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

[Impulse]

There will be no more 120 Hz 16:10 monitors because todays games are made for 16:9 so it would be very strange to use any other aspect ratio for gaming than 16:9. Most gamers want 16:9.

/me channels his inner troll

Actually, what PC gamers really want is 16:3 (5760x1080) or 15:8 (3600x1200), since that's the future of PC gaming. Console gamers meanwhile are contempt with playing games at 1280x720 on 1920x1080 screens, often times at even lower resolution than that.

/exhale

Truth be told, games could be coded to favor any aspect ratio, it's pretty arbitrary... And many many games adjust it to some degree or let you adjust it, otherwise things like Eyefinity wouldn't work. So there's really no reason to lock yourself into anything, even tho FOV settings might often favor 16:9 by default (slightly) due to console-itis.

 

[Cool Vibrations]

Most gamers want 16:9.

Since you're going to put a blanket statement without a sample population, I'll throw one out there too.

Most gamers want 16:10.
http://www.overclock.net/monitors-displays/993838-16-9-16-10-gaming.html

Joking aside, going back to what I said again. Everyone would choose 16:10 for their computer monitor if it were the cheaper alternative, period. There is no argument about this. Everyone had 1680x1050 monitors back then, not 1600x900. Why? Because it sucks. Why in hell would you choose to lose screen real estate?

Have you guys not noticed that all of the most best 24" IPS monitors use 1920x1200? U2408WFP, U2410, U2412, ZR24W, 2490WUXi2, etc.

Let me come from another standpoint. Would some of you still pick 16:9 if you were to pay a premium for it? Would you honestly buy a 1920x1080 over a 1920x1200, if the latter is cheaper? If the answer to any of these questions is a yes, please respond why.

 

[Mabu]

Let me come from another standpoint. Would some of you still pick 16:9 if you were to pay a premium for it? Would you honestly buy a 1920x1080 over a 1920x1200, if the latter is cheaper? If the answer to any of these questions is a yes, please respond why.

I'll bite. Let me first preface this by stating that I am a proponent of neither 16:10 nor 16:9. My preference stems from what makes the most sense for ME in my current state, not what I think is best for others. With that being said, yes, I would pay the premium for a 1080p monitor over a 1200p monitor in my current situation. And here's why.

I am equal parts console gamer, PC gamer, movie/TV watcher. My entertainment area is currently set up with my main TV and AVR nearly adjacent to my computer desk, which also has a lesser AVR attached to an extra input of my U2311H. All of my consoles can be switched to send their output to the main AVR or my desktop AVR. Same goes for my cable box. Also, I have the TV connected to my PC as a secondary, mirrored display.

In that setup, I can choose to view ANY of my sources on either my desktop AVR+monitor or the main TV/AVR with just a flick of a switch (or two). This comes in EXTREMELY handy when the wifey wants to watch her vampire shows on the TV and I'd rather be on one of my consoles. Sometimes we both like to surf the web together on the TV, and having that TV mirrored as a secondary display comes in nicely.

In my situation, I prefer to have my displays use the same resolution to minimize the amount of micro-management and other issues I would have otherwise (mirroring a 1200p image onto the 1080p TV would result in a slightly squashed image). Since the lowest common denominator of my entertainment sources is capable of 16:9 1080p at best, that's what I've built around.

Do note that none of my requirements above have anything to do with productivity, hence why 1200p (or higher) doesn't fit into my equation at all. At work it's another story completely, but at home, 1080p suits my needs perfectly.

 

[elvn]

Since you're going to put a blanket statement without a sample population, I'll throw one out there too.

Most gamers want 16:10.
http://www.overclock.net/monitors-displays/993838-16-9-16-10-gaming.html

Joking aside, going back to what I said again. Everyone would choose 16:10 for their computer monitor if it were the cheaper alternative, period. There is no argument about this. Everyone had 1680x1050 monitors back then, not 1600x900. Why? Because it sucks. Why in hell would you choose to lose screen real estate?

