16:9 vs 16:10

May I ask why some people in this thread think a 16x9 monitor will give you a wider image? 1920 pixels is 1920 pixels, no matter what.

And I believe half the confusion stems from using the "16x9" and "16x10" nomenclature, if we just referred to each monitor by its native resolution, there would be no confusion about which is giving more or less screen real estate.
 
It's only physically wider at equivalent diagonal size. So a 24" 1080p monitor is physically wider, but physically shorter (ie. LESS tall) than a 16:10 (1920x1200) monitor. They also have slightly different dot pitches.

criccio said:
May I ask why some people in this thread think a 16x9 monitor will give you a wider image? 1920 pixels is 1920 pixels, no matter what.

And I believe half the confusion stems from using the "16x9" and "16x10" nomenclature, if we just referred to each monitor by its native resolution, there would be no confusion about which is giving more or less screen real estate.
Click to expand...
 
10e said:
It's only physically wider at equivalent diagonal size. So a 24" 1080p monitor is physically wider, but physically shorter (ie. LESS tall) than a 16:10 (1920x1200) monitor. They also have slightly different dot pitches because of the different ratio.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks, but I knew all that already. It was just mentioned in this thread above that someone thought they could fit more on the screen with a 16x9 monitor over a 16x10 (width wise) and I was trying to say that just isn't true. On a 24" monitor, one at 16x9 and one at 16x10, both have a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels. Being physically wide doesn't mean a thing.
 
Precisely. Horizontal resolution is the same, but vertical is less, so you can't fit any more pixels on it, they are just bigger.

The only cases where it's different is with 22" 1080p monitors where they actually have higher resolution than most 22" (1680x1050) monitors, and with Samsung's new 2343BW/BWX monitor with the non-standard 2048x1152 resolution that has more pixels than any other form factor than 30" (2560x1600) monitors.

criccio said:
Ok thanks, but I knew all that already. It was just mentioned in this thread above that someone thought they could fit more on the screen with a 16x9 monitor over a 16x10 (width wise) and I was trying to say that just isn't true. On a 24" monitor, one at 16x9 and one at 16x10, both have a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels. Being physically wide doesn't mean a thing.
Click to expand...
 
criccio said:
Ok thanks, but I knew all that already. It was just mentioned in this thread above that someone thought they could fit more on the screen with a 16x9 monitor over a 16x10 (width wise) and I was trying to say that just isn't true. On a 24" monitor, one at 16x9 and one at 16x10, both have a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels. Being physically wide doesn't mean a thing.
Click to expand...

I spotted that too but assumed he must have meant something else as you cant be that daft :)
So I didnt deal him +10 magic forum strike.
 
I did notice today that a 16x9 video fits perfectly inside the client area of Media Player Classic in Vista on a 16x10 monitor.
 
I'm ready to buy a good 16:9 monitor as long as the resolution is 2880X1620 and at least 33 inches diagonal :(100 dpi).:D
 
Albovin,

You are right. my boxes are off/wrong, because I measured incorrectly. Unfortunately your's are still off as well. The yellow box is closer to 1.75:1 and the 16:10 is still 1.58:1 So I've re-done them from scratch as best as possible, re-measured and checked the measurements. They are still off by a little bit, but the 16:10 monitor is shown as 1.603:1 and the 16:9 is 1.78:1. Close enough. I can't get them any closer right now and I don't like putting rulers near my NEC and Dell monitors. Kind of funny two grown men can't get their little boxes drawn right.

I've put the fixed ones down the page.

If you are claiming I am hyper sensitive, trust me I'm not. This isn't an argument, this is a debate. I don't take this personally. This is a forum where I post, not where I make my living. If people agree with me, great. If not, great. Other points of view are welcome. Sharing ideas and debating them is the best medicine to idle minds. This is why you don't see me on the video card forums saying "ATI 4870x2 FTW! ZOMG monster FPS!" No need for fanboys. The Displays forum is a kindler, gentler place. :)

Being constructive in criticism is saying "You are incorrect because...etc. Here's what you need to do", or "here's a link" , not "study study study." or "get acquainted with monitors" (the second being your comment to "TheManko" on the E2400HD thread). No offence, if I'm going to study something, it's going to make me $$$, and right now monitors don't make me a penny. I do it for enjoyment and hopefully to help people.

It's also the difference between (to use your analogy of the boat) "change your course X degrees" or saying "you idiot look out, there's land AHHH."

To continue with this analogy, we are in the same boat. We are "converts" to 16:10 ratio monitors who have pretty much ZERO outlook. This was why I didn't like your 16:10 diagrams. They made 16:10 actually look worse with image contortions/stretching/cropping. My picture was a mistake. I am not in bed with manufacturers. They are like governments: Take more, give back less.

