Anyone else think 16:9 aspect ratio is far from ideal?

Hello there

From what I see, the very very vast majority of monitors are 16:9 aspect ratio, it seems to be a standard nowadays. I've seen a few 16:10 ones, but this isnt that much different.

Years ago when I was at still school (slightly less than 10 years ago), I dont this was the case; we had monitors which were CRT or thin LCDs were coming in, and they were like 4:3 (my guess).

For gaming and watching movies, 16:9 is fine.

I use A LOT of forums, I tried setting my 21.5" screen on its side and went into the settings (windows 8) and changed my display to portrait orientation.

The experience is miles better (for forums/going through email inbox/viewing a word document) because I dont have to scroll down as much, I cant see much much more of the webpage without having to scroll

Maybe a dual monitor setup would be good for me.......like 2 Dell Ultrasharps, one portrait, one landscape.

I think if monitors were available in 4:3 that would be good (or close to 4:3).

I dont really know why I made this thread; I guess I just want to see if any other people here have experienced this.

Cheers

I believe in a 3 monitor setup.

2 portrait monitors and one landscape. Ideally the monitors are on arms so that they can be rotated and swung around.

450 said:

I believe in a 3 monitor setup.

2 portrait monitors and one landscape. Ideally the monitors are on arms so that they can be rotated and swung around.

Click to expand...

What do you do?

ie are you a gamer?

use spreadsheets a lot?

what Im asking is, why do you need 3 monitors?

I use Excel, Word, and gmail together. I like having all three up on screens at the same time.

450 said:

I use Excel, Word, and gmail together. I like having all three up on screens at the same time.

Click to expand...

what size are the screens?

2 21.5" screens and a 15.4"

Mr Happy said:

I think if monitors were available in 4:3 that would be good (or close to 4:3).

I dont really know why I made this thread; I guess I just want to see if any other people here have experienced this.

Cheers

Click to expand...

You can still get 4:3s and 5:4s. The problem is that 4:3s are insanely priced and 5:4s are limited to 19". Most here who value vertical over horizontal go for the 24" 16:10s.

Personally I'm not a fan of 16:9s for computer use, but that's because I'm not a big PC gamer nor typically watch movies on my computer screen.

As far as games go, new games are best off on as wide as a monitor you can get, since they let you see more to your sides. At least proper PC games, most console ports like CoD are locked at a pretty low FOV angle anyways. Old games, at least these that don't let you adjust your FOV angle, on the other hand, are better off at 5:4, because widescreen not only does it not let you see more on the sides, it actually cuts off from the top and bottom. So in their case you do see more with 5:4. A good example for that is the still popular Counter Strike 1.6. Even though you can set it to, say 1920x1080, you see quite a bit more if you use 1280x1024.

Aspect ratio has been talked about to death in these forums over the past 7 years as LCD's have gone from niche to mainstream usage.

The summary is as follows:
16:9 isn't ideal for most computer users, but they buy them anyway, because the manufactures are pushing them out and they're generally the least expensive.
16:10 is more preferred over 16:9 for the vertical space. However there aren't many on the market, few manufactures go out of there way to sell this 'specialized' size (at least anymore). The only people using this size then are the hardcore that fight to use this size. Those that still have 30" 16:10 monitors as an example, or people using older models while 16:10 was still available. 16:10 allows for good vertical space but generally also allows enough width to have two pages up side by side. It also seems to have the best compromise between height and width for gaming.
5:4 - Exists but is generally it's too square.
4:3 - Original, classic, tried and true. Great if you're the type that spends a lot of time reading, document editing, excel stuff etc, and you prefer to only have one document up per screen as opposed to more than one with 16:9, 16:10.

Of course people will argue their preference and the reasons why they like it as if you've cussed out their mother. Of course there are other reasons to use these aspect ratios than the ones I've listed, but those are the general usage cases.

I personally prefer 16:10, but it's impossibly expensive to own right now. So I'm using a 16:9 27" monitor. At 27" and 2560x1440 the loss of the vertical space isn't as much of a problem if I was using a 16:9 monitor at 1080p. I feel that it will be even less of a problem when 4k is the new defacto standard and is as cheap as 2560x1440 is today. Still, I would much rather have 16:10 if given a choice, I just don't think there will ever be a choice.

I also have an old 2005fpw that I use in portrait (1680x1050). Still working faithfully to this day, although its brightness level has been slowly fading. Still 8 years out of it is pretty good.

