16:9 - The future format for monitors?

Which screenformat will be the standard in 10 years?

  • 16:9

    Votes: 30 35.7%

  • 16:10

    Votes: 39 46.4%

  • 4:3

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other format

    Votes: 12 14.3%

  • - I dont know / Not sure

    Votes: 3 3.6%
  • Total voters
    84
A

avec

Weaksauce
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
99
I really start to want this 16:9 format. Then you will not have black borders when you watch movies or on the cutscenes when you play games. Extra welcome because all monitors have some backlight bleed.

I surprisingly only have seen one 16:9 24" monitor so far and thats BenQ E2400HD. Any other 16:9 monitors on its way to the market?

Will this 16:9 format take over or will 16:10 remain as the standardformat?
 
I say 16:10 mainly because watching videos usually isn't the primary function most people use a computer for. I'd say the most used function is web browsing, thus the extra height helps as pages scroll up and down. A lot of the CAD software I use has buttons up top and bottom which cuts into the height of the workspace, having a 16:9 screen would just make it even narrower and I don't like having buttons on the side to compensate although I know a few that have it setup that way. I think most Office programs have it fixed to the top of the window too. And back light bleeding can occur with any aspect panel. Its not like taking electric tape and masking the upper and lower edges of the screen. And black bars top and bottom don't bother me at all.
 
The problem is that a lot widescreen movies aren't 16:9 either which is 1.77 ratio. Some movies are all the way up to 2.33 ratio, or even higher.
 
Whisperfang said:
The problem is that a lot widescreen movies aren't 16:9 either which is 1.77 ratio. Some movies are all the way up to 2.33 ratio, or even higher.
Click to expand...

Instead of 16:9 been hailed as 'True HD' which as Whisperfang says is meaningless I'd like to see 16:9 hailed by the far more truthful '10% Less height Guaranteed, Only of Benefit as a Cost Cutting Measure to Manufacturers'.
 
ecat said:
Instead of 16:9 been hailed as 'True HD' which as Whisperfang says is meaningless I'd like to see 16:9 hailed by the far more truthful '10% Less height Guaranteed, Only of Benefit as a Cost Cutting Measure to Manufacturers'.
Click to expand...

It'll probably be advertised as "True HD" and sold at a premium (even though there's less viewing area). Gotta love marketing.
 
In 10 years?

By that time I doubt we will be even using screens of a standard size or format to interact with computers, it will probably be holographically projected. I expect 16:9 will become the norm before this technology is available though.
 
acer made the first 16:9 24" monitor I'm pretty sure. Wait one website i read said that the acer was the first, now i'm hearing benq.. idk!
 
Dunno about 10 years from now, but 16:10 is going the way of the dodo. 16:9 is the new standard. MUCH cheaper to make.
 
avec said:
I really start to want this 16:9 format. Then you will not have black borders when you watch movies or on the cutscenes when you play games. Extra welcome because all monitors have some backlight bleed.

I surprisingly only have seen one 16:9 24" monitor so far and thats BenQ E2400HD. Any other 16:9 monitors on its way to the market?

Will this 16:9 format take over or will 16:10 remain as the standardformat?
Click to expand...

It seems that 16:9 is the panel maker factory trend and is irresistable. You can apply for the BenQ E2400HD opportunity so you will get a chance to experience it plus enjoying the special price $199.
 
Is there any other 16:9 monitor on the market? or on its way there?
 
AeonF1 said:
I say 16:10 mainly because watching videos usually isn't the primary function most people use a computer for. I'd say the most used function is web browsing, thus the extra height helps as pages scroll up and down. A lot of the CAD software I use has buttons up top and bottom which cuts into the height of the workspace, having a 16:9 screen would just make it even narrower
Click to expand...
Exactly!
And even though most people seem to be fully incapable to seeing it (or thinking that far) area of accurate stereo vision is pretty much equally high as its wide so 16:10 is already low enough.


avec said:
Is there any other 16:9 monitor on the market? or on its way there?
Click to expand...
Hopefully not.
Low screen fanatics should be forced to use 1920x180 ultra hyper super wide screens made from strip which has been cut away from these 16:9 monitors!
 
avec said:
Is there any other 16:9 monitor on the market? or on its way there?
Click to expand...

Yes.

BenQ has one coming in Oct. Don't know the model number; go to their website. They have it in their LCD section.

Or look at the STICKY. BenQ posted a request for 4 people to review their 16:9 22" and 24" monitors.
 
Please, 1080 pixels high is quite weak. You *need* a really big display to get a decent height with 16:9.

I've got a 20" 1680x1050 (soon to get a 24" or bigger), it pains me just to imagine a 24" with only 30 pixels more on the height... And 1050 on the height is the lowest I'd ever go for a desktop display, below that I prefer 4:3 screens ( 5:4 really bugs me though).
I've been using 1600x1200 since 1999, switching to my LCD and cutting 150 pixels on the height wasn't welcome but necessary at the time.

