16:9 vs 16:10

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no better aspect ratio. The best aspect ratio is what provides the best experience for you personally for the content you wish to display.

Also some points used, such as total resolution, to support either side do not even make any sense in the context of specifically discussing aspect ratios.
 
serpretetsky said:
Because i don't want my screen to be aesthetically pleasing. I want to be immersed into it and forget it exists. For immersion (for me anyways) I need an ultra wide screen, vertical and horizontal need to hit a certain dimension, but after that, i dont really care about vertical and horizonal anymore, and then it's all about getting a screen that engulfs my horizontal field of view.

That's for media applications, for work none of that applies.
Click to expand...
Makes no sense,when the screen is more "pleasing", it also means it's less distracting, it's not the panel or the frame you're looking at, the aspect ratio of the content is simply more pleasing and gives you more immersion into the content.

Zepher said:
I prefer to have the entire panel filled with an image.
Click to expand...

Why? if you have a good screen, blacks might as well be part of the frame, and if you put 16:10 24" which is actually 24" and 16:9 24" which is usually 23.5" next to each other, the 16:10 screen, with 16:9 content on it will be the same size as the 16:9 screen next to it, so you lose nothing :p.

for movies / tv shows, eff 16:10/9/8/7/6/5/4/3/2/1, give me a holo deck and I'll be happy :D
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Makes no sense,when the screen is more "pleasing", it also means it's less distracting, it's not the panel or the frame you're looking at, the aspect ratio of the content is simply more pleasing and gives you more immersion into the content.
Click to expand...
Well.. the original words were "aesthetically pleasing" and i guess i understood that incorrectly. To me, aesthetically pleasing and immersive are completely different concepts. But I don't care for that argument.

On the other hand, i believe you are implying that there is some golden ratio that helps immersion? That is very interesting to hear. For me, there is no such ratio. I want my monitor to surround my horizontal vision completely, the more the better (all the way to 200 degrees if that is horizontal field of view of an average human). On the other hand, I don't have such a strict necessity for vertical. A little more vertican than my 24" gives would be nice, but i dont really don't care to completely fill my vertical. It probably has something to do with how little i care what's above and below me on a day to day basis, on how i care much more about my peripheral.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Why? if you have a good screen, blacks might as well be part of the frame, and if you put 16:10 24" which is actually 24" and 16:9 24" which is usually 23.5" next to each other, the 16:10 screen, with 16:9 content on it will be the same size as the 16:9 screen next to it, so you lose nothing :p.

for movies / tv shows, eff 16:10/9/8/7/6/5/4/3/2/1, give me a holo deck and I'll be happy :D
Click to expand...

If both screens are 24" Viewable, then the 16:9 will have a wider image.
 
Last edited:
Acer_Sheep said:
The angles and AR of VF warries from person to person I guess, it is widecreen as I said before, but it is very similar to 16:9.

And, you don't need any math here, try to watch your 16:9 screen with one eye closed and you will see the effect.
Click to expand...
Well.. I guess what i'm asking is
1) where did you get that each eye is 4:3 aspect ratio. And is this a ratio of angles or linear dimensions? Because monitors specifically measure linear dimensions, not angles

2) Why did you combine 4:3 and get 16:9, was this just an approximation done by you?
 
limitedaccess said:
There is no better aspect ratio. The best aspect ratio is what provides the best experience for you personally for the content you wish to display.

Also some points used, such as total resolution, to support either side do not even make any sense in the context of specifically discussing aspect ratios.
Click to expand...

The issue is manufactures are looking to make 16:9 only, discontinuing 16:10 and eliminating personal choice.
Doesn't matter what I prefer if they decide to stop making 16:10. I will be forced to buy a 16:9 monitor new or a used and outdated 16:10 monitor.
 
limitedaccess said:
There is no better aspect ratio. The best aspect ratio is what provides the best experience for you personally for the content you wish to display.

Also some points used, such as total resolution, to support either side do not even make any sense in the context of specifically discussing aspect ratios.
Click to expand...

You have to look at what's actually FOR SALE at the provided aspect ratios. I'm presuming this is a thread about buying monitors, not whether a 16:10 painting is more attractive above the sofa than a 16:9 one...

If you look at products actually for sale - in each size class, the 16:10 version has more pixels. It has the same horizontal pixel count and adds additional vertical pixels to increase from 16:9 to 16:10.
 
WorldExclusive said:
The issue is manufactures are looking to make 16:9 only, discontinuing 16:10 and eliminating personal choice.
Doesn't matter what I prefer if they decide to stop making 16:10. I will be forced to buy a 16:9 monitor new or a used and outdated 16:10 monitor.
Click to expand...

This is really a separate issue. A private business is not obligated to provide every service/product every individual wants, but what will net them the most profits. For them the best aspect ratio is what profits for them the most. For the actual user though what is best should be a personal decision.