Have you guys not noticed that all of the most best 24" IPS monitors use 1920x1200? U2408WFP, U2410, U2412, ZR24W, 2490WUXi2, etc.

Let me come from another standpoint. Would some of you still pick 16:9 if you were to pay a premium for it? Would you honestly buy a 1920x1080 over a 1920x1200, if the latter is cheaper? If the answer to any of these questions is a yes, please respond why.

You would pick the 16:9 if the equivalent 16:10 fit inside of it, and vice versa, at the same price at lower resolutions where it mattered (if there were no other considerable tradeoffs to consider like panel type, hz, AG, etc.). i.e. you would pick a 16:9 2133x1200 over a 1920x1200 if the price was comparable. you would pick a 1920x1080 16:9 over a 1728x1080 16:10 .

I keep bringing up the QFHD not only because I'm looking forward to it, but because it's rez (as well as the 2560x rez's for the most part) washes the argument out and from the looks of it the QFHD dispenses with the fully arbitrary choice of which aspect ratio kept more pixels going forward - however long it takes to go mainstream (or at least popular with high end pc users) or not. I can remember when noone thought a $2k HDTV was worth it either but now HDTV's are quite popular.

 

[elvn]

I prefer 16:10 for two reasons, one is the most commony mentioned reason and the other I rarely see brought up... The first is that I prefer the taller aspect ratio for productivity, you get to see a couple extra lines of text, code, whatever.

The second reason is that I'm building an Eyefinity setup, 16:10 means wider screens if/when I decide to use them in portrait, which means more space between bezels, which works out great with 24" screens imo (probably the most common size for enthusiasts now).

There's some FOV arguments against 16:10 since a lot of games are coded with 16:9 in mind primarily, but they all go out the window with Eyefinity imo. 'Course if you wanna do portrait mode in Eyefinity you need decent IPS screens which mean $300+ per, which makes it a bit of a niche for now.

The real draw of triple monitor eyefinity gaming for most people is landscape mode. The side monitors by design are supposed to remain in your peripheral vision and not focused on directly, to give you a sense of immersion while keeping all the imperative GUI elements, chat, notices etc in your main focus on the central screen. Portrait mode would not be able to do this unless you practically had your nose against the center monitor and angled the other two toward your ears. People do PPP mode to get a higher resolution screen out of three screens, not to use what I consider true eyefinity gaming. PPP also brings the bars into your main gaze "window of a screen" whether its 16:10 or not, where eyefinity gaming LLL have the main landscape screen clear and the side panel's in your periphery.

 

[Impulse]

A lot of people enjoy playing certain games more in a PPP setup rather than LLL, including some [H]OCP editors. /shrug I intend to wall mount my displays so I can easily rotate them. Really, in the end, it's personal choice and neither aspect ratio is absolutely superior to the other... Just depends what you wanna do with your screens.

As far as 4K displays tho... I really hope I'm wrong, but I don't think it's gonna go down the same way HDTVs did, either way widespread adoption will probably take far longer. These days the average joe is way more easily satisfied, which is why netbooks exploded (not to bag on them, I own one), why the iPad was selling before there was even a lot of native apps, and why people are often contempt with SD Netflix streams on HDTVs (and why Blu-Ray hasn't destroyed DVD sales).

 

[elvn]

.
Yes and console games pacifying people hurts adoption and progress on pc's on many fronts including monitors >.< .. and the economy isn't helping at all. However the enthusiast crowd at [H], avsforum, etc are a different breed. It will still take longer even in those circles just because the prices are astronomical on some of these screens on release. Hopefully apple and LG desktop monitors will have a more reasonable price ball park sooner, at least around the cost of a "high end" 1080p tv or less
...
..Theres nothing wrong with PPP though 3x 1200 wide = 5:4 I think and for the reasons above I wouldn't chose it for gaming unless they were 30" 1600 wide perhaps, with the larger pixels and screen size physically pushing the bars further apart . That is one scenario where the larger ppi than the 27" might actually be more desirable due to the screen being more jumbo, where otherwise I would always go with the higher ppi and dimensions of the 27" ones. I guess I'm just not a fan of the bars being closer than 1920, especially after getting used to 2560.
... I've also seen several setups with more common resolution monitors having portrait mode monitor(s) with the same ppi on the side of a landscape monitor, even singly for application and browsing use, for a nice long vertical.

borrowed from the show your lcd's thread.. maybe eyefinity peripheral would work in PPP with this I imagine the ppi would be horrendous though, the backlight blinding, and looks like neck strain already lol.

