16:9 vs 16:10

Kitarist said:
hm so anyone knows a good 24 16:10 monitor thats not expensive
Click to expand...

HP just announced new monitors today, including a new 24" 16:10 with IPS screen, LED backlighting, normal gamut and looks like decent pricing. I estimate ~$400 for the 24". (The 22" version is listed at $289).
 
albovin said:
crowat
So I don't get it. How are PC users not getting the shaft by reducing the resolution from 1920x1200 to 1920x 1080. Isn't the viewable screen smaller by some 120 pixels? ...
Click to expand...

If you need the real estate than yes, 1080p isnt for you but if you dont need the space, 1080p will give you slightly higher framerate and will use less video memory so there are arguments on both sides for those without performance cards or if you still play Crysis ;)
 
Syntax Error said:
QFT. 16:9 is a reduction in screen resolution from equivalent 16:10 resolutions. It is 100% a means to cut production costs to sell monitors that have less vertical resolution. That's it. If you like the aspect ratio of 16:9 better, then that's your prerogative, but some of us don't like the fact that the LCD market is being invaded by monitors that have less resolution than than equivalently sized monitors used to have in 16:10. QUOTE]

there is the oddball resolution of 2048 x 1152 used on the Acer B273HU and a few Samsung and Dell TN panels ranging from 23" to 27". They keep the 16:9 aspect ratio, but actually offer "higher" resolution than 1920x1200. Now instead of losing 120 vertical pixels the user loses "only" 48 pixels. This oddball resolution comes with a slight price premium over 1920x1080 panels. The reall added benefit is that it is pretty close to the theoretical maximum resolution that a single link DVI or VGA connection can output at 60Hz.

A common use for real screen state is massive multitabling online poker. A 30" LCd can manage 16 tables on most Pokersites, and a tipycal 1680x1050 20" manages 12 tables at the same time , but costs about 1/6 of the 30" price. I am yet to discover if the 2048 x 1152 resolution can manage 15 tables or not, but if it can it would be a good argument in favor of the 16:9 aspect ratio.

Afetr i sold my Acer 2616w, a 26" 16:10 VA Panel with 1920x1200 to use "only" a 30" i am disinclined to acquire most if not all of the offers in the market today: cheap TN panels with lower resolutions and screen sizes.

For massive multitablers poker palyers i recommend start with the cheaps TN 20-22" they can afford, move to dual 22" and then to dual 30". The real screen state gained from 1680x1050 to 1920x1080 isnt worth the upgrade fro poker players, but if the move is to 1920x1200 or 2048 x 1152 ...
Click to expand...
 
I think it really depends on what the monitor is being used for. For most people, 16:10 would be better because it works better for general computer use. However, if I was spending 80-90% or more of the time with the monitor watching movies and/or playing console games (PS3 or Xbox 360), I would definitely choose 16:9.
 
After reading for hours on the web (my eyes, them burning) I still don't know how to face this dilemma: I want a 24 inch screen for both the PS3 and the PC and I still can't figure out what is the best to get. Some people say a 16:10 will make things look fat on the PS3, and recommend the 16:9 instead, others say get the 16:10 because you'll have more space.

I'll be using both the PC and the PS3, in the PC I'll do the occasional non-intensive Photoshop work and some writing and website maintenance, so I do wonder if I really need the extra 120 pixels at the bottom... and I just don't want to compromise my PS3 gaming. As far as PC gaming, my PC is old and I don't do much in the way of it, except for the occasional old revisit to an old game.

And I finish the post again uncertain on what to get based on what I use it for.
 
it is not possible to evaluate 16:9 vs 16:10 and objectively conclude one is better than another. every argument here has been some permutation of a comparison of the basic differences of each format..

16:10
good: it's taller
bad: it's not as wide

16:9
good: it's wider
bad: it's not as tall

how much value do you ascribe to content that takes advantage of the extra height? and content that takes advantage of the extra width? eleven pages later it's still completely subjective.
 
