• A Great friend to the HardForum with a great kid that he is trying to get a scholorship to continue his schooling. Please give hime a vote! Only 24 hours left! Thanks.
    If you have an VOTE FOR KEENAN!

16:9 vs 16:10

Snowdog said:
You do if you claim that you are better off not having the extra pixels than have them occasionally show black bars. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hey look at the bright side Snowdog, your fav aspect ratio is still superior for 4:3 viewing :D

16:9 is the new multimedia standard get over it. I'm sure they'll keep making ridiculously overpriced low contrast NEC monitors in 16:10 for people like you.
 
StaticSurge said:
Hey look at the bright side Snowdog, your fav aspect ratio is still superior for 4:3 viewing :D

16:9 is the new multimedia standard get over it. I'm sure they'll keep making ridiculously overpriced low contrast NEC monitors in 16:10 for people like you.
Click to expand...

I don't have to look for a brightside. The 2490 is IMO the best LCD every built. Internal 12 bit LUT calibration with sRGB color space for perfect color everywhere, better viewing angles than any LCD you can buy today. By far the best computer hardware purchase I ever made. Sure it was expensive, but you only pay once. That was two years ago and it has rewarded me every day since and I have at least two more years to enjoy it (4 year warranty). My only concern is what happens after it dies.


Yikes2000 said:
Where did you read that panel manufacturers are phasing out 16:10 completely? I believe there are sufficient number of people who find 16:10 (and IPS) desirable enough to pay a premium for them, hence they will always be around.
Click to expand...


Manufacturers are like lemmings, they have jump on bandwagons like crazy even if they are senseless. For a while wide gamut was all the rage even though it caused a host of problems and it was getting hard to find an sRGB monitor, some sense has come into the picture and we have had a bit of sRGB resurgence. Glossy went through a similar rush, even though most people prefer matte and then there was a pullback. The lemming effect will probably do in 16:10 before I need a new monitor.

Hopefully if 16:10 is dead by the time I need a new monitor, 4K x 2K will have a foothold, that would soften the blow a bit:
http://hd.engadget.com/2007/01/10/westinghouse-quad-hd-on-display/
 
I just tested many different monitors to see which aspect ratio I like best. 2560x1600 30" 16:10, 1920x1200 16:10 24", 1680x1050 16:10 22" VS 1920x1080 23", 1920x1080 27".

Especially for widescreen eyefinity/nVidia surround with three displays, 16:10 is far superior to 16:9. 16:9 ratio makes the whole three monitor setup extremely wide and narrow in height. It's like looking through a little slit into the game world. Having a massive 5760 pixels wide then only a tiny 1080 pixels high is crap for gaming. 5.33 width/height ratio is no good. The 4.8 ratio of 16:10 helps quite a bit.

I was thinking about buying three 120Hz LCD's for 3d Surround but I don't think I can knowing how short and wide it would look.
 
Vega said:
I just tested many different monitors to see which aspect ratio I like best. 2560x1600 30" 16:10, 1920x1200 16:10 24", 1680x1050 16:10 22" VS 1920x1080 23", 1920x1080 27".

Especially for widescreen eyefinity/nVidia surround with three displays, 16:10 is far superior to 16:9. 16:9 ratio makes the whole three monitor setup extremely wide and narrow in height. It's like looking through a little slit into the game world. Having a massive 5760 pixels wide then only a tiny 1080 pixels high is crap for gaming. 5.33 width/height ratio is no good. The 4.8 ratio of 16:10 helps quite a bit.

I was thinking about buying three 120Hz LCD's for 3d Surround but I don't think I can knowing how short and wide it would look.
Click to expand...

Just wait and buy 3 Asus PG276.
 
16:9 is too wide regardless of the resolution. Seriously, short of games, who needs all that wasted horizontal space? There have been more than enough posts to justify why we need more vertical space.
 
i want my computer 16x10 and my tv theatrical wide screen because i only use it for watching movies. TV shows are sooooo 1990's...

16x9 can die
 
Look's like 16:10 is still alive in 30" range as a bunch of new ones are coming out. 2560x1600 for the win! I think I'll be going for 3x 30" at 7680x1600 nVidia Surround, oohhh yea.
 
what about 1680x1050 vs 1900x1080? which would you rather have for gaming?
 
1680 x 1050 is ok for competitive FPS play but for me is much too small for everyday use / Windows etc. I don't buy 16:9 monitors.
 
