eliminating letterboxing with 16:9 monitors aren't mutually exclusive, it is a means to cut costs of production. Whether or not people see less vertical resolution as a "plus" is another matter. ;)

Personally, and this is just a personal preference, as your preference towards cheap TN panels and less vertical resolution is to you, 16:9 resolution is simply a cheap cop-out to try to push inferior monitors with less resolution on consumers just because it's "full 1080p". :rolleyes:

Face the facts. 16:10 monitors are just more versatile and feature more resolution than full 1080p monitors. The only real benefit I can see with 16:9 is that they're offering 1920x1080 on 22" sized monitors when most monitors of this size are 1680x1050. However, on monitors less sized than that they are often 1368x768 (rather than the old 1280x800 on those monitors), 1600x900 on some random small monitors, and 1080p on 22"+ monitors.

WUXGA+ is a great resolution and I don't care if I get black letterboxing. Others, apparently, are supremely butthurt by the existence of such letterboxing it seems. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wow you still don't get it.

1.) "When did I state that people don't hate letterboxing? "

What is this a response to? Seriously, did you read my post?

2.) "It is a means to cut costs of production"

You have nothing to back up this statement, yet you keep saying it over and over. Last time I checked, you were just some kid posting on an internet forum, not an engineer working for BenQ or Samsung.

3.) "Whether or not people see less vertical resolution as a "plus" is another matter."

Lol all you did here was reword things to falsely imply that people who are irritated by letterboxing really just love low resolution. Good argumentative tactic, if you don't have much of an argument.

4.) "Face the facts..."

"face the facts?" Sure, I'm all about facts!

"...16:10 monitors are just more versatile and feature more resolution than full 1080p monitors.

Huh, weird... There aren't any facts in that statement, so I'm not so sure what I'm supposed to "face..." Maybe it was that false statement that 16:10 monitors "feature more resolution than full 1080p monitors?" 1280x800 is a lot less resolution than 1920x1080. But then again, it depends on how many 16:10 monitors you have and how many "full 1080p monitors" you have.


More versatile? You still haven't pointed out anything useful 16:10 monitor can do that a 16:9 can't. In other words, this is just another groundless statements.

5.) "[those who prefer 1920x1080 over 16:10 monitors] apparently, are supremely butthurt by the existence of such letterboxing it seems"

Hmmnn... As i recall, you seem to have be the one crying about all the "lies" made by LCD companies to cover up their secret evil plan to "cut costs" and muck up the earth with "inferior 16:9 monitors."
 
I agree that 16:10 at 1920 horizontal res has higher vertical resolution but I dont see how it benefits reading.
There are way, way more lines of text on the screen than I can read at once, so 16:9 has easily fulfilled its goal and very well too.
On a 16:9 screen, it takes me quite some time before I have to scroll the screen, it is in no way a detriment.
I use 2 16:9 screens (42" and 22") having come straight from a 2048x1536 4:3 screen (22" which is really 19.5") and am not suffering in any way.
Quite the opposite, text is easier to read on the smaller LCD and really easy on the 42".
There is no 'need' for higher vertical resolution when browsing the web or reading text.

Gaming has its issues on both 16:9 and 16:10 formats but there are less issues (if you can call them issues ;)) using 16:9.
16:10 will have larger black borders top and bottom, no biggy.
However the problems on 16:9 are slightly more severe if you 'must' fill the screen width.
For example, Kings Bounty - The Legend is a 16:10 game.
On 16:9 monitors you have a choice, either have black bars to the left/right or create a custom resolution of 1920x1200 and let the mouse scroll the screen up/down when it hits the top or bottom.
Thats no biggy either, have black bars, its easier and doesnt detract from the game at all.
Note that hardly any games are true 16:10 (Kings Bounty is the only one I have come across personally).

Most high def movies will have black bars no matter which screen size you use.
As black bars are not an issue unless you are after perfection, I dont see the problem displaying any type of media, for nearly all users.
If you are fussy about having the screen filled then fair enough.
It doesnt mean anything to anyone else though unless they need the same level of perfection too.
So you will get black bars using either 16:9 or 16:10 depending on the material being viewed, they will be top/bottom on 16:10 and left/right on 16:9 if the material is designed for the opposing resolution.

The one decent need for 16:10 (or higher) is when you do need more real estate for CAD or other design work.
Flipping the monitor 90 degrees and/or using 2 displays may work better as 16:10 isnt the perfect resolution for all tasks either but it is clearly helpful.

To sum up, there is nothing wrong with either format for nearly everyone.
If you need higher vertical resolution, fair enough.
I dont understand the strength of feeling on this.

My 2p :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top