16:10 vs 16:9 - what you prefer?

D

drcrappants

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
115
is there any significant differences between these 2 ratios? why do companies make both instead of sticking with one?
 
It used to be all 16:10 for most widescreen PC monitors, and 16:9 for widescreen TVs.


Since the panel makers want to consolidate, and a 17" 16:10 is more physical area than a 17" 16:9.... guess what, 16:9 can be cheaper to make.

So.... 16:9 it is.
 
It doesn't matter that much to me, just as long as 2.35 to 1 'anamorphic' screens don't start becoming standard. I'm anti-anamorphic. Maybe I just have good up down peripheral vision though.

Arguments for 16/10 would be more screen space for website content. Arguments for a wider screen... I use the left side of the screen for bookmarks. I have a dell u2311h and don't plan to change for awhile. It costs them less to make a same size screen in a wider aspect ratio (which is why I hope they don't try to pawn off 'anamorphic' sizes someday) 16:9 should be industry standard I say.

Since HDMI was designed around the 16:9 aspect ratio, I don't think I have anything to worry about for many years.
 
I prefer 16:10. The extra screen space is always welcome, especially in the vertical direction where it is often needed most (because of things like menu bars, toolbars, dock, etc). Also when using in portrait mode, 10:16 is a little wider and again provides a little more utility.

Having little black bars on top and bottom of the screen when watching 16:9 media does not bother me, probably because I don't watch that much 16:9 media on my computer screen anyways. It's been a lot of 4:3 lately or I'm watching it on my 16:9 TV anyhow.

Not sure if we'll ever see industry-standard 2.35:1 screens, they would be impracticably wide in applications such as laptops (unless some of those crazy folding-screen concepts come to fruition). Although 2.35:1 displays seem like a pretty natural extension of Eyefinity triple monitor gaming... for specialty purposes like that it would be cool but in general it is just too wide for normal use- 16:9 is still wide but it at least works reasonably well in many applications.

Ruahrc
 
If you do anything besides watch movies and play games, then 16:10 is largely preferable.
 
If you ever do anything on your computer besides watching 16:9 formatted videos, then the answer is most definitely 16:10.

IMHO
 
I prefer to do my text editing in a Lawrence of Arabia style ultra wide screen so that I have to scroll after every line I type. Either that or 16:10 so that I can actually get shit done. 16:9 is too narrow for me.
 
StarCraftRatios.gif
 
Oled said:
That kind of says it all.

16:9 >> 16:10
Click to expand...
not really... fov varies from game to game and a lot of them have a customizable fov. Some games are built around 16:9 yes but i could potentially see more on my screen on a 4:3 monitor than a 16:9. I actually prefer a 4:3 aspect ratio... it's so much easier to have a focal point in the center of my screen and work from there. With widescreen the focal point is lost to me and it makes it very difficult to play competitive FPS even though you have more screen space.
 
for games the wider the better so 16:9 will be better. Especially that this is industry standard now.

but for computer monitor 16:10 just look much better on desk and if somebody still play 4:3 games or watch old content it is better as it have less black bars on sides. Funny thing is that very old games were actually 16:10 because VGA mode 13H was 320:200 so eg. old Doom fit 16:10 screen perfectly :D
 
24" @ 16:10 has the same width as 23" @ 16:9. So whether or not the small vertical gain is worth the 16:10 premium is up to you.
 
For a gaming-only screen I have no preference, but 16:9 seems to be better supported by more new games due to "console fever" it seems.

Starcraft II is one of the few RTS type games where the extra vertical resolution of 16:10 is not utilized properly.

For regular computer use a 16:10 monitor is superior. Better vertical resolution equals less scrolling while reading web pages without having to resort to spinning the screen into portrait.

@Bergkamp: Nice call! :D
 
@10e

For websites it's better just to rotate the screen into portrait mode. Most website only use 1/3 of your screen width wise anyway.
 
Evi1d33d said:
@10e

For websites it's better just to rotate the screen into portrait mode. Most website only use 1/3 of your screen width wise anyway.
Click to expand...

If this was auto-magically done I wouldn't have an issue with it. My NEC LCD2690WUXI-BK can automatically do this, but most normal monitors don't.

Also, not all screens rotate at all, and require a desk arm to do it. In addition, I wouldn't want to read text sideways on a TN screen.

Thirdly this can be done with a 16:10 screen too
 
15:9 vs 16:10 has been rehashed numerious times on this forum. Use the search function. When it was done as a poll (more than once), the end result was 16:10 ~100 and 16:9 ~ 50, or 2 to 1 in favor of 16:10.

Don't take my word for it; look it up!
 
10e said:
For a gaming-only screen I have no preference, but 16:9 seems to be better supported by more new games due to "console fever" it seems.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even give them that one. I don't think I have seen a modern PC game that doesn't fully support 16:10. If such a game exists, it is probably an example of how not to port from consoles.

16:10 is a resolution that was designed exclusively for PC widescreen, without being based on TV, as such it is probably the best overall PC resolution, chosen for rational reasons, rather than cow-towing to TV ratios.

