16:10 display ratio?

16:9 isnt outdated.
Some displays have a 16:9 and some a 16:10. 16:9 is really 1920x1080, but some displays have resolutions higher.
 
16:9 tends to be used for home theater stuff, while 16:10 is pretty much exclusively for computer monitors. Why the difference? My guess is that in order to fit 2 letter size pages at 100% onscreen you need a 16:10 aspect ratio, which is why computer monitors went that route.
 
Ahh, thanks guys for the info, I really thought the world was moving too fast for me, lol!
 
truffle00 said:
16:9 tends to be used for home theater stuff, while 16:10 is pretty much exclusively for computer monitors. Why the difference? My guess is that in order to fit 2 letter size pages at 100% onscreen you need a 16:10 aspect ratio, which is why computer monitors went that route.
Click to expand...
I guess that makes sense. I always wondered why WS monitors didn't go for 16:9 like WS TVs.
 
Furthermore, computer and laptop widescreen displays are in the 16:10 aspect ratio both physically in size and in pixel counts, and not in 16:9 of consumer televisions, leading to further complexity. This was a result of widescreen computer display engineers' uninformed assumption that people viewing 16:9 content on their computer would prefer that an area of the screen be reserved for playback controls or subtitles, as opposed to viewing content full-screen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television
 
FWIW: computers went 16:10 instead of 16:9 so that the people editing 16:9 content on the computer would be able to run with a pallet above. At least thats what Ive always heard...
 
They most likely went with 16:10 to keep the pixel height uniform. That way fullscreen applications that didn't support widescreen resolutions would appear properly on the screen in normal resolutions like 1600x1200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top