Unfortunately 16:9 is taking over and it's beginning now. Buy a Backup 24" WUXI is my advice to you. Every panel manufacturer is moving to it. Soon I expect S-IPS and S-PVA to join. Samsung already has 16:9 TNs, S-PVA will be most likely next, as they use them for TV as well. I would theorize that LG will follow too likely sooner than later to compete on $$$ saved from this (as described) "panelization cut".

Here is an article explaining the trend. Not much technical info in it, but nonetheless tells you what is going to happen:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/..._Monitor_Panels_Inevitable_Research_Firm.html


Here is the new picture:

3069070076_6b80a3b71b_o.jpg


I clipped your post/reply a lot for space saving. Thanks for posting the 24WMGX2 review ;)

albovin said:
10e, I close my eyes on your attempts to teach me this time.
If you look at my posts you'll see that I can be sarcastic sometimes but not insulting. That's in your imagination.
Some people may be hypersensitive to constructive criticism. I don't think this is good for technical forum.
Greek? I don't need to surf dictionary, I have vocabulary.
Click to expand...
 
criccio said:
May I ask why some people in this thread think a 16x9 monitor will give you a wider image? 1920 pixels is 1920 pixels, no matter what.

And I believe half the confusion stems from using the "16x9" and "16x10" nomenclature, if we just referred to each monitor by its native resolution, there would be no confusion about which is giving more or less screen real estate.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a 1920x1200 monitor that is 16:9 or 1.78:1. This is the aspect ratio. 1920/1200 = 1.6, or 16:10/1.6:1, which means 1.6 times wide as it is high. So if a monitor is 1920x1200 it MUST be 16:10.
 
LawGiver said:
There is no such thing as a 1920x1200 monitor that is 16:9 or 1.78:1. This is the aspect ratio. 1920/1200 = 1.6, or 16:10/1.6:1, which means 1.6 times wide as it is high. So if a monitor is 1920x1200 it MUST be 16:10.
Click to expand...

I know that aswell, but thanks anyway.
 
Are all pixel ratios exactly 1:1 these days?
If not, that would skew the screen aspect ratios from the pixel aspect ratios.
 
Should be.

If you take 1920 and divide by 1200 you get exactly 1.6. If you do the same for 1920 and 1080, you get 1.7777 (16:9). These are the ratios each of these screens use.

Nenu said:
Are all pixel ratios exactly 1:1 these days?
If not, that would skew the screen aspect ratios from the pixel aspect ratios.
Click to expand...
 
10e said:
Should be.

If you take 1920 and divide by 1200 you get exactly 1.6. If you do the same for 1920 and 1080, you get 1.7777 (16:9). These are the ratios each of these screens use.
Click to expand...

That assumes a 1:1 horizontal:vertical width/height for each pixel though.
ie the pixels must be exactly square.
I havent kept up at all on pixel sizes on modern screens but if they arent 1:1, the screen ratio will change.
 
I'm so glad TVs and monitors have moved to using square pixels. Editing NTSC video (720x480 which could be either 16x9 or 4x3) was such a pain.
 
Sorry, it also assumes a 16:9 physical ratio. Meaning I have measured the monitor as being 16 units wide for each 9 units high, meaning the pixels are 1:1 horizontal and vertical. Ie. a 16:9 resolution in a 16:9 physical form factor.

Nenu said:
That assumes a 1:1 horizontal:vertical width/height for each pixel though.
ie the pixels must be exactly square.
I havent kept up at all on pixel sizes on modern screens but if they arent 1:1, the screen ratio will change.
Click to expand...
 
10e said:
Sorry, it also assumes a 16:9 physical ratio. Meaning I have measured the monitor as being 16 units wide for each 9 units high, meaning the pixels are 1:1 horizontal and vertical. Ie. a 16:9 resolution in a 16:9 physical form factor.
Click to expand...

Cool, thats good to know thanks.
 
10e said:
Here is the new picture:

3068178638_1d19636b8e_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Your blue box's diagonal is obviously longer than the red box's.

rrjju9.png


To the OP: choose the monitor with more pixels

2048x1152 > 1920x1200 > 1920x1080 > 1680x1050 > 1600x900
 
Thanks for that. I made this from the measurements I took of the M2400HD vs. a Westinghouse L2410NM. Obviously they are incorrect. I will remeasure. Thanks for doing the math I should have done. Fixed. Thanks!

RaynQuist said:
Your blue box's diagonal is obviously longer than the red box's.

rrjju9.png


To the OP: choose the monitor with more pixels

2048x1152 > 1920x1200 > 1920x1080 > 1680x1050 > 1600x900
Click to expand...
 
The whole 16.10 vs 16.9 discussions are getting old.

It's turning into "what's better, the Blackberry or the iPhone?" argument.

Much like the Blackberry and the iPhone, these two different sized monitors are intended for different things.

The 16.10 is suitable for everything, but it excels in a work/business environment (surfing, spreadsheets, color critical work and so on).

16.9 are more of a "multimedia" monitor. It can handle gaming, whether it is PC or console. Movies can also be improved on the 16.9 format.

