16:9 vs 16:10

You're still wrong, sorry. If you want to give me 12.95 I'll reactivate my FFXI account and take screenshots in 16:9 and 16:10 at 1024x768. 16:9 shows slightly more horizontal field of view. I know this because I specifically went through all the aspect ratios to find which one gave the best field of view for NM camping.

Maybe you should actually look at the picture you're posting. Both images are 16:9. You can clearly see the black bars on the left monitor.
 
albovin said:
Again?

evilsofa, can you see that?


OK. 10 times is not enough.

Let's post it 100 times.

Here you see a Hor+ game with widest possible FOV. Both 16:9 and 16:10 display same FOV.

83724573.jpg
Click to expand...

Albovin, again, the 16:10 monitor in this picture is showing a 16:9 image with 1:1 pixel mapping turned on. Of course they are both showing the same FOV - they are both showing the image at 16:9. The 16:10 in the picture is not displaying its native resolution.
 
albovin said:
Who cares about native resolution?

People care about max FOV.
Here you are. 16:10 displays max possible FOV.

PLUS 16:10 have a BONUS of extra vertical resolution that can be used as needed.
Click to expand...

You aren't listening. The 16:10 display in your picture is not displaying 16:10. How many more times do we have to go around with this before you get it?
 
albovin, I have finally figured out what your problem is - you quoted me from another thread into this one, screwing up the context. Way to go.
 
albovin said:
Funny.
This is what this photo is about: both display 16:9 game with max FOV.
Yes, 16:10 monitor adds black bars because it has a BONUS of extra vertical space/resolution.
That simple and obvious.:)
Click to expand...

So simple and obvious that you haven't realized we already know that. We're talking about the merits of 16:9, not the fact that any good 16:10 monitor can display the 16:9 picture. We were refuting the statement somebody made that a 16:9 image does not have a wider FoV than a 16:10 image.
 
I really have nothing to add except...

Damn, this is turning into a very large thread...
 
albovin said:
Really?:)
What is this:
"On a 1920x1080 display in a Vert- game, you will see less vertically and the same horizontally; in a Hor+ game, you will see the same vertically and more horizontally. I speak in terms of content on the screen, not the physical location of pixels; you seem unable to separate one from the other, which is necessary to understand how FOV works."? (evilsofa)
Click to expand...

Again, I posted that in a different thread, and again, since you posted only that quote, you lost the context of the post. Since the context of the post has been lost, and you repeatedly quote this without understanding what I said, I'll recompose it:

"On a 1920x1080 display in a Vert- game, you will see less vertically and the same horizontally than you would on a 1920x1200 display; on a 1920x1080 display in a Hor+ game, you will see the same vertically and more horizontally than you would on a 1920x1200 display."

Better? And please, don't post the picture again with a 1920x1200 display with a 1920x1080 image using 1:1 pixel mapping. Actually, let me recompose my quote in yet further detail:

"On a 1920x1080 monitor that is displaying a 1920x1080 image in a Vert- game, you will see less vertically and the same horizontally than you would on a 1920x1200 monitor displaying a 1920x1200 image; on a 1920x1080 monitor displaying a 1920x1080 image in a Hor+ game, you will see the same vertically and more horizontally than you would on a 1920x1200 monitor displaying a 1920x1200 image."

Is that specific enough for you, or do I have to go another 14 rounds with you?

Edit: I just thought of a little more I could add to the quote to avoid any possible confusion on your part:

"On a 1920x1080 monitor that is displaying a 1920x1080 image in a Vert- game, you will see less vertically and the same horizontally than you would on a 1920x1200 monitor displaying a 1920x1200 image in a Vert- game; on a 1920x1080 monitor displaying a 1920x1080 image in a Hor+ game, you will see the same vertically and more horizontally than you would on a 1920x1200 monitor displaying a 1920x1200 image in a Hor+ game."
 
The bigger the better.
I don't think I could switch from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 in the future. Maybe to 2560x1440 if I take 16/9

I like 1920x1200 because of the compatibility with 1600x1200 (for older games, pixel mapping). Also for watching older tv shows / anime which are 4:3.
As for watching 16/9 content on my monitor, I usually use the extra bottom space for subtitles when I need them. Keeps the letters off the picture.

I'm curious if monitor makers will drop 16:10 altogether in the near future...

Adoption is already higher for 16/9. Steam users have 9% 1920x1080 and 6% 1920x1200.
 
Transsive said:
The bigger the better.
I don't think I could switch from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 in the future. Maybe to 2560x1440 if I take 16/9

I like 1920x1200 because of the compatibility with 1600x1200 (for older games, pixel mapping). Also for watching older tv shows / anime which are 4:3.
As for watching 16/9 content on my monitor, I usually use the extra bottom space for subtitles when I need them. Keeps the letters off the picture.

