16:9 vs 16:10

Your preferred aspect ratio?

  • 16:9 (1080p, for example)

    Votes: 33 18.0%

  • 16:10 (1920x1200, etc.)

    Votes: 150 82.0%
  • Total voters
    183
S

SinShiva

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
330
More commonly considered the debate between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200. This actually comes from a discussion i had with a true pc gaming friend of mine. Personally, i prefer 1080p; a media standard, and i like knowing my movies are running at full native resolution, etc. the fact that 1080p typically comes dramatically cheaper than 1920x1200 is a nice bonus, too.

i will say, the quality of 1920x1200 monitors does seem higher, though. the cost of a high refresh rate 1920x1200 lcd seems cheaper compared to typical cost in comparison to 1080p, for example.

Thoughts?
 
Firstly, if I ignore the amount of pixels, I prefer the shape of 16:9 over 16:10.

However I do like the amount of pixels on a 1920x1200 screen. Ideally I'd prefer a 16:9 2560x1440 27" screen though.
 
16:10 is also larger than a 16:9 display if they have the same diagonal. Of course a smaller display is going to be cheaper.

16:9 is dominating among cheaper displays though, where price is the only thing that matters.
For 16:10 it's obvious it can't compete in price to start with so they compete with quality and features instead.

(which of course further widens the price difference between 16:9 and 16:10)

Personally I just can't stand the vertical height on 16:9.
 
Last edited:
I would rather have black bars while watching movies and then have that space available for work than always be limited to 1080 vertical pixels which although a media standard, is on the low side compared to what CRTs could do years ago. 1200 vs 1080, there is no contest really.
 
I like 16:9 better. I feel more immersed when gaming, movies look better (fitment/bars/etc).

I do sometimes miss the extra space for web browsing or what not, but not enough that I'll ever go back.

It is also becoming more and more the standard, would you go back to Fullscreen? I know I sure as hell have no interest :).
 
the more vertical space, the better imo.
 
16:9. The wider the better. If someone made a good 2.35:1 monitor with a decent vertical resolution, I'd be all over it.
 
Absolutely 1920x1200. The extra vertical height is a bonus and it can display 1920x1080 if needed, although slightly stretched or with small black bars on the top and bottom.

EDIT: Comparing 16:10 with 16:9, I'd say that 16:9 is the better aspect ratio. But comparing 1920x1200 with 1920x1080, I'd say the former is better. It really depends on the resolution.
 
Last edited:
As long as there are enough vertical pixels and physical height, then we should be advancing towards ultra-wide displays to replace dual/triple-head setups, like a 4:1 display (= three 4:3 monitors). In comparison, three 16:10 monitors make a 48:10 (4.8:1) display. A setup of three 16:9 monitors is too wide and short at 5.3:1.

I don't like 16:9 at 24"/1080, but it's nice at 27"/1440.
 
A related issue is the huge premium we have to pay for 1920 x 1200 (16:10) over a 1920 x 1080 (16:9):

HP ZR24w: $425 [1920 x 1200 (16:10)]

HP ZR22w: $289 [1920 x 1080 (16:9)]


So for a 10% less of a monitor, you save 32% (or vice versa).
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
A related issue is the huge premium we have to pay for for 1920 x 1200 (16:10) over a 1920 x 1080 (16:9):

HP ZR24w: $425 [1920 x 1200 (16:10)]

HP ZR22w: $289 [1920 x 1080 (16:9)]


So for a 10% less of a monitor, you save 32% (or vice versa).
Click to expand...

HP ZR22w is a 22" LCD, HP ZR24w is a 24" LCD...
 
Clear thing for me, 16:10 beats 16:9 in every aspect. I find the extra vertical space quite useful.
I'm afraid however, a transition to 16:9 will be inevitable as the price makes the demand.

I want movies to properly match my display
Click to expand...
I don't know which movies you're talking about but afaik the majority of movies has an aspect ratio of >1.78 (=16:9), with the most popular, i think, being 2.35:1 and 1.85:1. So you'll have black bars either way. As for what means "properly", you can argue; I would say every movie in FullHD resolution fits a 1920x1200 screen properly, i.e. without scaling. (If we're talking about a TV screen, I agree that 16:9 is a better choice.)
 
