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

Walker said:
Interesting read. No wonder 16:10 feels a lot more natural to work with.
Click to expand...

That it was. This excellent PDF deserves more coverage, so I will quote the original post here:

Whoisthisreally said:
Can you stop being foolish? 16:10 has much better properties for creative applications, which the U2410 is targeted at.

See http://www.veritasetvisus.com/images/Newsletters/VVDS-30+31,%20February%202009.pdf

- From someone who was personally involved in the creation of 16:10. You cannot seriously argue against what is presented here. Just deal with it.
Click to expand...

I think I have read nearly everything in there in different places before, but this PDF really puts aspect ratios together definitively in one place.

There is no doubt that 16:10 is a better ratio from almost any perspective, (productivity, aesthetics). 16:9 is just some poor compromise driven by committee that we got stuck with for HDTV and then propagated it's way into monitors.

I can't fathom why anyone would incessantly attack 16:10 monitors for months (months ago when they made my ignore list - please consider adding them to yours, rather than feeding them) and promote 16:9 like it was the second coming when all it is was compromise by committee.
 
There is no doubt that 16:10 is a better ratio from almost any perspective, (productivity, aesthetics). 16:9 is just some poor compromise driven by committee that we got stuck with for HDTV and then propagated it's way into monitors.

I can't fathom why anyone would incessantly attack 16:10 monitors for months (months ago when they made my ignore list - please consider adding them to yours, rather than feeding them) and promote 16:9 like it was the second coming when all it is was compromise by committee.
Click to expand...

Though it has been said a thousand times before, it bears repeating again. This is so true.

It's obvious from all these threads that the only people coming to the defense of 16:9 are those who play games full screen. Hell, we're not even seeing a lot of folks defend it for movie watching, despite the marketing push that drove monitors to 16:9 for that reason. I don't know anyone who sits through a 2 hour movie sitting in front of their PC.
 
Megalomaniac said:
You know, I was just thinking of what kind of desks an office would have to splurge for to accommodate two really wide (say 21:( :p) monitors, not that they would be good for anything other than viewing two movies at the same time. And it's just impracticable for any work environment.
Click to expand...

If you don't think two and more monitors are productive at a desk or reasonable for a workplace, you must not watch any footage of wall street jockeys, or follow graphics authoring and CGI movie studio artist's setups.

I'm not attacking 16:10 monitors.

I'm just saying its a 10% cut either way.. Cut 10% height off any 16:10 and you have a 16:9 (that we have today).. cut 10% width off any 16:9 and you have a 16:10. There is no reason production wise that 16:10 has to have more pixels, other than the way things played out.

.. If it weren't for the cut being the way it is, less people would want 16:10.

So in order to question which actual aspect you prefer from as a pure aspect ratio, you have to cancel out the +/- 10% width or +/- 10% height and ask

"which aspect ratio do you prefer to have more pixels due to aspect limitation on similar resolution monitors?"
__________________
Click to expand...

For productivity, many people want two or three monitors wide and would rather they have no bezels.. which in either case would be much wider then the "golden ratio" and 16:9, and is much appreciated workspace, especially for graphics related work with preview windows and multiple toolbars and function panels of all sorts... as well as multitasking more than one app related to the same project.
 
Last edited:
Even in such an environment, you're only looking at one monitor at a time... and its aspect ratio will come into play.
 
Thats not necessarily true. you can look across the monitors, with the bezels tucked behind each other, with nearby toolboxes easily within your vision limit.... it becomes one massive desktop and application space with a few bezels you tend to ignore after awhile. And preferably there would be practically no bezel if people could have it , whether composed of 16:10's or 16:9's.. and you neatly ignored the other quote.

Furthermore you made it sound like two 21" monitors wouldn't fit at a regular desk, and that it would be useless for anything other than movie watching.. which I gave clear examples that contradict that whether looking at one at a time or not.
 
Megalomaniac said:
You know, I was just thinking of what kind of desks an office would have to splurge for to accommodate two really wide (say 21:( :p) monitors, not that they would be good for anything other than viewing two movies at the same time. And it's just impracticable for any work environment.
Click to expand...

