Syntax Error
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,969
You're impossible.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
16:9 vs 16:10
- Thread starter Santa Claus
- Start date
To sum up, there is nothing wrong with either format for nearly everyone.
If you need higher vertical resolution, fair enough.
I dont understand the strength of feeling on this.
My 2p
I my personal experience when people feel so strongly about what others should prefer they are generally playing some sort of the "mine is bigger than yours" game.
IMHO either 16:9 or 16:10 will be fine for most. I do not have arthritis so scrolling a click or two extra is not a big deal to me nor are black bars as I watch the movie not what surrounds it.
Choosing a monitor was the hardest thing to pick out of any of my computer components for me especially with all the TN versus IPS/VA and 16:9 versus 16:10 opinions. So hard to choose that final choices seem to create curiously deep emotions for some.
Last edited:
I dont understand the strength of feeling on this.
My 2p
Because people who actually need/want the extra pixels (there's more to computing than gaming and movies, folks) will get railroaded into the lowest common denominator of 16:9 resolutions just because of something ignorant like "I hate black bars". My B-I-L was an early adopter of 16:9 TVs many years ago and yet he preferred 4:3 "full screen" content so he could hit zoom and see no black bars. Everyone's head was oval, and he wasn't even watching widescreen content any more, but thank goodness the black bars from 2.35:1 were gone.
I've seen lots of really sad arguments for 16:9 in this thread that simply don't make a whole lot of sense.
16:9 for computers *IS* a way to cut cost and charge the consumer the same. I don't need to be a BenQ "engineer" to figure that out. Use the same crappy TN panels for both TV and computer products and you increase the economies of scale. Put another way, take the same panel substrate and trim each piece 120 pixels shorter - increase your yield, use less material, and charge the same for it (or more with a "full 1080p" sticker on the front so some clueless consumer thinks it's actually better).
Take the average 23/24" market. You wonder why the new NEC IPS panel and others like it are called 23"? Because they're taking the same panel dot pitch and cutting 120 pixels off of it. If the display was made 16:10 you would still have 24" 1920x1200. If made 16:9 you would have 1920x1080. Same panel structure, same pitch, same spacing, same quality. You just get 120 fewer rows. I could care less if it's labelled 23, 24 or 25" - I and all the other 16:10 supporters care about the 120 rows of missing pixels.
I'd rather have those pixels there, and have them displayed black when not required when viewing 16:9 content (or 2.35:1 content or...). That means they're still there when you want them. I find 16:10 an excellent aspect ratio for "productivity" work. By this I mean any one of:
- heavy general multitasking (1920x1200 is often not enough for me)
- writing documents with two full letter pages side-by-side
- editing 16:9 video with room above and below for tool bars, palettes and controls while preserving full pixel-for-pixel resolution of the content
- editing 3:2 SLR photographs with maximum pixels of photo but sufficient toolbar/palette placement to the sides. 3:2 is horrid on 16:9 and 4:3 (most digicams) is worse.
I came from 1600x1200 or 2048x1536 on CRT and be damned if I'm going to lose veritcal space when I 'upgraded' to LCD. I'm sorry but whoever suggested using two 16:9 panels in portrait mode for CAD simply hasn't done any CAD work. That pair of bezels, buttons and blinking lights looks great splitting your picture/video/drawing in half. Sheesh! Just because you don't like watching movies with some black displayed pixels now the people MAKING your movies and games have to apply workarounds?
Further, in the 30" 2560x1600 space that far exceeds 1080p "FullHD"... Are people screaming to cut pixels off of those screens too so they "look more wide" or "don't show black bars"? Or would people spending thousands of dollars for a 2560x1600 screen actually want to have as many pixels as possible for actual data? I'd be one of the latter, and hope they still bother to develop better generations of 16:10 30" screens (because most of the current ones leave something to be desired compared to the state of the art in ~24" models).
Last edited:
For some 16:10 is more useful and individual user wants/needs should be taken into consideration if they do certain things often. For most though either 16:9 or 16:10 will be just fine. Most people will find that "crappy" TN panels are just fine for their needs. One should buy for their own needs/wants - not someone else's.
Most people do not do CAD work.
Most people just do email and do a bit of web surfing and play a few games.
Most people who watch videos on their computer watch youtube type and videos received in emails.