I like the 16:9 aspect ratio over 16:10, but what I don't like is only having 1080 pixies of vertical space...

Like my current 16:10 24" widescreen at 1920x1200, I've been looking at going to a 27-30" but most of my options would actually have be going to a lower resolution (1920x1080) which I'm not really fond of. I could probably live with 2048×1152 but those are considerably more expensive and still don't have as much vertical space.
 
jenneth said:
HP ZR22w is a 22" LCD, HP ZR24w is a 24" LCD...
Click to expand...

kllrnohj said:
http://displaywars.com/22-inch-16x9-vs-24-inch-16x10

The ZR22w also has 20% less surface area than the ZR24w
Click to expand...

Actually, the ZR22w is only a 21.5" display:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06a/382087-382087-64283-72270-3884471-4101127.html

So, you are getting even less surface area if that is what you are concerned with.

Personally, I am more interested in the number of pixels a display has.
 
PlatinuM195 said:
However I do like the amount of pixels on a 1920x1200 screen. Ideally I'd prefer a 16:9 2560x1440 27" screen though.
Click to expand...

This. Higher resolution than than 1920x1200 and assuming it has any type of scaler can double the pixels of 720p and allow you to run consoles at "native res".
 
if i had it my way, i'd go a step beyond 1080p, but still on the 16:9 ratio. i did actually start off gaming at 1600x1200@85hz, and it was magnificent. for some reason, though, i've always loved movies that ran in 16:9.

at this stage in the game, i find myself caring more about the hertz. my next monitor will likely be whichever displays 85-120hz, and that may mean 1920x1200+ by the time i get the funds
 
Last edited:
PlatinuM195 said:
Firstly, if I ignore the amount of pixels, I prefer the shape of 16:9 over 16:10.

However I do like the amount of pixels on a 1920x1200 screen. Ideally I'd prefer a 16:9 2560x1440 27" screen though.
Click to expand...

1920x1200 but I like this idea as well.
 
I spent quite a bit of time thinking about this in the last month, trying to decide between the 23" NEC ea231wmi and a 24" Dell U2410 (well, then the HP zr24w, which is what I finally ordered).

In the end what finally tiped the scales was the fact that I'm coming from a 20" CRT that I run at 1600x1200. A 24" 16:10 screen is roughly the same height physically, and has the same number of pixels vertically. In the end, it's just wider. So anything I do that's stuck at a 4:3 aspect ratio will be roughly the same size as my old monitor and anything widescreen will be infinitely better!

Granted, what I'd really love is a 27" or 30" monitor with an even higher resolution, but the 24" was about the limit of what the wife would allow. =)
 
snclawson said:
So anything I do that's stuck at a 4:3 aspect ratio will be roughly the same size as my old monitor and anything widescreen will be infinitely better!
Click to expand...
You have no idea how your life is going to improve as a result of this. Food tastes better. The air seems fresher. You'll have more energy and self confidence than you ever dreamed of!
 
phide said:
You have no idea how your life is going to improve as a result of this. Food tastes better. The air seems fresher. You'll have more energy and self confidence than you ever dreamed of!
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention stamina

Dave
 
Where games are concerned, the closer you are to a square monitor, the more surface area you've got in the "image circle."
 
Photos:
101ry.jpg

23093873.jpg


Games:
18975978.jpg

75587384.jpg


Movies:
22357817.jpg

67112851.jpg


Video editing:
35602187.jpg


Office applications:
103qs.jpg


Internet page:
100cml.jpg
 
phide said:
You have no idea how your life is going to improve as a result of this. Food tastes better. The air seems fresher. You'll have more energy and self confidence than you ever dreamed of!
Click to expand...

Ok, so `infinitely' might have been a bit of hyperbole. :p

Mostly though I'm just sick of watching movies with half the screen being black borders (which is the same reason I bought a 16:9 TV 6 years ago).

