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
phide said:
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.
Click to expand...

What do you mean not globally? You still aren't getting it. A 24" monitor that's 16:10 is as wide as a 24" 16:9 monitor at the same horizontal resolution. The 24" 16:9 monitors on the market aren't really 24", the viewable is smaller because they're a bit shorter due to the ratio. Just look at the photos posted by albovin on page 2. That's why people say one of the driving forces behind 16:9 is that manufacturers use less material and thus less costs to produce one monitor.
 
Last edited:
A 24" monitor that's 16:10 is as wide as a 24" 16:9 monitor at the same vertical resolution.
Click to expand...
you and phide disagree on what width is

oh, and you're wrong, btw

silly pythagorean theorem
 
fss69 said:
What do you mean not globally? You still aren't getting it. A 24" monitor that's 16:10 is as wide as a 24" 16:9 monitor at the same vertical resolution.
Click to expand...
We don't disagree on that. I'm not talking about only 24" displays here.

At what point did I make that unclear?

SinShiva said:
you and phide disagree on what width is. oh, and you're wrong, btw. silly pythagorean theorem
Click to expand...
Cute.
 
Figured I'd demonstrate what I'm talking about here to make it clearer. Been playing Quake a lot lately, so I'll it as an example.

Here's Quake at 16:10, default FOV:
1610.jpg


And at 16:9, default FOV:
169.jpg


On a 16:9 24" display, you're looking at 1080 pixels vertical and 1920 horizontal, but you see that the horizontal expansion is greater than at 16:10 with respect to the game's FOV (not the horizontal resolution, which is the same as 16:10). It's shorter in physical height and equal in physical width, but the game's FOV is wider because the engine expands the field of view as the aspect ratio widens. At 16:10, there's less of the game world visible than at 16:9, though the overall resolution is greater.

It's a trade-off. You get a wider aspect ratio at 16:9, which widen's the game's field of view, though you lose some resolution. At 16:10, the field of view is narrower, but you gain some resolution. For me, the former's more attractive when it comes to gaming assuming the field of view increases as the aspect ratio widens.
 
Ah, thanks phide. I get it now... I barely game, so I didn't know things rescaled that way.

I guess you can figure that looking at the weak rig I have listed in my sig :D.
 
phide said:
Figured I'd demonstrate what I'm talking about here to make it clearer. Been playing Quake a lot lately, so I'll it as an example.

On a 16:9 24" display, you're looking at 1080 pixels vertical and 1920 horizontal, but you see that the horizontal expansion is greater than at 16:10 with respect to the game's FOV (not the horizontal resolution, which is the same as 16:10). It's shorter in physical height and equal in physical width, but the game's FOV is wider because the engine expands the field of view as the aspect ratio widens. At 16:10, there's less of the game world visible than at 16:9, though the overall resolution is greater.

It's a trade-off. You get a wider aspect ratio at 16:9, which widen's the game's field of view, though you lose some resolution. At 16:10, the field of view is narrower, but you gain some resolution. For me, the former's more attractive when it comes to gaming assuming the field of view increases as the aspect ratio widens.
Click to expand...

Wrong way.
The HUGE MISTAKE and MISUNDERSTANDING regarding 16:10 vs 16:9 issue is that people often CONFUSE aspect ratio of the CONTENT (game) with aspect ratio of the SCREEN (monitor).
1920x1200 monitor displays 16:9 aspect ratio games with max FOV. It's up to you what to display on 1920x1200 16:10. If you want your game in 16:9 ratio - you get 16:9, want 16:10 ratio - you get 16:10 or 4:3 or whatever you want.
18975978.jpg

75587384.jpg
 
albovin said:
1920x1200 monitor displays 16:9 aspect ratio games with max FOV. It's up to you what to display on 1920x1200 16:10. If you want your game in 16:9 ratio - you get 16:9, want 16:10 ratio - you get 16:10 or 4:3 or whatever you want.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you can run a game at 16:9 on a 16:10 display (1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 display for instance, if the display supports it), but it'll be letterboxed. On a 16:9 display, it's bezel-to-bezel; no letterboxing.

In HL2, for instance, at a 16:10 resolution (say 1920x1200), the horizontal FOV is 85 degrees. At a 16:9 resolution (1920x1080), the horizontal FOV is 91 degrees. You can always just up the FOV setting to be able to view more of the game world, but the field of view will expand on both axes and the aspect ratio doesn't change.

So, no, you have various options, but you can't truly have it both ways. Either you choose letterboxing a 16:9 resolution or you up the FOV at 16:10, which will affect both axes. If I want 16:9 "bezel-to-bezel" gaming, I have to get a 16:9 display. If letterboxed 16:9 is okay, then a 16:10 display is perfectly fine.
 
phide said:
Yeah, you can run a game at 16:9 on a 16:10 display (1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 display for instance, if the display supports it), but it'll be letterboxed.
Click to expand...