RealityMan said:
16:10
good: it's taller
bad: it's not as wide

16:9
good: it's wider
bad: it's not as tall
Click to expand...

This assumes two things:

1. The 16:9 screen is in fact wider physically. While this can be true when you compare two 24" displays at these two aspect ratios, it kind of falls apart when manufacturers start shoehorning "23 inch" displays in the 16:9 form, which defeats the whole argument.

2. We're not talking pixels. No matter how much physically wider a 1920x1080 display is, it's still 1920x1080 compared to a 1920x1200 16:10 display. No matter how many yards across the 16:9 screen is, it's 1920 pixels wide. Yay. However, when talking height, the 1920x1080 display, always, no matter what the size, is going to have less pixels than a 1920x1200 display.

The new Dell 27" could have been the logical non-compromise, giving not only a bigger, wider screen, but the additional pixels to lure 24" owners (like me) and make 16:9 easier to swallow. Pricing it as high as they did, at least for now that temptation is not nearly as strong.
 
Dan_Grr said:
After reading for hours on the web (my eyes, them burning) I still don't know how to face this dilemma: I want a 24 inch screen for both the PS3 and the PC and I still can't figure out what is the best to get. Some people say a 16:10 will make things look fat on the PS3, and recommend the 16:9 instead, others say get the 16:10 because you'll have more space.

I'll be using both the PC and the PS3, in the PC I'll do the occasional non-intensive Photoshop work and some writing and website maintenance, so I do wonder if I really need the extra 120 pixels at the bottom... and I just don't want to compromise my PS3 gaming. As far as PC gaming, my PC is old and I don't do much in the way of it, except for the occasional old revisit to an old game.

And I finish the post again uncertain on what to get based on what I use it for.
Click to expand...

Make sure the monitor has aspect scaling. The compromise is that you'll get small black bars on the top and bottom when playing PS3 games (but no resolution is lost). I don't find this to be a problem on a monitor that's used for other things, but if I was buying the monitor mostly for PS3 games I'd choose 16:9.
 
What options are still available for 24" 1920 x 1200 TN panel? (TN because I want it cheap) I'm looking to upgrade from my 22" 1680 x 1050, and I really don't want to have to settle with a 16:9 1080p monitor. I have an HDTV for that, I want my PC monitor to have the extra real estate. However, it seems all of the most popular/highest recommended models are discontinued.
 
Last month I bought a 1920x1080 24" LCD, as a replacement for my old 19" 16:10 lcd, and I'm loving this new monitor.

With this distance I'm sitting from my desk, I find the monitor screen fits nicely into my field of view. And most of my time here at my PC is spent online reading websites and ebooks, so my judgement of 16:9 is not just based on gaming and watching DVD.

Maybe 16:10 is advantageous in multimedia editing like photoshop and video editing stuff, I don't know as I don't do those stuff.

But I think as far as common usage is concern, its just a matter of preference. Even technically, I don't think anyone can claim that the extra 120 pixels vertically is useful or advantageous in real world usage.
 
albovin said:
Are you following?
100 times repeated already:
1. 16:10 vs 16:9 comes from misunderstanding of the same diagonal trick and is limited to that. Namely: 24" 1920:1200 vs 24" 1920:1080; 23" 1920:1200 vs 23" 1920:1080 with a few more isolated examples. That's all!
2. The discussion grew from the necessity to refute the filth marketing attack (tons of technical absurd about 16:9 "advantages" that is lie).
3. It has been made clear that 1920:1200 is a higher class over 1920:1080 of the same diagonal as far as size/resolution is concerned. It's a fact that is not discussed any more.
4. Again: "preferences" are not discussable. You prefer higher class full resolution 1920:1200 monitors, someone else prefers to save on smaller and cheaper 1920:1080.
Threre is no sense in discussing that.
5. Your example is out of scope (actually you are spamming the thread). No one in his right mind is going to compare 24" with a 19" dwarf whatever format they have.
Click to expand...
I wasn't comparing my 24" to the old 19", just stating what I upgraded from only. I'll admit, its redundant.