UnknownSouljer said:

The only people using this size then are the hardcore that fight to use this size. Those that still have 30" 16:10 monitors as an example, or people using older models while 16:10 was still available. 16:10 allows for good vertical space but generally also allows enough width to have two pages up side by side. It also seems to have the best compromise between height and width for gaming.
...

I personally prefer 16:10, but it's impossibly expensive to own right now. So I'm using a 16:9 27" monitor. At 27" and 2560x1440 the loss of the vertical space isn't as much of a problem if I was using a 16:9 monitor at 1080p. I feel that it will be even less of a problem when 4k is the new defacto standard and is as cheap as 2560x1440 is today. Still, I would much rather have 16:10 if given a choice, I just don't think there will ever be a choice.

.

Click to expand...

You do know there are plenty of 24" 16:10s still being made, right? Your post makes it sound like they stopped making them 10 years ago and they cost several grand. You can get a 24" 16:10 IPS from Asus for about $230, if you want to go cheap.

If you want 30", then yeah, they can be pricey. But they certainly are available too.

27" 1440p probably does provide enough vertical due to the extra pixels, but I was just wondering why your post sounded like 16:10 is some obscure thing that only a few could afford, and nearly impossible to find at any size.

At 1080p I find 16:9 a little tight for web browsing, but higher resolution, bigger displays really allow you to have it all if you want to pay for it.

16:10 approximates the Golden Ratio.

16:9 has taken over simply to cut costs as it's the same ratio used for TV's. 16:10 is best.

Anyone claiming otherwise is fooling themselves.

I'm perfectly fine working and playing on a 1080p monitor, albeit with the windows taskbar placed in the side, Linux style. My previous screen was a veteran NEC 20wgx2, which was stellar, but the 1680x1050 was dated compared to where the standards were going. I wish there was a 1920x1200 version of that monitor, that res adds workspace while accommodating 1080p easily with black bars

I'd really like to see a 21:9 monitor that was just a little bigger vertically, say equal to a 24". I've begun to realize how much cooler it would be have that much more width to your perspective in games. It would feel significantly more immersive.

16:9 is a horrible aspest ratio.

16:9 is only used as it is cheaper to make then other aspect ratios.

I personally like 16:10 and my new projector is 5:3

I like 16:9. It feels more cinematic.

2560x1440>>>>1920x1200 and Korean 1440p monitors can be purchased for 350$ with Squaretrade warranties. There are grain free matte and glossy options vs the grainy 1200p or semi-glossy+cross-hatching plagued models available in the sub 350$ price range. The 1440p monitors also offer superior over all performance vs. any 16:10 monitor under 750$.

Namelessme said:

You do know there are plenty of 24" 16:10s still being made, right? Your post makes it sound like they stopped making them 10 years ago and they cost several grand. You can get a 24" 16:10 IPS from Asus for about $230, if you want to go cheap.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you spent the time to go on to Newegg and check the pricing. The only reason why I bring it up, is because I just did.

You're right, you can buy one for $230. You can also buy a 16:9 24" monitor for a bit over half that price. Not to say that buying a 16:10 at 24" isn't viable, it is.

Namelessme said:

If you want 30", then yeah, they can be pricey. But they certainly are available too.

27" 1440p probably does provide enough vertical due to the extra pixels, but I was just wondering why your post sounded like 16:10 is some obscure thing that only a few could afford, and nearly impossible to find at any size.

Click to expand...

At this point I'm primarily a 1 large monitor user with side monitors used for peripheral stuff. Having the one large display with high resolution helps my workflow significantly. Other than laptops, I really don't want to move back down to a smaller display size anytime soon.

Anyone else think 16:9 aspect ratio is far from ideal?

Click to expand...

Yep, all aspect ratios are a cut down version of the real thing, except those my eyes see.
I think a widescreen is the better aspect ratio unless you can have another that completely fills the vision.

You just need a bigger screen with higher res, get a 4K TV and see if you complain about the aspect ratio then

I miss having a 16:10 ratio, I have 16:9 now and it's tolerable but far from ideal.

NCX said:

2560x1440>>>>1920x1200 and Korean 1440p monitors can be purchased for 350$ with Squaretrade warranties. There are grain free matte and glossy options vs the grainy 1200p or semi-glossy+cross-hatching plagued models available in the sub 350$ price range. The 1440p monitors also offer superior over all performance vs. any 16:10 monitor under 750$.

Click to expand...

Although I do agree that some of the best monitors tend to be 27" 1440ps currently, I think the OP was just lamenting the fact that most monitors nowadays are 16:9. The advantages to the 27" 1440ps are simply due to the marketplace, not an advantage due to the aspect ratio.