Most people do not edit 16:9 videos.
Most people do not write (or read) two documents side by side.
Most people do not do much photo editing or color critical work.
Most people do not care about the black space while viewing videos.
Most people find it relatively easy to scroll another one or two clicks vertically.
Most people do not do CAD work.
Most people just do email and do a bit of web surfing and play a few games.
Most people who watch videos on their computer watch youtube type and videos received in emails.
Most people do not edit 16:9 videos.
Most people do not write (or read) two documents side by side.
Most people do not do much photo editing or color critical work.
Most people do not care about the black space while viewing videos.
Most people find it relatively easy to scroll another one or two clicks vertically.
Last edited:
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,314
Practically all of your post was covered in my post.
If I can narrow it down, you need higher res for CAD and design work.
Fair enough
I have nothing against either res.
Choice is good so I am concerned also that 16:10 screens will become rare/expensive, but what we think isnt going to change that sadly.
jcvjcvjcvjcv
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
- Messages
- 703
Well, that makes a lot of sense.
It would only be so much better if the crappy companies (Samsung, BenQ, ect.) would STOP pushing their 16:9 crap with misleading advertisements. People don't buy that because that's what they need or want, but because they THINK they do. If you would people think in a rational way, 4:3 would still be populair.
Which brand, size and model of a 4:3 LCD do you use on a daily basis?
Evidently I am not capable of thinking rationally and ended up buying 16:9 and 16:10 displays. I must be ready for a rubber room as I prefer either 16:10 or 16:9 over 4:3 for what I do on my computer.
Last edited:
120 pixels more vertically is actually a lot when you are on the desktop.
It is quite obvous the new trend of 1920x1080 TFT's are just a mean of selling new screens marketed as "HD", it is easier to sell them to customers then.
Computer technology is about progress and moving forward, not backward. But screen makers got it wrong.
If HD was 1920x1200 and screen makers came out with 1920x1080 nobody would stand by 1920x1080.
IMHO, TV resolutions are for TV, PC resolutions are for PC.
It is quite obvous the new trend of 1920x1080 TFT's are just a mean of selling new screens marketed as "HD", it is easier to sell them to customers then.
Computer technology is about progress and moving forward, not backward. But screen makers got it wrong.
If HD was 1920x1200 and screen makers came out with 1920x1080 nobody would stand by 1920x1080.
IMHO, TV resolutions are for TV, PC resolutions are for PC.
What "misleading advertisements" are you talking about?
Wow, people just keep coming back to inches. It's about the pixels, not the inches.
I ended up with dual 25.5" 1920x1200 displays but at 24" either 16:10 or 16:9 would have suited my personal needs/wants, just fine. Some hate 16:9, some hate TN and some hate LCD. A different poster pointed out that for rational thinking people 4:3 would be the way to go and that people just think that they need/want certain things.
Last time I looked 120 pixels actually does add about .57" of vertical screen size when comparing 24" 16:10 to 24" 16:9.
For most of us who lack the ability to think rationally a decent TN either 16:9 or 16:10 will be just fine.
Like it or not, individual wants/needs really do differ.
Last edited:
The concern, from my standpoint, is that the move to 16:9 (mostly cost/marketing/profit driven) will remove choice from the market. Thus individual wants/needs cannot be met, because you "can have any aspect ratio you like, as long as it's 16:9".
Although complaining on forum sites like this is not likely to directly change the actions of the panel manufacturers it may serve to educate some consumers which will drive companies to do what consumers desire. Also, if those with concerns never express their opinion, they might as well not have them. Someone has to say something, somewhere. If people stopped buying 16:10 monitors simply because it didn't have a "FullHD" or "1080p" sticker on it and not because they actually prefer 16:9, it would be a pretty lame loss of the 16:10 format for those who want/need it. If there was a huge marketing campaign and "Full 1200p HD++" stickers on the screen, would 16:10 sell more? Probably.
I hope they continue to produce both. Sales at places like Walmart, Costco and office supply store will probably be the determining factor of which formats are available in the future. 16:10 will probably disappear like CRT did. If demand dooms 16:10 then that is the way it is.
Some continue to imply that TN and 16:9 are useless crap but I still think that for most a decent TN 16:9 panel will be just fine.