Vega said:
Look's like 16:10 is still alive in 30" range as a bunch of new ones are coming out. 2560x1600 for the win! I think I'll be going for 3x 30" at 7680x1600 nVidia Surround, oohhh yea.
Click to expand...

That would be epic, in many different ways. :D
 
Apologies if this has been posted before (long thread), but the recently posted hor+ examples really don't show the big problem with going to a wider aspect ratio. There are 2 common methods used, vert- and hor+.

1280x960 = 4:3
1280x800 = 16:10
1280x720 = 16:9

vert-
Going wider loses significant vertical fov.
aspect1.gif


hor+
If an object is 300 pixels tall on a 4:3 display, it will be 250 pixels tall on a 16:10 display and 225 pixels tall on a 16:9 display. This makes objects and players squished and harder to hit at distance.
aspect2.gif
 
Last edited:
^ - good post. People think that simply going to 16:9 add's a wider field of view but doesn't detract from anything. In fact, the vertical component of the image get's squished and you lose image size and detail when it get's squished. I don't see why that is such a hard concept to understand.

So no, going 16:9 and Hor+ isn't all positives.
 
Vega said:
^ - good post. People think that simply going to 16:9 add's a wider field of view but doesn't detract from anything. In fact, the vertical component of the image get's squished and you lose image size and detail when it get's squished. I don't see why that is such a hard concept to understand.

So no, going 16:9 and Hor+ isn't all positives.
Click to expand...
BS. thats not how looks in the actual game. screenshots and what is actually displayed on the monitor when using different aspect ratios in a real game are different. I can run 5:4 to 16:9 on my monitor and nothing gets any smaller or squished on the wider aspect ratios when in the actual a game.

I already posted this earlier but this is what it looks like on the actual screen with in the game when changing the different aspect ratios on a 16:9 monitor.

 
There is a significant flaw in your above example. You are assuming a fixed vertical resolution, when in reality one will have a fixed horizontal resolution instead.

By doing this, you are comparing aspect ratios using the following resolutions:
1920x1080 / 16:9
1728x1080 / 16:10 (should be 1920x1200)
1440x1080 / 4:3 (should be 1920x1440)

Do the math:

If there is no change in vertical fov, displaying the same object @ 1080 pixels will be squished both in detail (pixel height per object) and physical dimension compared to 1200 pixels. This is shown clearly in my hor+ example above.
 
Last edited:
I prefer 16:10 because I find it more pleasing to work with, maybe its because its closer to the golden ratio than 16:9, who knows.
 
There's no need to get abusive.

All your examples show just one thing: that hor+ games provide a wider fov. This has not been contradicted by anyone in this thread, myself included. What running different aspect ratios on a 16:9 monitor CANNOT show, is how vertical detail is lost and image height is lowered compared to other aspect ratios. To do this, you need to run the test on a 4:3 monitor, which is the basis for my examples above.

http://www.displaywars.com/24-inch-16x9-vs-24-inch-16x10

24" display
16:9 = 11.77 inches tall with 1080 pixels
16:10 = 12.72 inches tall with 1200 pixels

A 300 pixel object on the 16:9 display will be 3.27 inches tall .The same object will be 333 pixels on the 16:10 display and 3.53 inches tall. This equates to 11% more detail and 8% more height.
 
you keep adjusting your argument. your screenshots are completely inaccurate and misleading. my video shows your earlier claims as being nonsense because nothing changes when going to to 16:9 except you get more fov on the sides. your silly claim that 4:3 is more immersive is ridiculous. so cutting off your fov and losing info on the sides is more immersive? heck why stop at 4:3 when you could go to 5:4 and be even more immersed? lol. the whole point of eyefinty and surround is to give users a more immersive experience by giving an even wider aspect ratio.
 
Where did I say it was more immersive? That's a personal thing. Some of us actually find eyeinfinity less immersive tho, due to the increased distraction and inability to focus. In fps games one does not need anything above 16:10 (or even 4:3 using vert-), as you're not standing still or turning with a console controller.

My argument has been consistent: At the same physical screen size (diagonal) using the same horizontal resolution you lose VERTICAL detail and physical HEIGHT for a given object. This is basic physics/math. I've repeated myself enough tbh and if you can't/refuse to work it out, so be it.
 
sadbuttrue said:
Where did I say it was more immersive? That's a personal thing. Some of us actually find eyeinfinity less immersive tho, due to the increased distraction and inability to focus. In fps games one does not need anything above 16:10 (or even 4:3 using vert-), as you're not standing still or turning with a console controller.