.

.

 

[Syntax Error]

It doesn't really matter what we prefer when anyone can pull standards out of his a** and do whatever he wants for the sake of profit. Since when is it acceptable for the industry to dictate consumer demand, instead of vice versa? If people want to buy 16:10 monitors they should damn well be able to, and same for 16:9 (keep in mind the reason this ratio was created in the first place). We are being left without a choice and that is what is causing these arguments.

The fact that they are forcing 16:9 is only because it is cheaper, well in that case let's just buy a 1920 pixel wide line (1 px height) monitor and use that, I'm sure that would be even cheaper for them.

Saying that 16:9 is better because movies are being filmed for it (or black bars are smaller or whatever) is like saying it's better to listen to pop because that's what's on MTV.

The industry is constantly probing the waters with something like this, when you people actually go out and buy it, you're basically telling them "yes, we'll pay for less, and don't mind getting shafted". Well, go for it. Pretty soon you'll be sold 2.35:1 OLED screens which are gonna burn out within a year and I'll probably be forced to go live as a hermit on some island because I won't be able to stand the continuous downfall of technology that has been going on for the past 10 years.

Exaggerate much?

Yes, I personally don't like 16:9 myself, and prefer 16:10. So long as that demand still exists out on the market, people will make 16:10 monitors as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, I think a lot of what's missing in these 16:9 versus 16:10 arguments is relative; the Starcraft II GIF is misleading because that would only be true if the vertical resolution of the screens are the same, so if the 16:9 1600x900 monitor is the representation in that image, then the comparable 16:10 monitor is most likely going to be either 1440x900 (same vertical height) or 1680x1050, which is bigger in height and width, and as such in a proper game that renders pixels correctly, should have both a Hor+ and Vert+ benefit over the 16:9 1600x900 screen.

For physical screen size itself, it seems to be all over the place, from 15" 1920x1080 screens to 16.5" 1366x768 screens, so really, I think the argument really should be done in terms of actual pixel count, not physical screen size. Games that don't accurately depict the change in pixels as a corresponding increase in overall field of view is either deliberately stacking things in favor of a certain aspect ratio, or don't really have proper widescreen support.

 

[elvn]

Fixed the pic... the display should encompass more of your gaze than the first picture implies, by keeping smaller monitors closer and larger monitors and monitor arrays farther away.. Of course the pixel densities will be worse the fewer monitors you use, though in the future the 16:9 at the top could be a 3840x2160.

 

[Cool Vibrations]

I'll bite. Let me first preface this by stating that I am a proponent of neither 16:10 nor 16:9. My preference stems from what makes the most sense for ME in my current state, not what I think is best for others. With that being said, yes, I would pay the premium for a 1080p monitor over a 1200p monitor in my current situation. And here's why.

I am equal parts console gamer, PC gamer, movie/TV watcher. My entertainment area is currently set up with my main TV and AVR nearly adjacent to my computer desk, which also has a lesser AVR attached to an extra input of my U2311H. All of my consoles can be switched to send their output to the main AVR or my desktop AVR. Same goes for my cable box. Also, I have the TV connected to my PC as a secondary, mirrored display.

In that setup, I can choose to view ANY of my sources on either my desktop AVR+monitor or the main TV/AVR with just a flick of a switch (or two). This comes in EXTREMELY handy when the wifey wants to watch her vampire shows on the TV and I'd rather be on one of my consoles. Sometimes we both like to surf the web together on the TV, and having that TV mirrored as a secondary display comes in nicely.