Not really, a lot of different offices make it work and have spaces to accommodate two and thee screens... When I said work space is less of an issue on larger higher res screens regardless of aspect ratios I was referring to the virtual work space within the display.

There's lots of studies that prove multiple displays can and do make workers more productive tho, even for menial tasks like secretary work. It's not uncommon for traders to have 4+ screens plotting the day's data, even game designers and such usually work with multiple displays. Basically anyone that multi-tasks or works on data/documents that can be viewed from multiple perspectives will in fact benefit from having multiple displays and/or higher res.

I'm only jumping on EF because I usually have two displays on my desk at home, so adding a third isn't a big deal (tho it's gonna force me to either wall mount the 3 or get a new desk), if it were for gaming alone I might not bother. Most discussions about aspect ratio are ultimately about this too, even where gaming is concerned, it's all about seeing more of the virtual work space (or game world) and making efficient use of space, which in turn makes you more efficient.
 
sorry, should have made it clearer, even in my office many people have two monitors, and when we were working in brokerage houses, most of those had at least two, but what I was making fun of is using 21:9 (which came out as a frown) monitors that our troll was bemusing about.
Or some other really wide ones. Again no doubt about multiple monitors, I even installed video walls and saw the video walls of various traffic agencies, but my joke was about using REALLY wide monitors...
 
Valnar said:
Though it has been said a thousand times before, it bears repeating again. This is so true.

It's obvious from all these threads that the only people coming to the defense of 16:9 are those who play games full screen. Hell, we're not even seeing a lot of folks defend it for movie watching, despite the marketing push that drove monitors to 16:9 for that reason. I don't know anyone who sits through a 2 hour movie sitting in front of their PC.
Click to expand...

This! For the holy mother of Christ, this...

There is literally no reason at all to get a 1080 unless your pushing a budget...
 
The linked PDF was a good read. And while the author /did/ say:

I personally believe that the claimed advantages of introducing 16:9 panels into the PC industry are largely
unproved – and that numerous disadvantages of the 16:9 solutions are really to the detriment of the PC user. The
16:10 aspect ratio was developed with the intent of best supporting the PC user. Alternatively, the 16:9 aspect ratio
was originally designed as a compromise solution for the then-non-existent HDTV market. You pick.
Click to expand...

He also said:
Despite the suggestions that the Golden Ratio might be aesthetically pleasing, the fact is that in both cinema and on
the desktop, there is ample evidence that wider, more immersive experiences are desirable. Since so many
Hollywood titles are filmed at a 2.35/2.39 aspect ratio, there certainly is a justification for extra-wide panels in the
home. With increased interest in multi-panel solutions and an insatiable desire to more information on the desktop,
the PC market can certainly justify panels at ultra-wide aspect ratios – enabling multiple windows to be open
simultaneously or for viewing of three of four full-page documents simultaneously. I for one would love to have a
single monitor on my desktop that enabled me to view 4 or 5 pages of information at once.
Click to expand...
 
vsboxerboy said:
StarCraftRatios.gif
Click to expand...

16:9 doesn't show more of the image than 16:10 what is this troll pic
 
Megalomaniac said:
sorry, should have made it clearer, even in my office many people have two monitors, and when we were working in brokerage houses, most of those had at least two, but what I was making fun of is using 21:9 (which came out as a frown) monitors that our troll was bemusing about.
Or some other really wide ones. Again no doubt about multiple monitors, I even installed video walls and saw the video walls of various traffic agencies, but my joke was about using REALLY wide monitors...
Click to expand...

Ohhh, heh, yeah that smiley mixup threw the whole comment out of context. You're right tho, an aspect ratio that wide would be a pain to manage when you've got to deal with multiple displays. My guess is if we ever end up there, portrait mode will get really really popular. At some point it isn't even about the desk space but what you can comfortably scan without sitting too far back or moving your head constantly.

I've seen a few airports that are already using most public display screen in portrait, because flight lists make better use of the space that way.
 
Thread is going in circles. Obviously since the resolutions are so close, let alone the fact that 16:10's arbitrary cut gave it more pixels out of the two, you can run most games in 16:9 mode on a 16:10 monitor without a problem. But as an aspect, 16:9 does show more field of view wide... Luckily you have the option of running 16:9 on your 16:10 if you want 10% more viewable width so its not a big deal.