Some continue to imply that TN and 16:9 are useless crap but I still think that for most a decent TN 16:9 panel will be just fine.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,314
Heh, I'm using a 16:9 TN, the Dell 2209Wb.
When sat still, its a truly excellent monitor, I'm amazed.
If you move a lot you can see the TN colour/brightness shift, but it matters not.
When sat still, its a truly excellent monitor, I'm amazed.
If you move a lot you can see the TN colour/brightness shift, but it matters not.
I have an Asus VK246H 16:9 connected to my HTPC. Basically wanted a cheap monitor that would match the resolution of a HDTV. It is only used maybe 5 hours a week to monitor some processes. Sometimes it is not used at all.
However, for general use I prefer my 16:10 H-IPS monitors.
However, for general use I prefer my 16:10 H-IPS monitors.
jcvjcvjcvjcv
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
- Messages
- 703
I use the Dell 2007FP rev. A02 and rev. A05, both with IPS panel on each side of my 16:10 Dell 3007WFP-HC rev. A04(?)
24" 16:10 is much more expensive than 20" 1600x1200 (4:3), while not offering much gain.
When I tell people not to buy 1680x1050 but 1600x1200 they tell me "That's a lot more expensive". I always tell them: "It's much cheaper than 1920x1200"
My laptop (T61 7664-16U) has a 1440x900 panel and I still blame myself for not waiting two months to get the 1400x1050 T61. That T61 was the first 16:10 I owned and I still hate it today for it's lack of vertical space. I end up putting the taskbar to the side and still pressing F11 to gain some space. I wish you could use put the adressbar and toolbar of FF / IE to the sides as well. No site strictly needs more than 1280 horizontal, but there is never too much vertical space.... unless we switch to a language with the lines vertical where you read pages from left to right instead of from top to bottom.
This argument is pretty similar to the circumcision debate:
-It doesn't matter at all
-Everyone will defend whichever they already have (to the death!)
-It costs a lot of money to switch
-You will never be able to convince people of a different viewpoint on something so personally subjective
-It doesn't matter at all
-Everyone will defend whichever they already have (to the death!)
-It costs a lot of money to switch
-You will never be able to convince people of a different viewpoint on something so personally subjective
Your setup would not be a rational choice for me, no doubt it is fine for you.
90% of the time I use something called "books" when I read. I normally surf the web for two or 3 hours a day, watch a couple of online videos and read 20 or 30 emails and write 5 to 10 emails. I play games a few hours per week. Convert one or 2 videos per month, print a few pics every now and then. I often watch movies or TV on one monitor while surfing on the other. I do still have a 21" (approx 20" diagonal) 1600x1200 monitor CRT, just used it yesterday when I cloned a hard drive in a friends computer. Much rather use a 24" 1920x1080 or my 25.5" 1920x1200 than a 20" 1600x1200.
Not everyone has the same needs/wants. For most a 30" monitor is not necessary and costs more than their budget allows for. I get by just fine reading emails and surfing on 25.5" 16:10 or on 24" 16:9. But I can see some that own a 30" display needing something else for reading text. Most people I know do not need dual monitors. My second monitor is used mainly for movies while I an surfing. Once in awhile, not often, I use it for a second application just they same as when I was running dual 21" CRT monitors. No way would I personally go with 20" LCDs and I definitely do not need or even want a 30" display.
In the end people, IMHO, should buy displays that fits their own needs/wants rather than what someone else bought.
For most either 16:9 or 16:10 will be just fine.
The point is that some often come in here thinking that everyone uses their computer like they use theirs. Even though the number of people who run multiple displays is increasing I would venture a guess that multiple display users are a minority. IMHO most need a display that serves their personal needs and wants. I run dual TN displays but some need IPS/VA for color critical work. Some might play games 8 hours or more per day. Some might spend hours a day writing a novel or programming. Some only use their computer for quick emails. The needs of people vary greatly. When people get beyond the "mine is bigger/better than yours" game and focus on individual needs/wants a single decent TN 16:9 display is a suitable choice, perhaps even the best choice, for most.
Mark Larson
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,177
Why are so many people arguing for the lowest common denominator?