My 20" 4:3 CRT is only the equivalent of a ~18" 16:9 display, whereas the 24" 16:10 is ~23", which according to displaywars.com, is 61.80% more area. Of course, the 24" 16:10 is also the equivalanet of a 21.2" 4:3 display, so it really is a win-win.
 
The ability to edit 1080p video without resizing and still have space for a toolbar or 2 is pretty nice.
So I choose 16:10.

And sure enough albovin's post hits the mark.
 
At work I've got a pair of Samsung 24" 16:10 LCD's, the extra vertical space makes a difference when you've got the screens divided up into different full-height windows (<3 Win7). Browser with reference material, multiple compiler windows, Excel/Outlook/Word.....the more I can see/do without switching visible windows the better!

At home I've got a simple 22" 1080p LCD. Went 16:9 because I was running my 360 through it and watching movies on it at the time, now I've got a nice plasma for those duties. Was a huge step up from my old 17" 4:3 LCD, and it's just fine for my ancient home PC, but for any multitasking I 100% prefer 16:10.
 
I didn't even know this was up for debate. 16:10 is the obvious choice. As long as the 16:10 monitor can do 1:1 scaling with a 16:9 movie playing on an external blu-ray player, I really see zero advantage with an "HD display."
 
16:10 of course. It's way better when gaming and working. For movies I have a tv anyway.
 
fss69 said:
I didn't even know this was up for debate. 16:10 is the obvious choice. As long as the 16:10 monitor can do 1:1 scaling with a 16:9 movie playing on an external blu-ray player, I really see zero advantage with an "HD display."
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't it be up to debate? I prefer a wider native resolution bezel-to-bezel experience for games. Most games don't support any kind of anamorphic rendering, and it's not like letterboxing is an ideal way to go for that sort of thing anyway. Workable, but not ideal. I have a 16:10 display, by the way.

The resolution thing is really the deciding factor here, not so much the aspect ratio. If 23"/24" 16:9 displays were 2136x1200 as opposed to 1920x1200, then probably most would prefer the higher-resolution 16:9 display and either stretch or pillarbox 1080p video (or windowbox wider-than-1.78:1 video).

For me, the wider native aspect ratio is more preferable than a greater vertical resolution. Like I said, if someone out there made a good 2.35:1 monitor, I'd be all-the-fuckin'-way over that thing, even if the vertical resolution is only around 1000 pixels. Vertical real estate just isn't all that important to me.
 
phide said:
Why wouldn't it be up to debate? I prefer a wider native resolution bezel-to-bezel experience for games. Most games don't support any kind of anamorphic rendering, and it's not like letterboxing is an ideal way to go for that sort of thing anyway. Workable, but not ideal. I have a 16:10 display, by the way.

The resolution thing is really the deciding factor here, not so much the aspect ratio. If 23"/24" 16:9 displays were 2136x1200 as opposed to 1920x1200, then probably most would prefer the higher-resolution 16:9 display and either stretch or pillarbox 1080p video (or windowbox wider-than-1.78:1 video).

For me, the wider native aspect ratio is more preferable than a greater vertical resolution. Like I said, if someone out there made a good 2.35:1 monitor, I'd be all-the-fuckin'-way over that thing, even if the vertical resolution is only around 1000 pixels. Vertical real estate just isn't all that important to me.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. 16:9 isn't wider than 16:10, it's shorter. It's like having either a full cake or having a cake with a slice taken out. And dammit, I like cake.

bake-cake-graphic.jpg
 
fss69 said:
You're missing the point. 16:9 isn't wider than 16:10, it's shorter.
Click to expand...
Only in the case of 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080, not globally. Though even at those resolutions, a hor+ game is going to have a wider FOV on a 16:9 display than a 16:10 display, even if the horizontal resolution is the same. 106 degrees at 16:9 versus 100 degrees at 16:10, for example.

Like I said, I want the widest possible non-anamorphic, bezel-to-bezel rendering possible, which is what you get with 16:9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top