In my situation, I prefer to have my displays use the same resolution to minimize the amount of micro-management and other issues I would have otherwise (mirroring a 1200p image onto the 1080p TV would result in a slightly squashed image). Since the lowest common denominator of my entertainment sources is capable of 16:9 1080p at best, that's what I've built around.

Do note that none of my requirements above have anything to do with productivity, hence why 1200p (or higher) doesn't fit into my equation at all. At work it's another story completely, but at home, 1080p suits my needs perfectly.

16:9 is definitely more beneficial for your situation, especially since you are using your monitor for multiple purposes in an entertainment perspective and it's obvious it would be best to keep proportional ratios when utilizing dual displays. Especially when 16:9 is pretty much the format of HDTV/FullHD.

You would pick the 16:9 if the equivalent 16:10 fit inside of it, and vice versa, at the same price at lower resolutions where it mattered (if there were no other considerable tradeoffs to consider like panel type, hz, AG, etc.). i.e. you would pick a 16:9 2133x1200 over a 1920x1200 if the price was comparable. you would pick a 1920x1080 16:9 over a 1728x1080 16:10 .


I keep bringing up the QFHD not only because I'm looking forward to it, but because it's rez (as well as the 2560x rez's for the most part) washes the argument out and from the looks of it the QFHD dispenses with the fully arbitrary choice of which aspect ratio kept more pixels going forward - however long it takes to go mainstream (or at least popular with high end pc users) or not. I can remember when noone thought a $2k HDTV was worth it either but now HDTV's are quite popular.

And that is the problem. The 16:9 monitors that are so readily available for mainstream use has a lesser resolution then what I, and other 16:10 proponents are so used to. To many, 16:10 just isn't worth it to produced economically so it's getting harder and harder to cater to this niche. 2340x1440 on the FW900 was my first experience of high resolution nirvana. But there's a sweeter spot for me and that is a 27" monitor that can display 2560x1600. 0.22mm dot pitch is damn satisfying.

 

[pwnrhasta]

IMO
16:10 > 16:9

 

[Oled]

16:9 is definitely more beneficial for your situation, especially since you are using your monitor for multiple purposes in an entertainment perspective and it's obvious it would be best to keep proportional ratios when utilizing dual displays. Especially when 16:9 is pretty much the format of HDTV/FullHD.

I agree.

For gaming and entertainment 16:10 is a real pain.

For everything else I prefer 16:9 as well because it is much better to have a wide monitor in multitasking.

so IMO
16:9 >>>> 16:10

 

[Paully's5.0]

There is a lot of discussion regarding MONITORS and the various resolutions, and in that aspect if I can get a 27" monitor at 2560 x 1440, I would take it!

BUT, I build custom Industrial Automation applications, so a LAPTOP is a must for me. My work laptop is a 2-3 year old 15.4" Dell M4300 with 1920x1200. I love the 15" form factor, big enough yet small enough to travel to job sites with. I have second monitor when docked in the office, a 24" 1650x1080 but all that serves as is a big magnifying glass compared to the laptop resolution.

In my automation applications I develop operator interface screens at a resolution of 1280x1024. At 1920x1200 I can have the all the menu/toolbars open in the development environment and have the operator screen fully viewed so no vertical scrolling when running this setup. Doesn't work that way at anything less than 1200 vertical lines. Not to mention it's handy for spreadsheets and code.

I am due for a new laptop, and I assume that I will be getting another 15" M series from Dell. The resolutions that are available:

1366x768 or 1920x1080. I HOPE I will get the latter, but could you imagine if I get the 1366x768! Shoot me!! (No I don't have input, corporate IT)

 

[10e]

/me channels his inner troll

Actually, what PC gamers really want is 16:3 (5760x1080) or 15:8 (3600x1200), since that's the future of PC gaming. Console gamers meanwhile are contempt with playing games at 1280x720 on 1920x1080 screens, often times at even lower resolution than that.