16:10 essentially matches the "Golden Ratio", the standard for aesthetics in art and architecture for centuries.

16:10 in practical use offers much more precious vertical space. Portrait mode doesn't solve this issue for 16:9, it just makes 16:9 seem even more silly with the limited width in that mode where 16:10 gains the advantage again.

16:9 is just a sad knockoff of TV resolutions. A step backwards for computers.
 
Those results are old and it changes continously.

In 2004 - 67 percent said 4:3
In 2008 - 67 percent said 16:10

In 2012 - 67 percent will say 16:9
 
Those polls are likely won more because of the number of pixels, not the aspect ratio.
If you had made a 1920x1200 or especially a 2560x1600 wider by ADDING more pixels wide to hit the 16:9 aspect ratio, I'm sure opinions and poll results would be much different. I hope QuadFullHD 's 3840x2160 ~ 27"/26.5" 166ppi 16:9 ips stays standard and one *aspect ratio* doesn't arbitrarily have more pixels than the other on high rez desktop monitors going forward for the next several years.

Whether 16:10 or 16:9 got more pixels out of the aspect ratio cut was an arbitrary move by the industry. There is no reason 16:10 had to get more pixels than 16:9 - or that 16:9 had to get less pixels than 16:10 more accurately - other than 1080p movies and perhaps slicing existing panel sizes down slightly to save money.

For now 30" 's 16:10 aspect ratio arbitrarily has a slightly higher rez for a little more desktop real-estate, just not as great as a glance at the physical sizes might suggest due their different pixel densities.
.
A 30" 2560x wide at 27" 2560x's ppi would then be the same physical width obviously, and the viewable screen then only about the diameter of a dime higher and lower compared to a 27" centered vs it at that 108.8 ppi (80px top, 80px bottom). The 30" 's pixels are larger, which could give a false impression of the actual real-estate gain when viewing the panel size differences. A 27" 2560x1440 sized 'down' to a 30" 's pixel density -making the 27" 's pixels larger - would actually be 29.19" diagonal 16:9, (while still having 160pixels less vertical of course). A 30" sized to 27" 's 108.8 ppi would become 27.75" diagonal.

Another way to look at it on more equal terms is that if you moved the 30" panel back enough until its width (and ppi) looked equal to the 27" to your viewing perspective, there would be .75" peeking out top and bottom (about the diamter of a dime coin) in relation to the 27" screen, 80px tall each.

I personally went from a 27.5" 1920x1200 TN paired with a fw900 (running 1920x1200@85hz to match resolutions), to a 27" 16:9 2560x1440 ips in landscape flanked by a 19" 1440x900 in portrait on each side. The resolution jump and especially the resulting ppi increase vs the TN was very nice, and the aspect ratio changed to 16:9 from both previous panel's 16:10. I love it. If Quad Full HD comes down in price to HD tv prices or less someday at near 27" I'll prob end up with one on my desk.

You have to keep things in perspective.. pun intended.
 
o.0

IMO, 16:9 vs 16:10 really only matters in laptops. Past a certain resolution/screen size, it starts mattering less and less.


Then again, right now, the larger (decent?) panels are mostly 16:10, so we still have this 16:10 vs 16:9 thing going on.


Just IMO (also the same IMO that thinks if 4K doesn't go 16:10, then we'll eventually care less, in general, about 16:10. I'll still miss it in laptops).
 
elvn said:
Those polls are likely won more because of the number of pixels, not the aspect ratio.
Click to expand...

The only pure aspect ratio choices would dispense with pixels altogether.

We then end up back at about 16:10 which matches the Golden Ratio from centuries of Art/Architecture.

16:9 is just an arbitrary compromise chosen for HDTV. There is nothing beyond that to recommend it.

Since I already have a TV, for 16:9 material (and I suspect most will) then it has nothing to recommend it for computer usage.

16:10 is better from both an aesthetic and functional perspective.
 
What we have is a slightly shorter 16:9 currently, arbitrarily. (The high rez ips 30" could still be 16:10 and only have 2304x1440 resolution for example, or the 16:9 could have been x1600 tall but much wider). With common multi-monitor setups (I've been running for many years now) the slim difference in vertical real-estate becomes even more negligible vs overall desktop use especially multitasking imo. Functionally people use far WIDER than 16:9 even , gravitating to dual, triple (or more) horizontally arrayed multi monitor setups.. so aruing that 16:10 is more functional outside of resolution differences does not make sense. And I agree with Jeremy - at very high ppi and resolution the desktop gain is so large and the gui elements so small that it makes the difference negligible even on a single monitor. Once you get into the realm where the resolution difference isn't really noticeable, or in the case of QFHD where the rez is just extreme and no 16:10 aspect ratio planned in sight.. the argument for 16:10 as an aspect in itself just seems to be out of stubbornness more than anything sometimes lol.

As for laptops, I get a long fine with my 1280x800 ips tablet since it zooms nicely. For actual application use like photoshop, etc. I have more of a desktop replacement (a 17" 1080p DTR), that travels mostly from one desk to another, and a few tables on occasion. At home and at work I have a 22" or a 23" monitor I can pair it with so it is often a multi-monitor setup as well.