UnknownSouljer said:

I'm assuming you spent the time to go on to Newegg and check the pricing. The only reason why I bring it up, is because I just did.

You're right, you can buy one for $230. You can also buy a 16:9 24" monitor for a bit over half that price. Not to say that buying a 16:10 at 24" isn't viable, it is.

At this point I'm primarily a 1 large monitor user with side monitors used for peripheral stuff. Having the one large display with high resolution helps my workflow significantly. Other than laptops, I really don't want to move back down to a smaller display size anytime soon.

Click to expand...

Nah, didn't check, as there were threads on the 24" IPS Asus a while ago, and the price was mentioned then. You can get 24" (usually 23.8", actually) 16:9 IPS models cheaper, but then again, there are some 23" 16:9 IPS models that costs more than 24" 16:10s too.

If going large, and wanting 16:10, it's then 30", and very pricey. The NEC PA302W is over 2K I see (and yep, had to look that one up). I suppose it's primarily due to the market looking at 30"ers for graphics professionals only, so they can charge a fortune.

Anyway, people can still get 5:4s (NEC and Eizo), 4:3s (mainly just Eizo now), 16:10s at 22", 24" and 30" (22" probably limited to just Eizo). But yep, in many cases they charge a bit of a premium for the extra vertical space.

16:9 is best for most competitive games due to the greater FOV. You're at a disadvantage in most FPS and RTS games (like SC2) if you go 16:10.

I feel the strain of looking to the corners of a 16:10 24-inch screen, enough so that when I build new spreadsheets I provide buffer space on the left hand side. Maybe if you're 25 years old your eyes can deal with it. Mine are pretty good for up-close work but I would not want a wider field of view. I'll make a (so far theoretical) exception for a 1920x1200 26- or 27-inch display, which would increase dot pitch and thereby make text easier to read.

I have two 24" LCDs. One is in landscape mode for games and general work; the other is in portrait mode for email and browsing forums like [H]. Instead of going 4K, I could get a third and put all three into portrait mode.

I like that when I watch anime it fills the screen.
On top of that 1440p is enough pixels. Two 1280x1440 windows works well for workflow when needed.

I think res and screen size is more important. At least on desktops.

I prefer 16:10 over 16:9 for the extra vertical pixels when working
For games, movies 16:9 is good

16:9 is a decent compromise. Optimal aspect ratio depends entirely on the content. Games and video benefit from 16:9 more than 16:10, since 16:9 is the standard for TV and internet video and it gives a wider fov in games. Of course for the most part people complaining about 16:9 is because of 1080p resolution which leaves a limited amount of vertical content. I'm using a 1440p monitor and have no issues having 16:9 aspect. For pure desktop use and web viewing I think 4:3 would be better than 16:10. For gaming I'd actually prefer a much wider fov like with Eyefinity, but unfortunately games don't support super wide fov very well. This is something I hope Oculus Rift will solve eventually.

Ultimately though it's a matter of cost. 16:9 is the tv standard and that means it's going to be the cheapest too. If you absolutely love 16:10, there's still options if you're willing to pay more.

imo best getting two different monitors if/when you can afford to.
one high rez 60hz for desktop/apps (korean or american mfg 2560x1440 for sub $400, or eventually a comparable 4k panel).

one 120hz+ gaming monitor with backlight strobing. High hz + high fps to deliver much greater motion definition and control and backlight strobing to eliminate continual FoV blur of the entire viewport.

Currently there are no backlight strobing monitors higher than 1080p, and no higher than 1080p rez monitors manufactured to go higher than 120hz by design (though the overlord "overclockable" ones can hit higher hz to give greater motion definition, but for blur only result in less than 50% blur reduction).

If any of the 2560x1440 or 4k gsync monitors come out next year at higher than 60hz, that might change things, but there is nothing I've seen saying anything higher than 60hz on those as of yet. Even if high rez 120hz backlight strobing monitors become a reality someday, the sweet spot for enthusiast gpu budgets to hit 100 - 140fps is still 1080p without going to extreme gpu budgets.

Mr Happy said:

Anyone else think 16:9 aspect ratio is far from ideal?

Click to expand...

I think 16:9 is fine for me. My 2nd desktop (not mentioned in my sig) has a Dell U2312HM. I don't game. I do watch videos from time to time, and virtually all of the video files I have are in 16:9 (mostly Korean dramas ), so I like that there are no black bars.

Having said this, my primary desktop has a Dell U2913WM, which is 21:9 (more accurately, 64:27). Having two application windows side by side on this monitor is really nice. The resolution of each is 1280x1080, very close to the 5:4 1280x1024 monitors of old.