/exhale

Truth be told, games could be coded to favor any aspect ratio, it's pretty arbitrary... And many many games adjust it to some degree or let you adjust it, otherwise things like Eyefinity wouldn't work. So there's really no reason to lock yourself into anything, even tho FOV settings might often favor 16:9 by default (slightly) due to console-itis.

DFTT

Oled is known to lie so don't bother. He just ignores posts that don't agree with him. Hopefully if we ignore him he will burn out or fade away.

I won't even discuss what he did to my U2412M posts on www.overclock.net. Pathetic.

 

[Bergkamp]

DFTT

I won't even discuss what he did to my U2412M posts on www.overclock.net. Pathetic.

now i want to know

 

[Megalomaniac]

DFTT

Oled is known to lie so don't bother. He just ignores posts that don't agree with him. Hopefully if we ignore him he will burn out or fade away.

I won't even discuss what he did to my U2412M posts on www.overclock.net. Pathetic.

Well, thus far in this thread, even considering how many times the troll posted his preference, the 16:10 crowd still outnumber him (looks to the right, looks to the left, ooops, I wonder if he will now redouble his efforts in hopes of making it seem like there are more 16:9 lovers)

And here here, on the burn out part We could use less trolling/fanboyism and more constructive talk.

I really would like to find out what drives him. He does not see any good use for a 16:10 monitor, anyone who works professionally would want more of a screen, which the 16:10 by definition provides. I guess his work is trolling, wonder if he gets paid by the post?

 

[dr.stevil]

it really doesn't matter to me, honestly.

Most of my monitors are 16:10, but 16:9 doesn't bother me... As long as the screen is large enough

 

[quantum112]

I really would like to find out what drives him. He does not see any good use for a 16:10 monitor, anyone who works professionally would want more of a screen, which the 16:10 by definition provides. I guess his work is trolling, wonder if he gets paid by the post?

Most people enjoy pushing their opinion on others. Some enjoy it quite a bit, it seems.

 

[daveswantek]

Since you're going to put a blanket statement without a sample population, I'll throw one out there too.

Most gamers want 16:10.
http://www.overclock.net/monitors-displays/993838-16-9-16-10-gaming.html

Joking aside, going back to what I said again. Everyone would choose 16:10 for their computer monitor if it were the cheaper alternative, period. There is no argument about this. Everyone had 1680x1050 monitors back then, not 1600x900. Why? Because it sucks. Why in hell would you choose to lose screen real estate?

Have you guys not noticed that all of the most best 24" IPS monitors use 1920x1200? U2408WFP, U2410, U2412, ZR24W, 2490WUXi2, etc.

Let me come from another standpoint. Would some of you still pick 16:9 if you were to pay a premium for it? Would you honestly buy a 1920x1080 over a 1920x1200, if the latter is cheaper? If the answer to any of these questions is a yes, please respond why.

Exactly, Why do gamers insist on hiding the real reason for wanting 16:9. It is all about price, they want to have one screen to do it all. In their case all includes games and movies, because they usually do not have room or budget for a TV and a computer display in their bedroom/dormroom. I am not baggin on anybody, all I am saying is be honest about it.

If you are serious about gaming and do have a buget, why would you go for triple 16:9 over triple 16:10. This is where the extra height is most important, because you have plenty of width in either case. If you hit the lottery, who wouldn't go for triple 30 inchers in eyefinity with a killer rig to support it in your brand new beach house full of hot babes.

 

[Whoisthisreally]

I really would like to find out what drives him. He does not see any good use for a 16:10 monitor, anyone who works professionally would want more of a screen, which the 16:10 by definition provides. I guess his work is trolling, wonder if he gets paid by the post?

I have provided to him an article by an engineer to contributed to the 16:10 standard which went into the aims and the intents of 16:10. 16:9 was developed as a compromise between existing wide format satellite TV aspect ratios.

There is no hope for this person. He does not assess what other people have written and respond. He would have been removed if this forum cared about the substantiation of arguments.