In the future with the resolutions tablets and cell phones are hitting, laptops might have some higher rez with touchscreens (like a larger higher rez version of my transformer tablet docked to its keyboard). A 17" 1080p laptop is already at 129.58 ppi though which isn't bad.

---------------------------
Pixel densities

4.3"....................960 x 540.........256.15 ppi.....0.0992 mm <- phone
..
(LG Quad full HD)
26.5"................3840 x 2160.......166.26 ppi ....0.1528 mm 16:9 <-- 166ppi quoted resolves to 26.5"
27"...................3840 x 2160.......163.18 ppi.....0.1557 mm 16:9 <-- 27" may not be viewable size if ppi quote is accurate

10.1"................1280 x 800.........146.55 ppi....0.1783 mm 16:10 <- tablet
17"...................1920 x 1080.......129.58 ppi....0.1960 mm 16:9 <-- laptop

22.5" (24").......2304 x 1440.......118.13 ppi....0.2150 mm 16:10<--- FW900 widescreen CRT max rez 22.5" viewable (80hz) ..
27"...................2560 x 1440.......108.8 ppi....0.2335 mm 16:9
30"...................2560 x 1600.......100.6 ppi....0.2524 mm 16:10

22"...................1920 x 1080........100.132 ppi..0.2530 mm 16:9
20.1"................1680 x 1050..........98.4 ppi ..0.258 mm 16:10

23"...................1920 x 1080.........95.78 ppi....0.2652 mm 16:9 <-- 60hz/120hz
24"...................1920 x 1200.........94.3 ppi....0.2692 mm 16:10

24"...................1920 x 1080..........91.8 ppi....0.2767 mm 16:9
19"...................1440 x 900...........89.37 ppi....0.2842 mm 16:10
27.5"(28")........1920 x 1200..........82.33 ppi....0.3085 mm 16:10
27"...................1920 x 1080.........81.59 ppi....0.3113 mm 16:9 <-- 60hz / 120hz panels
 
Last edited:
Oled said:
Those results are old and it changes continously.

In 2004 - 67 percent said 4:3
In 2008 - 67 percent said 16:10

In 2012 - 67 percent will say 16:9
Click to expand...

Yep, Not like we have much choice anyhow.
 
Oled said:
Those results are old and it changes continously.

In 2004 - 67 percent said 4:3
In 2008 - 67 percent said 16:10

In 2012 - 67 percent will say 16:9
Click to expand...

Nice crystal ball. Lol at your fanboyism.
 
I prefer 16:10 due to the increased vertical, especially at lower resolutions

That SC gif is misleading. If you maintain scaling 16:10 can encompass 16:9 by simply adding black bars on the top/bottom and the image will not be cut off.
 
It would take a lot longer than 2012... once very high rez screens become mainstream it will be a wash, since they will all likely be 16:9 and enough rez including height to keep almost everyone happy for awhile. However QFHD might not be out until 2012 of 2013 and only early adopters would consider the high cost. Most people won't even spring for a 2560x ips - even if they don't mind spending $1200 - $2500 on a tv. So polls are full of people who don't care enough about their desktop monitor to spend good money on it that they would spend on other luxuries, and of course full of some who just can't afford any disposable income purchase of that level.

Poll how many people years ago would buy a HDTV, or bluray over a dvd resolution. etc. ;)
 
Last edited:
I prefer 16:10 because you can fit more of a photo on the screen and I'm just used to it.
 
10e said:
Nice crystal ball. Lol at your fanboyism.
Click to expand...

Very true, Oled is a known 16:9 troll. I don't think I have ever heard him say that 16:10 is better for anything.

You can play 16:9 res games on 16:10 monitor, you cant use 16:10 pixels on a 16:9 screen for actual work and web surfing and such.

That said, the industry is really limiting our choices, the 16:9 are so darn cheap, that it is very difficult for a lot of people to justify splurging for the 16:10, which does cost more. Games that are also developed for consoles would favor the 16:9, since guess what, consoles can not display to 16:10. It's shocking, I know, a computer is more versatile and better than a console, so it should have a more versatile screen to go with it, a 16:10.

Snowdog, good call on the Golden Ratio.
 
i prefer 16:10 for everything
even with a lower resolution like 1680x1050

i already have a 16:9 for movies/tv shows and can't see me buying another one
 
Oled said:
16:9 is far better for everything!

Especially games!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

16:10 is simply not wide enough. The extra width in 16:9 is really needed.
Click to expand...

You do realize you're completely wrong.

The 16 in that ratio is the width, its the SAME for both ratios. The difference between a 16:10 and 16:9 is the HEIGHT.

vsboxerboy said:
StarCraftRatios.gif
Click to expand...

Very deceptive and wrong. The 16:9 should be shorter from top to bottom, the width should not change at all.

Oled said:
That kind of says it all.

16:9 >> 16:10
Click to expand...

Um, no it doesnt, unless you like false advertising and deceptive practices. Did I walk into a BestBuy TV aisle or something?

It's posts like that that cause problems for those who don't really know the difference then get screwed by buying something that isnt the best for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top