My argument has been consistent: At the same physical screen size using the same horizontal resolution you lose VERTICAL detail and physical VERTICAL height for a given object. This is basic physics/math. I've repeated myself enough tbh and if you can't/refuse to work it out, so be it.
Click to expand...
sorry I got you confused with DarkUltra from the other thread. in that thread you still said 4:3 was more useful for high level gaming which hilarious. you can keep claiming or thinking whatever you want. if playing games on a nearly square screen screen entertains you then so be it. I will take my wider view since regardless of what you claim it has no downsides for gaming. my video clearly shows that widescreen only adds more fov and immersion to the game and again there are no downsides to that for me.
 
cannondale06 said:
are you blind? I just showed you a video that makes your ignorant claims go right down the toilet. :rolleyes:

gee lets try it again... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F4K0pCg8rE
Click to expand...

Wow, you seriously cannot see the extremely simple flaw in your test methodology in your video? Of course the vertical height on the SAME 1080p monitor will always be the same no matter the aspect ratio with a Hor+ game.

Your monitor has 1080 pixels vertical. A 16:10 24" screen has 1200 pixels vertical. So the image is in fact larger and with greater detail. My 5 year old nephew could grasp this concept faster than you. I have to LoL once more by your aspect ratio test on the same monitor.
 
Vega said:
Wow, you seriously cannot see the extremely simple flaw in your test methodology in your video? Of course the vertical height on the SAME 1080p monitor will always be the same no matter the aspect ratio with a Hor+ game.

Your monitor has 1080 pixels vertical. A 16:10 24" screen has 1200 pixels vertical. So the image is in fact larger and with greater detail. My 5 year old nephew could grasp this concept faster than you. I have to LoL once more by your aspect ratio test on the same monitor.
Click to expand...
the number of pixels doesn't have shit to do with it. its the aspect ratio that's being discussed here. :rolleyes:
 
sadbuttrue said:
What running different aspect ratios on a 16:9 monitor CANNOT show, is how vertical detail is lost and image height is lowered compared to other aspect ratios.
Click to expand...
Compared only to a 16:10 display of equal/similar diagonal size.
 
cannondale06 said:
the number of pixels doesn't have shit to do with it. its the aspect ratio that's being discussed here. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The number of pixels is irrevocably tied to the aspect ratio, so it has plenty to do with the topic.

Let's state simple facts shall we?

1. A 16:10 1920x1200 screen has more pixels and screen surface area over a 16:9 1920x1080 screen given the same diagonal dimension.
2. Said 16:10 screen has 1200 vertical pixels, said 16:9 screen has 1080 vertical pixels both having the same horizontal number of pixels.
3. 16:9 screen has same vertical in-game view, but wider in-game view versus 16:10 with Hor+ game.
4. In order to fit a wider field of view in game image on a screen with less vertical pixels and lower screen surface area (16:9), the object in the image will lose physical height and detail.

Those four listed above are mathematical certainties, there is nothing to argue about. In your world though, you can have just as clear of an image, with the same image size, with a larger in game world view, on a screen with less pixels and less display surface area.

That is not how it works no matter how much you pretend so.
 
I still think the FOV is the wrong argument for or against 16:10 vs 16:9. It's the other applications outside of gaming that need vertical height which make it better.
 
Valnar said:
I still think the FOV is the wrong argument for or against 16:10 vs 16:9. It's the other applications outside of gaming that need vertical height which make it better.
Click to expand...
well most people have enough sense to know that 16:10 is usually better suited for stuff other than games and movies.
 
cannondale06, the objections are that you are showing an example of 16:9, 16:10 and 4:3 resolutions when displayed on a 16:9 monitor, which is not the same thing as comparing 16:9 displayed on a 16:9 monitor, 16:10 displayed on a 16:10 monitor and 4:3 displayed on a 4:3 monitor.

Your repeated claim is that going from 16:10 to 16:9 on a 16:9 monitor only adds FOV to the sides with no change in vertical detail. This is true.

But if someone extends that claim by saying (assuming diagonal lengths are equal and horizontal pixels are equal) that going from 16:10 on a 16:10 monitor to 16:9 on a 16:9 monitor only adds FOV to the sides with no change in vertical detail, they are wrong. This is what everyone thinks you are saying.
 