I'm curious if monitor makers will drop 16:10 altogether in the near future...

Adoption is already higher for 16/9. Steam users have 9% 1920x1080 and 6% 1920x1200.
Click to expand...



This. :cool:
 
This thread is just what I needed. A few years ago I bought a little known Phillips 23" 230wp7ns 16:10 Super IPS (S-IPS) LCD for graphics work. About a year ago I bought a cheap AOC 23" at 16:9 to use a dual display, the AOC to put stuff like web browsers, directory tools, and other misc items (even Eve) on and then to have my Phillips for graphics work.

The extra space missing on the AOC 23" is VERY NOTICEABLE to me. In fact, I'm with the 16:10 advocates for at least one major reason: You get less screen space with 16:9. When you are playing a game or watching a movie that is set at 16:9, you don't miss anything. That's true. But with many other applications you can definitely use the extra realestate, and lots of games give you the option of 16X10 too.

The fact is, for most people on a budget of 200US or less, you ain't gonna get a 16:10 anyway. For those with higher budgets, why give up screen space if you don't need to?

To those who don't like the "black band" on 16:10 when using a 16:9 application, are you serious? What about the black bezel on your monitor? This is like some sort of OCD. Who cares is there is a black band top and bottom? You see the same exact picture, and when you want it, you get more vertical screen space too.

Last, I see absolutely no logical reason to opt for 16:9 over 16:10, if you can afford 16:10. Absolutely none.
 
Last edited:
16:10 END OF DISCUSSION.

Monitor is for pc related task. You wanna see movies? get a good plasma; or better, a projector if you can afford it. The way movies are intended to be enjoyed.
 
baco80 said:
16:10 END OF DISCUSSION.

Monitor is for pc related task. You wanna see movies? get a good plasma; or better, a projector if you can afford it. The way movies are intended to be enjoyed.
Click to expand...


Co-signed. I'll never buy a 16:9 monitor.
 
I didn't bother reading all the posts, but I'll put my 2 cents in.

For PC use, vertical resolution is more important than horizontal, especially for documents, web, etc.

IMO, there is not a single reason to prefer 16:9 to 16:10, at any size. Go for 16:10
 
DougWD said:
This thread is just what I needed. A few years ago I bought a little known Phillips 23" 230wp7ns 16:10 Super IPS (S-IPS) LCD for graphics work. About a year ago I bought a cheap AOC 23" at 16:9 to use a dual display, the AOC to put stuff like web browsers, directory tools, and other misc items (even Eve) and then have my Phillips for graphics work.

The extra space missing on the AOC 23" is VERY NOTICEABLE to me. In fact, I'm with the 16:10 advocates for at least one major reason: You get less screen space with 16:9. When you are playing a game or watching a movie that is set at 16:9, you don't miss anything. That's true. But with may other applications you can definitely use the extra realestate and lots of games give you the option of 16X10 too.

The fact is, for most people on a budget of 200US or less, you ain't gonna get a 16:10 anyway. For those with higher budgets, why give up screen space if you don't need to?

To those who don't like the "black band" on 16:10 when using a 16:9 application, are you serious? What about the black bezel on your monitor? This is like some sort of OCD. Who cares is there is a black band top and bottom? You see the same exact picture, and when you want it, you get more vertical screen space too.

Last, I see absolutely no logical reason to opt for 16:9 over 16:10, if you can afford 16:10. Absolutely none.
Click to expand...

You mean, apart from the best specs of the monitor overall?
The reason I'm saying this is because I had about 350€ for a 27/28'' monitor, and tried both the 16:10 (Hanns-G HH281) and the 16:9 (IIYAMA B2712HDS), and opted for the second, even though the first had a higher vertical resolution.
The reason? The HH281 had a horrible panel (pink shifting...) and a ridiculously economic stand, while the B2712HDS had one of the best panels around (color delta <2 by fabric...), an OSD with tons of options and a high level stand (which misses only the pivot function to be perfect).
Both paid about 320€.
Yes, I miss the 120 pixels, but I got so much in exchange that I have no reason to complain at all.
Also because the dot pitch is similar to the one of the acer AL1914 I already have, so I can use the dual monitor without eyestrain, and having both of them at the same eye level, thanks to the amazing stand of the IIyama.
Photos:
p1000918e.jpg

p1000920s.jpg
 
kache said:
You mean, apart from the best specs of the monitor overall?
The reason I'm saying this is because I had about 350€ for a 27/28'' monitor, and tried both the 16:10 (Hanns-G HH281) and the 16:9 (IIYAMA B2712HDS), and opted for the second, even though the first had a higher vertical resolution.
The reason? The HH281 had a horrible panel (pink shifting...) and a ridiculously economic stand, while the B2712HDS had one of the best panels around (color delta <2 by fabric...),
Click to expand...