 

[Walker]

I have provided to him an article by an engineer to contributed to the 16:10 standard which went into the aims and the intents of 16:10. 16:9 was developed as a compromise between existing wide format satellite TV aspect ratios.

There is no hope for this person. He does not assess what other people have written and respond. He would have been removed if this forum cared about the substantiation of arguments.

How he has not been banned yet for blatant trolling is beyond me...

Do you have a link to that article btw? Thanks.

 

[Whoisthisreally]

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037228229&postcount=26

 

[daveswantek]

DFTT

Oled is known to lie so don't bother. He just ignores posts that don't agree with him. Hopefully if we ignore him he will burn out or fade away.

I won't even discuss what he did to my U2412M posts on www.overclock.net. Pathetic.

He shut up for a while after Albvion made him look bad in the last thread like this. Unfortunately Albvion deleted his own posts. He photoshoped the animated gif of the aspect ratios so everything was in the same dpi insted of ignoring that little issue. That gif came from the wide screen gaming forum which insistes on ignoring dpi all over the forum. it is really a lack of education/understanding

Snowdog got it right with the golden ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio that has been a standerd through human history.

Note 16/10 = 1.6, 16/9 ~ 1.778, golden ratio ~1.618. This is the only real standard for aspect ratio. Content can and has been created in numerious aspect ratios. So there really is no standard for movies or games.

 

[jeremyshaw]

He shut up for a while after Albvion made him look bad in the last thread like this. Unfortunately Albvion deleted his own posts. He photoshoped the animated gif of the aspect ratios so everything was in the same dpi insted of ignoring that little issue. That gif came from the wide screen gaming forum which insistes on ignoring dpi all over the forum. it is really a lack of education/understanding

Snowdog got it right with the golden ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio that has been a standerd through human history.

Note 16/10 = 1.6, 16/9 ~ 1.778, golden ratio ~1.618. This is the only real standard for aspect ratio. Content can and has been created in numerious aspect ratios. So there really is no standard for movies or games.

console ports seem to be bearing down on 16:9 based FOVs out of habit, limited dev time, or whatever. Even "PC" games seem to be following the same, abheit, and at least modifyable FOV (and in true console form, we have to edit text files outside of the program itself, instead of the option - normallly nonexistant - being in-game).

Whoever posted the 16:10 paper, thank you, it's good reading Sadly, unlike the iPhone 4, my phone is 16:9 so... lol*. Otherwise, I really hope another company actually utilizes the Retina display, and this is one are I feel Apple has done well in - instead of ever slimmer displays on their mobile devices, Apple has kept stuff bigger than 16:9



*edit: I only mention since I am reading it on my phone.

 

[Oled]

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.

It would be strange if the creators behind 16:10 would prefer 16:9 or 4:3. Of course he says what gains his agenda.

Still we must have in mind that wheteher you prefer 16:9 or 16:10 is a personal reference. You get different answers dependent on who you ask.

 

[elvn]

Imo "Who you ask" would get a different answer from many current 16:10 proponents if 16:9 had more pixels and 16:10 was getting the sides cut off from a 16:9 standard..

and also to a degree if who you ask is in a 1920x price constraint - rather than a 2560x budget where the actual screen + pixel size choice differs more than the resolutions imply, and where the overall height resolution is more adequate on either choice.

As an aspect, had it been the standard that 16:10 got cut down 10% width from 16:9 by shaving the side pixels, rather than 16:9 being shaved down 10% height from 16:10...

You would pick the 16:9 if the equivalent 16:10 fit inside of it, and vice versa, at the same price at lower resolutions where it mattered (if there were no other considerable tradeoffs to consider like panel type, hz, AG, etc.). i.e. you would pick a 16:9 2133x1200 over a 1920x1200 if the price was comparable. you would pick a 1920x1080 16:9 over a 1728x1080 16:10 .