Now the problem with arguing over which monitor size is better, is that we cannot fully compare the two yet. 16.9 monitors only come in one flavor; TN. You cannot say a TN 16.9 monitor is better than an H-IPS 16.10. These are two different "species".

Now if there was a 16.9 H-IPS monitor, then you'd have a good argument.


If you want to buy an inexpensive 20+ inch monitor for gaming or movies, get 16.9

If work is your main concern, lean towards 16.10.
 
All I know is that 16:9 screen ratios are for screen resolutions like mine @ 960x720, 1440x900 and I game on a HP w1907 widescreen LCD.
 
it a LCD monitor with a built in tuner. its still a LCD monitor. nothings changed.

if i add a tuner to my 22" TN "monitor", does it suddenly become a television?
 
Matthew Kane said:
All I know is that 16:9 screen ratios are for screen resolutions like mine @ 960x720, 1440x900 and I game on a HP w1907 widescreen LCD.
Click to expand...

no 16:9 is the standard aspect ratio for high definition tv signals. this is why all wide screen "televisions" are built as 16:9 and not 16:10.
 
LawGiver said:
it a LCD monitor with a built in tuner. its still a LCD monitor. nothings changed.

if i add a tuner to my 22" TN "monitor", does it suddenly become a television?
Click to expand...

Yes there is a difference.

The size of the pixels (dot/pixel pitch) on a LCD TV is much larger than a monitors.

Depending on the size of the pixel, determines the optimal viewing distance.

An LCD TV has a larger pixel. Meaning you need to sit farther away from the screen.

If you're only gaming or watching movies, then a TV is fine because you don't have to sit close to it. If you're doing any kind of work, sitting close to an LCD TV is not fun.
 
LawGiver said:
it a LCD monitor with a built in tuner. its still a LCD monitor. nothings changed.

if i add a tuner to my 22" TN "monitor", does it suddenly become a television?
Click to expand...

Yes, because that's pretty much the definition of a tv -- a monitor simply accepts incoming video signals and displays them, a television includes (surprise) a tv tuner. So adding a tv tuner, by definition, makes it a tv. Similarly, some older plasma panels were marketed as TVs though they lacked a tuner. By definition, they were monitors. More suitable as a studio monitor than a computer monitor, but still a monitor.

In the past TVs were of much lower resolution than computer monitors, but that is no part of the definition of what makes a display a TV. Of course, at the consumer level the line has been blurred considerably recently. Devices are now incorporating features and capabilities that used belong exclusively to one category or the other. HDTVs now have resolutions (if not dot pitch) higher than many monitors, and people are increasingly using HDTVs strictly as computer monitors, while some products that began life as monitors are being turned into HDTVs by the addition of a tuner.

TV. vs. monitor is increasingly becoming a marketing term, nothing more.
 
persisting1 said:
Yes there is a difference.

The size of the pixels (dot/pixel pitch) on a LCD TV is much larger than a monitors.

Depending on the size of the pixel, determines the optimal viewing distance.

An LCD TV has a larger pixel. Meaning you need to sit farther away from the screen.

If you're only gaming or watching movies, then a TV is fine because you don't have to sit close to it. If you're doing any kind of work, sitting close to an LCD TV is not fun.
Click to expand...

What would dot pitch tell you at a given screen size other than the native resolution? The only thing you're saying is that PC LCD monitors have higher resolutions at a given size. They are still both the same technology. I'd go as far as to say that the majority of people couldn't even utilize resolutions higher than 1080p without a beefy computer.
 
RacerJim said:
What would dot pitch tell you at a given screen size other than the native resolution? The only thing you're saying is that PC LCD monitors have higher resolutions at a given size. They are still both the same technology. I'd go as far as to say that the majority of people couldn't even utilize resolutions higher than 1080p without a beefy computer.
Click to expand...

It means you cant sit close and use it like a monitor.

Use the the search for this forum.

There are a lot of questions that have already been answered.
 
albovin said:
Technology is similar.
But!
Major difference between PC monitors and TVs - they serve different purposes:
Monitors - to work with images and to watch images
TVs - to watch images (entertainment only) and their format 16:9 is pure entertainment format.
TVs lack ergonomics and features that monitors have due to different purposes (desktop size, appropriate resolution and dot pitch, height/tilt, color management, eye strain reducing technology, etc.)
TVs is a separate group of displays.
That's why we never mean TVs when we talk about monitors.



30" 2560x1600 monitor with a regular PC (3GHz, ATI X1600 512MB)
Click to expand...

Link is dead, but I know what you're trying to say:)
 
They serve different purposes only because you choose to do so. Not every HDTV can work well for PC but the option is there and it is not something to dismiss so easily. 16:9 monitors are replacing 16:10 so that difference is going away. The dot pitch issue is moot because it's up to how high a resolution you want at that size. Many won't want or need that high a resolution.
 
why the fuk would you even care about these ratios...experiment them yourselves if you wanna get good performance or viewability for movies.....ffs....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top