I find it surprising people actually prefer 4:3 though, that i will never understand. Most aiming, and needed fields of view in video games are on the horizontal level. This varies by game. However most fps you'll find very much vertical. Do you turn 180 degrees vertically? Is that even possible? In 99% of games no. 3D Space simulators is probably one of the few games i can argue for a 4:3 monitor.

For FPS, the wider the better i imagine? Although from the posts ive read here i guess it all comes down to personal preference. Also there is some mathiness to it.

If you compare a 20" 4:3 monitor with a 20" 16:9 monitor, and place them at the exact same distance from you on a desk. Lets assume they have the same vertical resolution of 900 for simplicity sake. Now look at this link. http://www.displaywars.com/20-inch-4x3-vs-20-inch-16x9

Now with the information i've laid out before you, i imagine you can see why one would think that a 4:3 monitor is going to give you a "bigger" and "less squished" picture.

Because your window into the game will appear more zoomed. Why is this? Well the 4:3 is PHYSICALLY taller. There is no actual difference in game, assuming its an FPS like TF2. ( a character that stretches from the top of the screen to the bottom, will still stretch from the top of the screen to the bottom ) regardless of what monitor you look at it.

From where your sitting your character will look 12 inches tall on the 4:3 and 9.81 inches tall on the 16:9.
 
Last edited:
Inu said:
I find it surprising people actually prefer 4:3 though, that i will never understand. Most aiming, and needed fields of view in video games are on the horizontal level. This varies by game. However most fps you'll find very much vertical. Do you turn 180 degrees vertically? Is that even possible? In 99% of games no. 3D Space simulators is probably one of the few games i can argue for a 4:3 monitor.
Click to expand...

The benefit of 4:3 in vert- games is precisely because you don't move much in the vertical. You get a huge increase in viewable area of the map, allowing you to see players/objects you would otherwise miss. Added to the fact most vert- games allow fov to go above 90, one doesn't actually lose anything by using 4:3 over 16:10/9.

Inu said:
If you compare a 20" 4:3 monitor with a 20" 16:9 monitor, and place them at the exact same distance from you on a desk. Lets assume they have the same vertical resolution of 900 for simplicity sake. Now look at this link. http://www.displaywars.com/20-inch-4x3-vs-20-inch-16x9

Now with the information i've laid out before you, i imagine you can see why one would think that a 4:3 monitor is going to give you a "bigger" and "less squished" picture.

Because your window into the game will appear more zoomed. Why is this? Well the 4:3 is PHYSICALLY taller. There is no actual difference in game, assuming its an FPS like TF2. ( a character that stretches from the top of the screen to the bottom, will still stretch from the top of the screen to the bottom ) regardless of what monitor you look at it.

From where your sitting your character will look 12 inches tall on the 4:3 and 9.81 inches tall on the 16:9.
Click to expand...

You've got it half right. The character is of course physically taller on the 4:3 screen in hor+ games. Generally speaking one doesn't use anything much higher than 1600x1200 on a 4:3 screen, so the detail increase doesn't really take effect. However, simply increasing the characters physical size is a huge benefit when trying to hit something in the distance <1cm tall.

The increase in detail comes primarily from 16:10 -> 16:9, with 1200 pixels being dropped to 1080 pixels. More pixels = easier to pick out an object/player blending in to the scenery.
 
I am not a proponent of 4:3, as I do agree that is a bit narrow. Although I do believe 16:10 is much better than 16:9, the latter being way too wide without enough height. Especially for multiple displays.
 
Vega said:
I am not a proponent of 4:3, as I do agree that is a bit narrow. Although I do believe 16:10 is much better than 16:9, the latter being way too wide without enough height. Especially for multiple displays.
Click to expand...
I like 16:9 for a single gaming monitor but yeah for multiple display gaming 16:10 would make much more sense.
 
WorldExclusive said:
The issue is manufactures are looking to make 16:9 only, discontinuing 16:10 and eliminating personal choice.
Doesn't matter what I prefer if they decide to stop making 16:10. I will be forced to buy a 16:9 monitor new or a used and outdated 16:10 monitor.
Click to expand...

So far all reputable brands have 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 in their products line.
Lower resolution monitors are cheaper and popular among housewives and teens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top