So, if you're anything like me that'd mean that you have to get over 1920x1080 in resolution to make it even "acceptable" (buying a 24" screen to get such a low height isn't an option). In other words, you have to buy a 30" display. And even then the relatively small height would probably be a annoying compared to a 16:10 display.

I have a hard time believing that anyone would trade all that just to get rid of some black bars in movies, and especially in-game sequences (seriously?). And then I don't even have a TV, I watch all my movies/games/TV-shows on my monitor.ö

And as said, 16:9 isn't that a common format for movies anyway.

You always have to pay for quality and that won't change. It's quite possible 16:9 will take over just because people will believe they get more for their money. But thats just the sad world we live in.
 
I went from a 1280x1024 17" Hyundai over a year ago to the 20.1" 1600x1200 Samsung SyncMaster 204B. From that point on, I haven't really been able to imagine dropping 120 pixels of vertical resolution to gain 320 pixels of horizontal. Earlier this year, I knew I needed to grab a second display because I would be (and ofc now have) moving into my college dorm and wanted to be able to simultaneously have a TV and PC going. The first thing I looked at were 30" 1920x1080 TV's. I ultimately discarded that notion for two reasons- image quality and 1080 vertical resolution instead of 1200. I had just become so accustomed to having 1200 that going with anything lower for my main screen would be a step backwards. Plus, 30" 1080p screens that work well for games aren't exactly cost effective right now and generally don't support portrait mode (further nailing such a display in its coffin).

So instead, as you can see in my signature, I opted for a higher quality 24" (part of that was rooted in new concerns from my work as a developer and that's where the image quality became a huge issue). My only issue with it currently is that it pulls some really funky crap with my Wii when I connect it via component cables and try to set it to 16:9- it, apparently, would rather put black bars on the sides than on the top/bottom which is odd because that works for 4:3 scaling but for 16:9... It actually seems to be compressing 16:9 into 4:3... Rather weird and I'm still working on trying to fix it...

But anyway, I'd much rather prefer having 16:10 for my desktop, PC games, and everything else I do on my PC that can take advantage of 16:10 and then just lose a little screen space for everything that uses 16:9 and 4:3 (and, on a side note, 16:9 is affected far more by 4:3 than 16:10, so while both 16:9 and 4:3 are still in use, 16:10 is a nice compromise/middle ground).

As for backlight bleed, if we're talking about "The Future", there are currently LCD's with LED backlighting for $2000+. Once the price of those drops to mainstream levels in "The Future", backlight bleed shouldn't be much of a problem anymore.
 
16:9 is only of benefit to those using their PC's primarily for leasure (gaming, movie viewing), but even then, this notion that suddenly you'll not see black borders is completely false. 16:9 has always been a "compromise" aspect ratio chosen to be between the two most common cinematic formats. 16:10 is also better for viewing 4:3 (old school TV format) as you have more vertical resolution.
 
No point in using 16:9 for PC's.

Besides that, my desk is limited at 140 cm with, so with 16:9 displays only that would be huge decrease in maximum vertical resolution versus 16:10 center with two rotated 4:3 at the sides.
 
I'm at 1280x1024 right now, and I think I'm going to jump straight to 1920x1080. I get perfect 1080p, and I'd get a better vertical resolution (even if it is small). They also seem a bit cheaper than 1920x1200, even though you're getting less pixels.

I'm a guy that doesn't have much desk space. The 22" 1080p monitor that BenQ is coming out with looks pretty interesting, and I think I may go for it.

Michael Daly said:
Dell makes one.
Click to expand...
I looked under monitors but couldn't find it.. could you link please? thanks.
 
I have found four 24" 16:9

Acer P244Wbii
BenQ E2400HD
BenQ M2400HD
Dell S2409W

Isnt any Samsung 16:9 monitors on the way?
 
Problem with getting a 16:9 displlay to watch movies is that most movies are not 16:9 anymore. On my 32" HDTV which is 16:9 most movies I watch have black borders on top and bottom. You can zoom in but then you lose whatever is on the edge.

As for the 24" 16:9 monitors it sure would be nice if they would come out with some that had HD tuners built in. I think it would fill a spot that has been open for a long time. i would love to have a 1080p 24" HDTV.

But for PC use I like the 16;10 better, why cut them short for no real reason other than watching movies!
 
avec said:
I really start to want this 16:9 format. Then you will not have black borders when you watch movies or on the cutscenes when you play games. Extra welcome because all monitors have some backlight bleed.

I surprisingly only have seen one 16:9 24" monitor so far and thats BenQ E2400HD. Any other 16:9 monitors on its way to the market?

Will this 16:9 format take over or will 16:10 remain as the standardformat?
Click to expand...

You might not see black borders on TV SHOWS, but you will for movies. 16:9 (1.77:1) is HDTV, films are generally produced in 37:20 (1.85:1). Plus, letterboxing also helps when watching foreign films with subtitles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top