My point was, a forum community defining something as "higher class" doesn't necessarily makes it a fact. Isn't it still an opinion? Unless there's some official classification by some organization or something.

As such, I don't see whats wrong with someone disagreeing that 19:10 ratio is the superior class, no?

I'm just stating my opinion, which I think its something we all can do here. If its against the forum rule and is considered a spam, then I apologize in advance.;)
 
albovin said:
You don't have to apologize.
You stated that people have different opinions. This forum is large enough to accomodate even this fantastic dicovery. No problem. But we don't discuss opinions. 2x2=4 - what is your opinion?
What I am trying to remind you: 1920:1200 is larger than 1920:1080 of the same diagonal. That is a technical fact, not an opinion. We can use different words: "larger", "superior", "higher class" of resolution/size, etc. Whatever you like.
That's the fact.
Then opinions go.
Someone prefers "larger", "superior", "higher class" of resolution/size, etc.
Someone prefers to pay less for ""smaller", "inferior", "lower class" of resolution/size, etc.
Click to expand...

nerd rage, just about as bad as alliance players on a pve server
 
There is one reason, and only one reason that I would think that 16:10 ratio would give you any benifits at all. That is if you like to look at two windows SIDE by SIDE. That is because there is a minute increase in the amount of horizontal space on the screen in which a second widow could take advantage of.

In that same respect however as monitors that have 16:10 ratio it would steal space from the Vertical Height of the screen to provide the extra width.

Monitors are measured diagonally from the top left corner to the bottom right corner to get the 21" or 19" or whatever size they are advertising. I certianly wouldn't pay a premium for this screen style as the differences would likely not be noticed by the average user unless a 16:9 and 16:10 were sitting right next to each other.

Thanks.
 
mikegoes101 said:
There is one reason, and only one reason that I would think that 16:10 ratio would give you any benifits at all. That is if you like to look at two windows SIDE by SIDE. That is because there is a minute increase in the amount of horizontal space on the screen in which a second widow could take advantage of.
Click to expand...

What?
16:10 has less horizontal space and it really makes no sense that you would have to have two windows side by side to be able to *utilize* the difference between 16:9 and 16:10. The difference is always there and is as obvious with one windows as with two, or ten.
 
What beats me is that although for some years we have display adapters that support 2 and more monitors, it is harder to find 4:3 monitors which IMHO are ideal for a multi-monitor setup. One could argue that 16:9 is more or less the same (while not quite) in a single display. But for me the benefit of having multiple separate displays is not only desktop space. It is organizing that real estate easier. One app. open for each display. They may even have lower pixel density, though not ideal for every situation, but for some it makes it easier to view from a distance.
Of course we can use dual or triple 16:10 or 16:9 monitors but these become too wide for our viewing angle causing much turning left and right.
In fact my ideal setup for graphics work is a big 16:10 as a main display, so I have no bezels right in front of me, accompanied by a pivoted 4:3 next to it. A 30'+21' thin bezel combination..
 
FFXI had the option to change the aspect ratio in game, and while standing in place going from a 16:10 to 16:9 would indeed increase the horizontal FoV very slightly. Regardless; a 16:10 monitor would be able to display that 16:9 resolution anyway if that FoV increase was important to you. (I'd take the 120 extra lines of pixels myself and save the 16:9 1:1 pixel mapping for my ps3 games.)
 
albovin said:
Have you seen monitors you are talkinfg about?

This is a Hor+ game:

Same FOV!
Click to expand...

Of course they are showing the same FOV - they are both displaying a 16:9 image. You used that same picture several posts before to show Baco80 that you can display a 16:9 image on a 16:10 monitor by using 1:1 pixel mapping. If the 16:10 monitor were displaying a 16:10 image in Hor+, it would not have the same FOV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top