Eyefinity setups are much wider than 16:9 so show even more FoV width, though the classic three panel wide setup at the bottom's side panels are intended to be peripheral for immersion.

eyefinity-16-9-base_various-configs-visualized_sm.jpg
 
I like the squared look of 16:10

A 16:9 1920x1080p monitor is not going to show more of a game than a 16:10 1920x1200p monitor.
Using the same pixel with, 16:10 wins since it has more pixel height.
 
Jospeh said:
16:9 doesn't show more of the image than 16:10 what is this troll pic
Click to expand...

It's actually true in some games that don't do any FOV adjustment for 16:10 resolutions after being designed for 16:9. Starcraft 2 just happens to be one of them. Basically the amount you can see vertically is locked no matter the resolution, so when you increase the vertical it's sort of like a zoom mode on a TV and you end up cutting off the sides. There's no trolling in that pic, at least as far as Starcraft 2 is concerned.

That said, there's zero reason to use that in relation to most other games. Most of them will correctly adjust FOV for higher resolutions and 16:10 will work just fine.
 
The vast majority are HOR+ which leads to larger field of view for 16:9. If they are not HOR+ they are anamorphic which leads to letterbox for 16:10.

HOR+ works like this.
sc2_fov36k6.gif

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

PES12 below is anamorphic.

Many games does not support 16:10 and the lack of field of view for 16:10 make 16:9 a better choice.

@Joseph.
Just look for yourself.
http://widescreengamingforum.com/forums/gaming/detailed-widescreen-reports

BTW. Just noticed that PES 12 does not support 16:10.
pes2012%202011-09-16%2021-46-37-66.jpg

http://widescreengamingforum.com/fo...228/detailed-report-pro-evolution-soccer-2012

so you have 16:10 and play FIFA? not really better for you. It is HOR+

16:9
fifa%202011-09-17%2008-53-01-42.jpg


16:10
fifa%202011-09-17%2008-50-59-18.jpg


http://widescreengamingforum.com/fo...escreen-reports/17230/detailed-report-fifa-12
 
Last edited:
Screen shots from a EA sports (primarily console) game, really? I wouldn't expect much from an obvious port. Proper games have an aspect ratio option in the settings menu, and FOV adjustments to boot.
 
Both FIFA and PES are like the laziest console ports you'll see. And still, it's possible to configure the camera by yourself so it doesn't make any difference in the end. It's actually a good example why an as wide as possible FOV at the cost of detail isn't always desirable.

Oled said:
Very low of you to lie I have to say. All games support 16:9 in 2011.
Click to expand...

You're not really getting what albovin is trying to show there, are you? :)
 
Oled said:
Very low of you to lie I have to say. All games support 16:9 in 2011.

It is rather funny that all 16:10 arguments never have a source while the 16:9 arguments always have. It kind of shows who tell you the truth.

16:9


16:10


http://widescreengamingforum.com/fo...escreen-reports/17230/detailed-report-fifa-12
Click to expand...

You of all posters should never even use the words truth in regards to yourself, or lie in regards to others because you can't tell the difference. Stick to the subject constructively.
 
Once again, people are arguing game resolutions. :rolleyes:

It's the only argument you have, and a subjective one at that.
 
16:10 is a preferable resolution especially for business/productivity applications. Industry is aware of this and know that 16:9 can be foisted on the general public with little backlash. When it comes to larger monitors we see the migration to 16:9 has been MUCH slower. Even the high resolution/real estate at 2560*1600 is preferred to 2560*1440. The move to 1920*1080 was purely an economic move by the FEW companies that actually make the panels. For those of you that think otherwise then why didn't they keep the vertical resolution the same and increase the horizontal resolution so we could have something like 2130*1200 in a 16:9 form factor?

Here is aquote by a company that know a bit about business applications, "The 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Display delivers an amazing 2560 x 1600 pixel resolution. Designed specifically for the creative professional, this display provides more space for easier access to all the tools and palettes needed to edit, format and composite your work."