That would be a reason not to buy crappy monitors, not a reason to buy 16:9 monitors.

I would have simply found a better 16:10 screen if ended up with a crappy one. In fact that is what I did. My first LCD was a crappy 16:10 screen, I kept searching until I found a very good 16:10 screen. I never considered a 16:9 screen for even a moment.
 
Snowdog said:
That would be a reason not to buy crappy monitors, not a reason to buy 16:9 monitors.

I would have simply found a better 16:10 screen if ended up with a crappy one. In fact that is what I did. My first LCD was a crappy 16:10 screen, I kept searching until I found a very good 16:10 screen. I never considered a 16:9 screen for even a moment.
Click to expand...

If you have unlimited budget yes.
But if you budget is fixed and you can choose between a crappy 16:10 and a very good 16:9, would you still choose the first?
 
kache said:
If you have unlimited budget yes.
But if you budget is fixed and you can choose between a crappy 16:10 and a very good 16:9, would you still choose the first?
Click to expand...
I would buy a mid-decent 16:10 monitor; no need to be that extremely radical. If you neither cant get a mid-monitor, well, buy so the best you can afford, even if its shit. Since theres no other way,
 
Snowdog said:
That would be a reason not to buy crappy monitors, not a reason to buy 16:9 monitors.

I would have simply found a better 16:10 screen if ended up with a crappy one. In fact that is what I did. My first LCD was a crappy 16:10 screen, I kept searching until I found a very good 16:10 screen. I never considered a 16:9 screen for even a moment.
Click to expand...

This is my response to that post also. Of course anyone paying the same would opt for the good monitor at 16:9 over a crappy monitor at 16:10. But for some less technical readers, the objection is a good one--16:10 isn't worth a crappy monitor, for sure.
 
baco80 said:
I would buy a mid-decent 16:10 monitor; no need to be that extremely radical. If you neither cant get a mid-monitor, well, buy so the best you can afford, even if its shit. Since theres no other way,
Click to expand...

I've been reading monitor reviews for the past month, really really wanting to get 16:10.

I'm about to settle for a 16:9.

Why?

All the affordable 16:10 24" displays are IPS and have quality control issues. Issues for which the manufacturers have stopped accepting returns (tinting, banding, etc) claiming that the problems are within acceptable variance. Also, as they're IPS I have concerns about ghosting.

If I go with a high-quality 16:9 TN I can get far better black levels out of the box without tons of calibration (and better black levels even after calibration), I'll be saving a few hundred dollars, and I won't be worried about trying to go through multiple exchanges to get a decent display.

I'm interested to hear what 16:10 monitor you'd suggest I go with. Because right now it looks like I have to seriously compromise on quality or comprimise on res, and I'm thinking that vert res is what I've got to toss. Much as I may not want to.
 
Do they still sell the Dell 2408WFP? That's a 16:10 S-PVA panel and IMO, would be a good compromise between TN and IPS monitors.

If Dell is not going to put pressure on LG to fix the tinting issues on the U2410 or source the IPS panel from another manufacturer, then I wish they would release a 16:10 successor to the 2408WFP that would utilize the latest in PVA panel technology. They can price it in between their TN and IPS offerings.
 
Last edited:
albovin said:
You need to understand that this thread is about monitors size/resolution matters.
Namely: to help incompetent victims of marketing understand why 16:10 monitor is superior to 16:9 of the same diagonal as seen in direct comparison (especially for those confused about 24" 1920x1200 vs 24" 1920x1080).
Click to expand...

I'd suggest you revist the beginning of the thread. This thread is about, in today's market, should you purchase 16:10 or 16:9. And that depends on what you're using it for, and what monitors are in the market.

Now, it'd be nice if we lived in a fantasy land where 16:9 and 16:10 displays were exactly equivilent except for the size and the price. A land where you only had to pay a reasonable (25-50% more?) differential for the extra screen real estate with the same quality displays being offered.

However we don't live in that land. Instead if you want the extra 120 lines of vert res (and yes, most everyone *should* want it), you have to make compromises.

And that's something that's seems to have been mostly ignored by those espousing the virtue of 16:10. Yes, the extra vert res is great. Yes, you lose nothing by having more pixels. Yes, given fantasy land where wonderful 1920x1200 res displays are available it's great.

Why did I bother to post? To prevent "victims of marketing" from falling prey to the resolution is the *only* thing that matters mindset that seems to be all too evident in this thread. To help people realize that in the current market there are tradeoffs that have to be made to get that extra vert res. It's up to them to decide if those tradeoffs are worth it (and for the OP, I'd say that they definately are given the tasks he wants it for), but we shouldn't be denying that the tradeoffs exist.