... Most people don't need dual monitors
... Most people don't need a 30" monitor
How far before we go
... Most people don't need a dual-core CPU
... Most people don't need a 64-bit OS
... Most people don't need fancy computers to check their email and search for recipes
... Most people don't need anything more than facebook and myspace
IMO, this forum is not for discussing bottom-rung hardware, this is [H]!
Full disclosure - I have a 23" 16:9 panel, which I bought because it was much cheaper than a 24" 16:10 panel, which I would have much preferred to buy had the price difference not been so great.
... Most people don't need dual monitors
... Most people don't need a 30" monitor
How far before we go
... Most people don't need a dual-core CPU
... Most people don't need a 64-bit OS
... Most people don't need fancy computers to check their email and search for recipes
... Most people don't need anything more than facebook and myspace
IMO, this forum is not for discussing bottom-rung hardware, this is [H]!
Full disclosure - I have a 23" 16:9 panel, which I bought because it was much cheaper than a 24" 16:10 panel, which I would have much preferred to buy had the price difference not been so great.
IMO, this forum is not for discussing bottom-rung hardware, this is [H]!
.
I thought these forums were for all, including people who are trying to get best bang for the buck, not just those with thick wallets.
People actually do come in looking for budget builds, talking about sound cards they got at yard sales. There is even a sticky post in the free stuff forum about dumpster diving.
Sometimes even the reviews the main site even say things like http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/08/17/asus_p6t7_ws_supercomputer/6 "the huge $450 price point is going to scare most of us off though."
Mark Larson
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,177
Well yeah, and I myself have posted a $250 ultra-budget build on these forums. But I don't go into i7 threads and try to convince everybody that email and facebook don't need an i7's 8 hyperthreaded cores.
Also, I really dislike the fact that I have to pay so much more to get a little bit of vertical resolution. Even 20" monitors are falling prey to the new shortening, with the standard resolution going from 1680x1050 to a paltry 1600x900, a fail in both directions.
Yes, it certainly is, but many of those people came into this thread and stated that 16:10 was a useless format that never should have been "invented" in the first place. The opposite is not true of those who speak in favour of 16:10.
Nothing's wrong with 16:9 as an option, but the writing is on the wall that lowest common denominator will win yet again.
The only reason 16:9 is cheap is because the monitors themselves are poor.
I find it funny when people say that 16:9 is a lot cheaper just because they are xx % smaller, I'm not saying that it's wrong but what that ultimately is saying is that "people don't care how big the screen is, just that it has many inches".
Which I guess is true, people fall for that cheap marketing trick.
In the end theres nothing that says (that I know of) that the 16:9 aspect ratio would be cheaper to make. It's just that the monitor is smaller and therefor you pay less for it, big surprise?
Then again everything doesn't come down to the panel size and 16:9 monitors are often profiled as cheap thus 16:9 will probably be cheaper per square inch than 16:10 just because it isn't necessary for both aspect ratios to compete in the lower end. So in that sense it actually is true that 16:9 probably is "cheaper". But it's not cheaper because it's 16:9 - it's cheaper because the displays (in general) are poor.
So I'd say that the argument of 16:9 being cheaper isn't a good thing. It would actually be better to say "buy a smaller screen, it's cheaper!".
I find it funny when people say that 16:9 is a lot cheaper just because they are xx % smaller, I'm not saying that it's wrong but what that ultimately is saying is that "people don't care how big the screen is, just that it has many inches".
Which I guess is true, people fall for that cheap marketing trick.
In the end theres nothing that says (that I know of) that the 16:9 aspect ratio would be cheaper to make. It's just that the monitor is smaller and therefor you pay less for it, big surprise?
Then again everything doesn't come down to the panel size and 16:9 monitors are often profiled as cheap thus 16:9 will probably be cheaper per square inch than 16:10 just because it isn't necessary for both aspect ratios to compete in the lower end. So in that sense it actually is true that 16:9 probably is "cheaper". But it's not cheaper because it's 16:9 - it's cheaper because the displays (in general) are poor.
So I'd say that the argument of 16:9 being cheaper isn't a good thing. It would actually be better to say "buy a smaller screen, it's cheaper!".
Personally, I don't care if it's 16:9 or 16:10; both are fine. I use OS X, my dock is on the right hand side (can't understand why people keep it at the bottom; waste of valuable vertical space!) and both aspect ratios provide lots of space!