I do not own an APPLE computer but their company is heavily consumer based. In the business community they deliver what people need for greater productivity in a single monitor solution.

The upshot of the whole thing now is this, multiple 1920*1080 monitors can be had for the price of a single 1920*1200. For business apps that do not need accurate color calibration (charts, spreadsheets, general documents) it is possible to get 4 - 1920*1080 monitors from Dell for less than a 1920*1200 monitor. I would prefer 3840*2160 over 2560*1600 anyday. If you look at my sig I have 6 - 1920*1200 units. One is on the verge of going out(power supply issue, probably a capacitor), so I plan on getting it fixed because it is cheaper than getting a new one.
 
my point was that 16:9 fov is larger, but that since 16:10 of any comparable resolution got more pixels via the arbitrary cut the industry took (rather than 16:10 being sides cut from comparable 16:9) - that it really doesn't matter because you can make your 16:10 the same resolution 16:9 with around 5% bar at the top and bottom of the screen.

Due to the cut 16:9 is not better overall since its 10% less pixels in height (or 5% top 5% bottom if you look at it that way). I dont' think 16:9 is bad at all at high resolutions - especially since the current gen of 30" all have over-aggressive AG coatings and a few 16:9 27" ones don't. 27" 2560x ' s also have a larger ppi for smaller pixels, making the 27" a more suitable size for a desk imo. The 30" version is not the same size with 10% more pixel height, it is larger pixels resulting in a larger sized panel than the resolution difference implies.

Anyway , as I've said several times -

in order to truely say which aspect in itself you prefer, you have to eliminate the +/-10% width or +/-10% height arbitarty cut and ask

which aspect do you prefer to have more overall pixels at comparable resolutions due to aspect limitiation between the two.

The fact that many people want dual and triple monitor arrays and would love negligible or no bezels shows that people do want beyond 16:10 and 16:9. The fact that 16:10 got more pixels out of the arbitary cut that is standard makes 16:10 more appealing if all other factors were the same.

We know what we have now. However going forward it appears that one QFHD 16:9 very high rez 3840x2160 will be standard, other than a few 4k panels with +256px more width(mostly big tv's or expensive production based panels). I'd prefer it stay one aspect with an abundance of rez and high ppi personally. I wouldn't want them to even cut the sides off the QFHD to make 16:10's in some role reversal.
 
The only time I would prefer 16:9 is when watching movies, which is what I use my pc the least for.
So my vote goes to 16:10.
 
ironically at least half the thread is OT bc ppl are arguing "16: (10|9) which is better" when the title clearly says "prefer".. :p
 
Doesn't matter.

Response time, default color accuracy, contrast, viewing angles, price, ergonomics and quality control/easy exchange-ability should come first when choosing a monitor.

Obviously if one is only console gaming on their monitor 16:9 is preferable.
 
VulcaN said:
Screen shots from a EA sports (primarily console) game, really? I wouldn't expect much from an obvious port. Proper games have an aspect ratio option in the settings menu, and FOV adjustments to boot.
Click to expand...

+1

Don't post comparisons of broken or consolized PC games.
Hard Reset is an example of proper in game visual settings.
 
Last edited:
Game developers specifically writing games for 16:9 does not make it inherently better. I would hope most of us would know the difference.

Analogy: VHS was not inherently superior than Beta. VHS won by marketing.

Same thing.
 
WorldExclusive said:
+1

Don't post comparisons of broken or consolized PC games.
Hard Reset is an example of proper in game visual settings.
Click to expand...
why not?
It's not like anybody wouldn't buy game just because of lower FOV or little black bars...

16:9 is superior for games and there is more good gaming (120Hz with low input lag) monitors to choose from (even though The Best gaming monitor is actually 16:10... :rolleyes:)
 
You sure? I know I have steered away from a couple games that were obvious console ports becuase they didnt include any PC friendly features, such as FOV (as in, not even editible in an .ini or some other non standard way). Its called voting with your wallet. We want console games on the PC, because that just means more good games, but developers need to take the hint that they need to develop it seperately or really flesh out all of the controls / features to make it transparent to the PC user that it was ever a console game in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top