. With 3840x2160 being 2160 high , that should be enough vertical for the high end crowd for awhile at least. Keeping one aspect ratio with an abundance of vertical and overall ppi sounds great to me and appears to be what the standard will be (outside of a few 4k screens , most likely TV's, that will have +256px more width).. If they started making an arbitrary aspect ratio resolution cut they could always make a 3556x2160 16:10 and save a little production cost for whoever would want to buy 16:10 I suppose...

 

[Oled]

@elvn
16:10 does not have more pixels. That missunderstanding is one reason why some people are against 16:9 for no reason. If we look at what we actually get 16:9 means more pixels for the money.

But it is not because it is "16:9". It is because 16:9 is mainstream both for computer monitors and TV:s which means that the production costs are lower for that aspect ratio.

16:9, 4:3 and 16:10 are just ratios which just tells how long the height is compared to the length.

 

[catalyst6]

at 24 inches or less, I much prefer 16:10

anything above that i absolutely prefer 16:9.....

just a personal thing i suppose

 

[Acer_Sheep]

I prefer 16:10, it has no disadvantages over 16:9

@elvn
16:10 does not have more pixels. That missunderstanding is one reason why some people are against 16:9 for no reason. If we look at what we actually get 16:9 means more pixels for the money.

But it is not because it is "16:9". It is because 16:9 is mainstream both for computer monitors and TV:s which means that the production costs are lower for that aspect ratio.

16:9, 4:3 and 16:10 are just ratios which just tells how long the height is compared to the length.

16:10 of same size as 16:9 does have more pixels, in fact full HD res on 16:10 is 1920x1200, while on 16:9 screen it is only 1920x1080, basically 16:9 is 120 pixels lower in height. That means 16:9 is smaller format than 16:10, it's not wider in strict sense because it just has lowered height of 16:10.

 

[Mabu]

16:10 does not have more pixels. That missunderstanding is one reason why some people are against 16:9 for no reason.

That's only true if you're comparing two resolutions that have the same height, which is hardly ever the case in real-life usage, since panel makers don't offer more than a few standard resolutions. You can't simply make that statement blindly, since it's flat out wrong in more real-life scenarios that it is right.

Take for example some actual real-life scenarios:

1920x1200 = 2304000
1920x1080 = 2073600

Those are everyone's two available options in the mid-20" range. You don't have the option of 2133 x 1200 (16:9) or 1728 x 1080 (16:10). In this real-life comparison, 16:10 offers more pixels than its 16:9 counterpart.

Now, let;s go up in size a bit to the high 20"-low 30" range, and we have 2560x1440 (16:9)and 2560x1600 (16:10) as our available options.

2560x1600 = 4096000
2560x1440 = 3686400

Again, the 16:10 offering gives more pixels in this real-life scenario. Like above, we don't have an option of 2844x1600 (16:9) or 2304x1440 (16:10).

The only scenario in which you can make direct comparisons in real-life offereings of panels with equal height is in 1600x900 compared to 1440x900. Clearly, 1600x900 has more pixels, but resolutions these small aren't ever really the crux of these arguments.

If we look att what we actually get 16:9 means more pixels for the money.

Again, this is another blanket statement that offers zero merit in this discussion, since there are other factors that account for the price of a monitor outside of the resolution. Panel type, panel size, inputs, backlighting, refresh rate, etc, are alll other factors that play into the cost of any given monitor outside of the resolution.

And you then STILL have to consider the comparable resolutions that are actually offered. if all of those other factors were equal, and given the actual real-life resolutions that are available to us, a 1920x1080 monitor would cost less than a 1920x1200 monitor, hence less pixels for less money when comparing 16:9 to 16:10.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

For work, 16:10, for play, 16:9.

 

[Oled]

@Acer sheep. That is your opinion. According to definiton the aspect ratio has nothing to do with size.

 

[ibuyufo]

16:10 gives you extra space. I would hate to lose that real estate space.

 

[Acer_Sheep]

@Acer sheep. That is your opinion. According to definiton the aspect ratio has nothing to do with size.