Surly73 said:
You have to look at what's actually FOR SALE at the provided aspect ratios. I'm presuming this is a thread about buying monitors, not whether a 16:10 painting is more attractive above the sofa than a 16:9 one...

If you look at products actually for sale - in each size class, the 16:10 version has more pixels. It has the same horizontal pixel count and adds additional vertical pixels to increase from 16:9 to 16:10.
Click to expand...

My point is in regards to buying monitors, or actually a display solution in general. At the end what solution you choose should be applicable to the content you want to display, in this sense there is no generalized better aspect ratio for everyone. If someone say purely only views 4:3 content, then a display using 4:3 would be the best solution for that individual, not everyone else.

Your point itself is actually what I agree with, and debates about what your eyes actually see or golden ratios are quite meaningless. At the end what content you are personally viewing is what should dictate what display you choose.

As for the resolution, it seems that way to you because of an arbitrary grouping of monitors via the diagonal length measurement of the screen. A 16:9 supporter for instance could put forth the argument of grouping monitors via price segments instead, which is arguably a more valid grouping from a consumer stand point. The aspect ratio will only tell you and only dictates what the ratio of the amount of horizontal pixels to vertical pixels is, it does not directly affect total resolution in away to make a judgement of displays of a certain resolution being higher or lower.
 
serpretetsky said:
On the other hand, i believe you are implying that there is some golden ratio that helps immersion? That is very interesting to hear. For me, there is no such ratio. I want my monitor to surround my horizontal vision completely, the more the better (all the way to 200 degrees if that is horizontal field of view of an average human). On the other hand, I don't have such a strict necessity for vertical. A little more vertican than my 24" gives would be nice, but i dont really don't care to completely fill my vertical. It probably has something to do with how little i care what's above and below me on a day to day basis, on how i care much more about my peripheral.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the relevance this has to the topic of the discussion. It sounds more like "wouldn't it be cool, if..." than a real evaluation of aspect ratios. I'd like to hear of some real-world tasks that would benefit from your imaginary immersive "monitors", and how you have trained your peripheral vision to be just as focused as your central focus point, because the rest of us would not benefit from having to turn our heads left, right, up and down to get from the red x in the top right corner to the Start Orb in the bottom left.

Or are you speaking strictly games?
 
garbagemule said:
I don't understand the relevance this has to the topic of the discussion. It sounds more like "wouldn't it be cool, if..." than a real evaluation of aspect ratios. I'd like to hear of some real-world tasks that would benefit from your imaginary immersive "monitors", and how you have trained your peripheral vision to be just as focused as your central focus point, because the rest of us would not benefit from having to turn our heads left, right, up and down to get from the red x in the top right corner to the Start Orb in the bottom left.

Or are you speaking strictly games?
Click to expand...

Yes, unfortanetly it is a "wouldn't it be cool if".
and yes, it's also for media application such as games and movies.

The real evaluation of aspect ratios, i think, would require us to come to a conclusion of the production costs of 16:9 vs 16:10. It makes little sense to compare them directly if they have a cost difference.

Do you guys know, for the same amount of pixels (this is a theoretical question)
do they cost the same to make?

What about for the same diagonal size? cost the same?

Does the price of producing a monitor depend completely on the quantity of pixels, or does actual shape required play a part?
 
I wish there was a high res 24 inch led/lcd that has the same ratios as a 19 inch.

I don't know why >20 inch screens are mostly widescreen and can cause problems with programs or games not filling up the whole screen or look very distorted.
 
I can see this thread already deteriorating with every argument being about games. Monitors made with full screen games in mind should not dictate the PC industry as a whole. I can't describe how backwards that is.
 
Swat 4, Hitman 1/2/3, System Shock 2, &c. on a 1920x1200 monitor play at 1600x1200.

Those games on a 1920x1080 monitor play at 1280x1024.

Also, 16:10 just fills my personal field of vision better, but that's because of how my nose and brow are. Your results may vary. =)
 
Last edited:
Sure is alot of confusion on this thread about AR vs RES.
 
If the monitors are the same size

16:9 will have a wider view

16:10 will have a taller view.

Its really up to the buyer which they prefer. I prefer 16:9 just due to the fact movies and games are designed on 16:9 for the most part. I dont have to worry about proper 16:10 support.
 
Dion said:
If the monitors are the same size

16:9 will have a wider view

16:10 will have a taller view.

Its really up to the buyer which they prefer. I prefer 16:9 just due to the fact movies and games are designed on 16:9 for the most part. I dont have to worry about proper 16:10 support.
Click to expand...

Anyone good at math and can calculate the area of a 16:9 image on 24" 16:9 and 16:10 monitors.
 