Which looks to be what the rest of your post is trying to do.
 
Kreed said:
Do they still sell the Dell 2408WFP? That's a 16:10 S-PVA panel and IMO, would be a good compromise between TN and IPS monitors.

If Dell is not going to put pressure on LG to fix the tinting issues on the U2410 or source the IPS panel from another manufacturer, then I wish they would release a 16:10 successor to the 2408WFP that would utilize the latest in PVA panel technology. They can price it in between their TN and IPS offerings.
Click to expand...

Kreed, nope. It along with the other monitors he mentioned are out of production. :(

I'd love ot see such a panel as you mentioned though :)
 
I went from 16:10 to 16:9 and like the change, especially since I can now see more image in games since most are Hor+. 16:10 just seems square to me now. I think 16:10 will be phased out eventually.
 
ElektroDragon said:
I went from 16:10 to 16:9 and like the change, especially since I can now see more image in games since most are Hor+. 16:10 just seems square to me now. I think 16:10 will be phased out eventually.
Click to expand...

Run the game at 16:9 with letterboxing. Then you have your additional width in-game and the extra vertical height for everything else.
 
kache said:
If you have unlimited budget yes.
But if you budget is fixed and you can choose between a crappy 16:10 and a very good 16:9, would you still choose the first?
Click to expand...

So crap 16:10, or 16:9 which is crap just because it is 16:9. No thanks.

I don't believe in the no-win scenario (at least not when buying consumer electronics).

Wait longer, save money, get what I actually want. 16:10 and good quality.
 
DougWD said:
To those who don't like the "black band" on 16:10 when using a 16:9 application, are you serious? What about the black bezel on your monitor? This is like some sort of OCD.
Click to expand...
Unless you're running an OLED display, black bars are not true black. True black simply cannot be displayed on a backlit display. Thus, in a dark/dimly lit room, there can be a appreciable difference between black bars and the displays bezels, even if the bezels are quite a dark black themselves.

No one is asking you to understand why some choose 16:9 over 16:10, though I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that you not act as if the people who choose 16:9 are mentally deranged in some way. It's a personal preference: it shouldn't make you angry.
 
phide said:
Unless you're running an OLED display, black bars are not true black. True black simply cannot be displayed on a backlit display. Thus, in a dark/dimly lit room, there can be a appreciable difference between black bars and the displays bezels, even if the bezels are quite a dark black themselves.

No one is asking you to understand why some choose 16:9 over 16:10, though I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that you not act as if the people who choose 16:9 are mentally deranged in some way. It's a personal preference: it shouldn't make you angry.
Click to expand...

That's why you get a monitor with good black levels and high contrast ;)
 
I have the awesome HP LP2065 on my second PC.
4:3 IPS based LCD at 1600x1200. :D

All the vertical space without any of the horizontal waste. Maybe it will catch on. ;)
 
ElektroDragon said:
I went from 16:10 to 16:9 and like the change, especially since I can now see more image in games since most are Hor+. 16:10 just seems square to me now. I think 16:10 will be phased out eventually.
Click to expand...

Since the monitors are both 1920 wide, how do you see more in the game width wise?
 
phide said:
Unless you're running an OLED display, black bars are not true black. True black simply cannot be displayed on a backlit display. Thus, in a dark/dimly lit room, there can be a appreciable difference between black bars and the displays bezels, even if the bezels are quite a dark black themselves.

No one is asking you to understand why some choose 16:9 over 16:10, though I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that you not act as if the people who choose 16:9 are mentally deranged in some way. It's a personal preference: it shouldn't make you angry.
Click to expand...

That's a good point about the black levels, but you can get really close if you use hardware calibration. But again, we're talking if you have the budget for 1920 x 1200, why not get it--with the better panel (IPS).
 
DougWD said:
That's a good point about the black levels, but you can get really close if you use hardware calibration. But again, we're talking if you have the budget for 1920 x 1200, why not get it--with the better panel (IPS).
Click to expand...

If I had the budget, I would go 16:10 again. Though I would need calibration tools and a monitor twice the cost of my current one to achieve 120 more lines of resolution. Not terribly worth it to me.
 
DougWD said:
Since the monitors are both 1920 wide, how do you see more in the game width wise?
Click to expand...

The games calculate horizontal FOV using as a reference the vertical FOV, which is fixed. The calculation is done not based on the resolution of the screen, but on the ratio between the height and the width (basically the aspect ratio). The higher the ratio is (the wider the image is) and the higher is the horizontal fov.
Example:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top