I said that in favor of fair comparison. 22" 16:10 screen has 1680x1050 but 16:9 24" screen has already 1920x1080, so in this manner 16:9 would exceed in pixel amount the smaller 16:10 screen. So yes this comparing has to be bordered by comparing only in several sizes of displays, where their physical resolution remains similar, just the aspect ratio is different.

 

[Oled]

Take for example some actual real-life scenarios:

1920x1200 = 2304000
1920x1080 = 2073600

Some other real life scenarios

2560x1440 or 1920x1200

1920x1080 or 1680x1050

 

[quantum112]

@Acer sheep. That is your opinion. According to definiton the aspect ratio has nothing to do with size.

16:10 Aspect Ratio

16 units of width, 10 units of height. Per each unit of height, there is 1.6 units of width.

16:9 Aspect Ratio

16 units of width, 9 units of height. Per each unit of height, there is 1.77* units of width.

For a given diagonal size, e.g. 24", we have the following chart:

Therefore, you can see that for a given diagonal size (which is the most common way of determining the size of a monitor), 16:10 has more display surface area than 16:9.

 

[elvn]

my point was not the oled point.. the question really should be

"all other things being equal - do you prefer to have 10% more pixels in one dimension than a comparable panel, (with the remaining dimension's number of pixels staying the same)?" .

Most people would say yes - I want more resolution for the money. The industry has made the cut on the 16:9 height arbitrarily. If 16:10 were cut from 16:9's sides more people would want the 16:9 at the same pixel height.

Going forward, it will be all 16:9 and very high resolutions from the looks of it. Not a bad thing. The bad thing is the arbitrary cut. 16:9 as an aspect in itself is not a worse choice at all other than the cut imo.

So
"which aspect ratio do you prefer to have more pixels due to aspect limitation on similar resolution monitors?"

might be a more fair question. Unfortunately the industry answered that for you, on the short side for 16:9 at lower rez, and on the "high side" or neutral for QFHD since there are no 16:10's on the radar..

 

[Oled]

@quantum112

You clearly dont understand what aspect ratio means.

So you mean that 16:9 is three times as high as 4:3?

It is just a ratio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

 

[quantum112]

@quantum112

You clearly dont understand what aspect ratio means.

So you mean that 16:9 is three times as high as 4:3?

It is just a ratio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

No. It's just a ratio, exactly as you say, they have no direct relation to physical dimensions, and are not absolutes. If the case was "16 cm: 9 cm, vs 4 cm : 3 cm" then that would make sense. However no one ever said that. If you are confused by the nomenclature you could simply express 16:10 as 4:2.5, and it is still the same ratio. Just like you could express 16:9 as 4:2.25, and it is still the same ratio.

4:3
4:2.5
4:2.25

For the same width, you have less height. Or for the same height, you have more width. Whichever way you want to look at it.

 

[Megalomaniac]

elvn, your point is very strange truth be told, I kind of understand what you are trying to say, but it doesn't make sense. 16:10 is more than 16:9, or 15:10, which is what you are sort of saying in some cases with the sides cut off. By the very definition (see the chart in post 166by quantum112) there are no if's but or ors, it's physics. for every 16 lines of width, i get 10 lines of height. ignore resolutions, and focus on the physical aspect.

you are comparing resolution with physical real estate, which has nothing to do with one another. If they could make really small pixels and fit a 1920x1080 screen in my 7" Phone screen would I prefer it over 1440 x 900 (or whatever) 19" screen for my pc, I will pick the 19" screen as my desktop screen, because it has more physical real estate

edit: we can influence the industry.. you want to see proof? See the rise of Japanese cars in the 80, detroit though it knew what consumers wanted.. boy, where they wrong. Just becuase the industry wants something, and sells something, does not make it right.

@Acer sheep. That is your opinion. According to definiton the aspect ratio has nothing to do with size.

You know... this actually sounds offensive. aspect ratio has everything to do with size, since for every 16 lines of width, you get 9 or 10 lines of height, and (W)x(H) is the size of the screen.