These links I referenced onto this page are helpful regarding screen sizes, ratio's and pixel densities, etc..

http://3dalchemist.com/hardware-info/screen-sizes.htm


If all things were equal and it just came down to aspect ratio and not pixel height - 16:9 would actually be more pixels wide at the same pixel heights as a 16:10. For example, if a 16:9 were 1200 high instead of 1080 high.. or in a different scenario - if a 16:10 were 1080high instead of x1200 .. (You can fit a box inside of a rectangle at the same heights, but a rectangle only fits inside of a box if the rectangle's height is less)... However in reality as everyone knows its x1080 pixels high vs x1200 pixels high , and x1440 vs x1600.


Personally I think multiple monitors obviates much of the "need" for x1200 , or x1600 on the higher rez screens. I used two 1920x1200 screens (a 27.5" hannspree and a 24" widescreen crt) for the last three years, but I also used 1080p 16:9's at different desks during the same period. The desktop real-estate difference when using multiple monitors is much more important than being a stickler for +60px/+60px top/bottom to me. That may have been more of a concern back in my "single monitor days" where I was confined to one screen's desktop. :D

That said, my recent 27" 16:9 is 2560x1440 now so it has more desktop space (including more pixel height) than the 27.5" 1920x1200 I had been using obviously, even though it is 16:9 vs the 1920x1200's 16:10., I appreciate the extra space and it is one of the highest pixel densities you can get on an LCD (higher than 16:10 monitor pixel densities) -- but I could get along with a dual and especially triple 1080p no problem, and may consider 120hz 1080p 27" 'ers sometime next year depending how they look and perform.
 
phide said:
Seems like you already know the advantages and disadvantages of each. I therefore see no purpose for this thread to exist (particularly because these threads tend to devolve into name calling and personal attacks).
Click to expand...

+1 Stop the maddness please!!!
 
Funkmaster_A said:
Swat 4, Hitman 1/2/3, System Shock 2, &c. on a 1920x1200 monitor play at 1600x1200.

Those games on a 1920x1080 monitor play at 1280x1024.

Also, 16:10 just fills my personal field of vision better, but that's because of how my nose and brow are. Your results may vary. =)
Click to expand...

This a valid point that I agree with. But to fair, while I own and know of a lot of games that don't support widescreen no matter what, many of them can be made to run in 1440x1080. But still, 1920x1200 means you don't even have anything special to do, just set the GPU/monitor to 1:1 pixel mapping and voilà.
 
Leopardi said:
+1 it's only for arguing, its not like this thread is gonna change the opinion of manufacturers to make 16:10 panels for the OP.
Click to expand...
The ironic part of this comment is that while the discussion has a vast amount of evidence arguing the many advantages of 16:10, the OP has, in fact, a very strong bias against 16:10 :p

With that said, any kind of "vs" thread like this is for the sake of arguing. How many AMD vs. Intel discussions haven't we all seen on not only these forums, but various other forums around the web? The mud-throwing happens when people are biased fanboys, because it gets horribly tiresome having to repeatedly refute the same claims over and over again; that, or if people simply don't want to seriously discuss a topic, they'll just throw a big "anyone who thinks that x is better than y is a..." followed by a sometimes very cliché way of questioning people's sexual orientation, but at times also a whole sequence of badly spelled swear words written IN CAPS to really get the point across.

Anyway, anyone who thinks 5:4 isn't the best aspect ratio IS A DOG POO!!!1111two
 
I actually strongly prefer 16:10 if I'm only using one monitor, but I use 16:9 for almost everything even in single monitor setups now. Not because of no black bars on 1080p videos or that it's cheaper, but mainly for one big reason.

I play a ton of games. From the 90s to the current ones coming out, I have tons. My steam library is like 250 games strong and there's the majority of a 1TB HDD taken up with others. The main reason is that most modern games, actually almost all of them these days, are HOR+, not VERT-.

What this means is that when set to a 16:9 resolution in game you end up seeing more, even though you have less pixels. On console ports from the 360/PS3, some just lock the ratio at 16:9 or 4:3 and you lose the edges or get black bars on 16:10.

But even more of interest to me is the fact that I use three monitors these days. Most of the time, it's 3x landscape, but I also do 3x portrait for a good reason. With bezel compensation on, 3x 1200x1920 monitors ends up at almost a larger than 2:1 resolution. With it on, 3x 1080x1920 ends up extremely close to 1.777:1, almost identical to 16:9. For games that don't support extra large FOVs across 3x landscape monitors, this ends up looking beautiful in portrait.

But for the games that do scale their FOV well, again, HOR+ means that you can get a larger viewport with the 16:9s over the 16:10s. And you even get slightly better performance with them, since there's less pixels to be rendered. Not much, but can be 5-10 FPS across three of them.

Anyways, the only argument I personally have against them is the older typical VERT- games in which case you lose more the wider you go. For those games I typically just set the 4:3 resolution (or 5:4 if it goes VERT+ too) and deal with the black bars, which I'd have to see on the 16:10s as well.

But yeah, one monitor, for focuses other than gaming and media, I'd definitely prefer a 16:10. For what I do mostly though, 3x 16:9s for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top