With 16:9 I can put two terminal windows next to each other and it rocks. It's really nice for programming. Or Firefox and terminal window, etc, etc.
Not that it's much different with 16:10 anyway. It's just few pixels here or there.
With 16:9 I can put two terminal windows next to each other and it rocks. It's really nice for programming. Or Firefox and terminal window, etc, etc.
Not that it's much different with 16:10 anyway. It's just few pixels here or there.
It's cheaper because of economies of scale. Because the standard TV size is 16:9, there are many more assembly lines, processes, bezels, parts and panels already cut to 16:9 dimensions. There are lots of crappy 16:10 monitors too, and they are not as inexpensive as 16:9.
Furthermore, reducing the screen size xx% does increase your successful yield buy a certain percent. That's why die shrinks of CPUs and GPUs (and SSDs, from the looks of things) make them less expensive. Semi-conductor flaw are xx flaws per area. The smaller a complete chip, the less likely and one will contain a flaw. While present, I don't think this is the major reason for 16:9 being less expensive.
HDTVs are at the minimum 32", I don't see how that could be so important - that you could reuse the bezels etc. for much smaller displays but at the same time not change the aspect ratio. Seems quite odd to me but maybe your right.
You're missing the point. It's not valid to compare 16:9 and 16:10 displays with the length of the diagonal, the discussion here at least should be which aspect ratio that is the most useful. The fact that 16:9 at the same diagonal length is smaller than 16:10 shouldn't be a factor at all. For a 16:9 to be as big as a 16:10 display it has to have a larger diagonal length and that would of course have impact on the yield etc. so it makes no difference.
jcvjcvjcvjcv
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
- Messages
- 703
No, that's just the noobs.
Switching is expensive yeah. I found that out first hand when I bought a Dell 2007FP to replace my inputlag-monster Samsung 204T.
It's not a great comparison. Two different types of display from different manufacturers.
Ideally you want the 1080 and 1200 equivalents, released around the same time, from the same manufacturer, with similar bezels.
D
Deleted member 169154
Guest
That is pretty clear to me.
Bottom screen starts at the same time. The screens are the same width.
I just see almost an inch in extra screen height.
I don't think anyone is arguing against widescreen, but 16:10 with 120 extra vertical pixels. There is no comparison. 16:10 wins hands-down.
I absolutely hate that I can't find a cheap 16:10 anymore. I ended going with the 28 HannsG. I went to Fry's and played around with the monitors, I just don't like the lack of vertical viewing.
I absolutely would not go for a 16:10 screen if you are planning on 3 displays for Eyefinity, due to the way 16:9 pre-recorded media is displayed with little 1 inch overlaps on the side panels.
The game developers are doing pre-rendered stuff in 16:9, for the consoles and that dictates your compatibility, imo. Watch Eyefinity videos, the overlap on cutscenes, menus and loading screens is very, very ugly; it is uglier than bezels ever could be, imo.
The game developers are doing pre-rendered stuff in 16:9, for the consoles and that dictates your compatibility, imo. Watch Eyefinity videos, the overlap on cutscenes, menus and loading screens is very, very ugly; it is uglier than bezels ever could be, imo.
Then I apologise. I didn't recognise the models and they could have been bought 2 years apart and used completely different panel/bezel components for all I knew.
They do. I guess that's why you said that. But it's irrelevant.
The pixel pitch is very nearly equivalent, so it's basically what you see is what you [don't] get.
Mark Larson
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,177
Thanks for posting the photo. Makes the difference crystal clear.
You are welcome. But note that it's posted as a reply to "bazels", etc. (23"/24"). Kitarist just took it from one of my reviews.
The right photo for this thread is the next (from the review of the BenQ V2400 Eco with LED, 24" vs 24"):
Yes i just wanted to confirm to myself that 16:10 and 16:9 is different in size even if inches are the same (24nch).
Now i really want to go with 24inch!!!
My budget is around 350 400 bucks could i get something good for that kind of money? Keep in mind i will only need one DVI cause i'll use it only for my computer (so i dont need HDMI and all that other fancy stuff)
I dont care for the brand i just want something good in color quality and with a good response time (almost no frame rate loss) with almost no ghosting.
My candidate was P2370 since its really great in colors and has almost no ghosting and low frame rate loss but its 23inch and 16:9.