Sure. On 1920x1200 you have extra space above and below 16:9 frame - that is you bonus to be used for other aspect ratio games and tons of other applications.
 
albovin said:
Wrong way.
The HUGE MISTAKE and MISUNDERSTANDING regarding 16:10 vs 16:9 issue is that people often CONFUSE aspect ratio of the CONTENT (game) with aspect ratio of the SCREEN (monitor).
1920x1200 monitor displays 16:9 aspect ratio games with max FOV. It's up to you what to display on 1920x1200 16:10. If you want your game in 16:9 ratio - you get 16:9, want 16:10 ratio - you get 16:10 or 4:3 or whatever you want.
Click to expand...

No shit, son. You can always set the resolution on your 1920x1200 monitor to 1920x1080.

We are assuming that the game's aspect ratio is the same as the monitor's - which should always be the case if we are running at the native resolution.
 
phide said:
Either you choose letterboxing a 16:9 resolution or you up the FOV at 16:10, which will affect both axes. If I want 16:9 "bezel-to-bezel" gaming, I have to get a 16:9 display. If letterboxed 16:9 is okay, then a 16:10 display is perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

No you don't. You have to get two monitors. One 16:9 and one 16:10. Since not all games will have wider FOV on 16:9...
 
SinShiva said:
you and phide disagree on what width is

oh, and you're wrong, btw

silly pythagorean theorem
Click to expand...

Congrats on sounding like an idiot and a nerd at the same time. If you bothered to read the next couple lines I wrote, I explain that the viewable size on a 16:9 screen is recut smaller. On a "24-inch" monitor, the diagonal is a true 24 inches on a 16:10, but 23.6 inches on a 16:9, The 16:9 is cut shorter in height and just as wide. It's marketing and material conservation,
 
Well I may be eating crow in saying this. With the U2711, and thus not giving up 10% of my vert res, I'm getting attached to 16:9 fast. Higher res, to me, is the key to getting wider acceptance of 16:9.
 
SinShiva said:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/utspyder/IMG00185.jpg

a 16:9 23" is BIGGER than a 23" 16:10.

in other words, a 23" 16:10 has less width (and height) letterboxed to 16:9.

my monitor is a hannspree hf237 23", you can measure that yourself at best buy. :p
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't make 23" 16:10 monitors. All 23 inchers are 16:9. There is no 16:10 equivalent. Another example... a 16:10 22 incher is 22 inches. It's "22 inch" 16:9 equivalent is 21.5 inches.
 
fss69 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't make 23" 16:10 monitors. All 23 inchers are 16:9. There is no 16:10 equivalent. Another example... a 16:10 22 incher is 22 inches. It's "22 inch" 16:9 equivalent is 21.5 inches.
Click to expand...

I think Apple and HP have a 23" 16:10, but they are both old.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, Apple used to make a 23" 16:10 display (the Cinema HD Display). I don't know if there any 23" 16:10 displays being produced currently.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
All that FOV reasoning doesn't matter to me, as I'm using my PC for a lot more than just gaming (actually i don't find much time for that nowadays). I remember playing Q3 at ridiculously low (non-wide) resolutions with a highly increased FOV, yeah those were the days... And then there are also games which are better played with lower aspect ratio...

I can't see a reason why small black bars would hurt (unless you want a crazy setup like 6 monitors arranged 3*1920x2*1080). Of course, if you have no use for the extra vertical space then go 16:9, I won't try to convince you; you'll save some money, too.

For me 16:10 is the better aspect ratio "in every aspect".
 
Anemone said:
Well I may be eating crow in saying this. With the U2711, and thus not giving up 10% of my vert res, I'm getting attached to 16:9 fast. Higher res, to me, is the key to getting wider acceptance of 16:9.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you came from. If you were using a 1920x1200 (or lower) 24"-ish screen before, you've gained all around. If you were using say, a 30" 2560x1600 display before, your new 2560x1440 screen.. what's this.. loses 10% vert res, along with three inches. At least it was a lot cheaper than a 30" panel, right?

http://www.google.com/products/cata...mCG43WjgT5z7HkBg&sa=title&ved=0CAcQ8wIwADgA#p

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...ard_EZ320A8_ABA_LP3065_30_Widescreen_LCD.html
 
Its a computer monitor, not a TV. When I upgrade from my 22" 1680x1050 I want the extra hieght as well as the width. Its about resolution and desk space, its not about watching movies, if thats what you want to do then get you a HDTV.
 
Diablo2K said:
Its a computer monitor, not a TV. When I upgrade from my 22" 1680x1050 I want the extra hieght as well as the width. Its about resolution and desk space, its not about watching movies, if thats what you want to do then get you a HDTV.
Click to expand...

ah, yes. it all makes so much more sense now

i think the world needs a 2133x1200 monitor :p
 
Last edited:
I wish panel manufacturers would take note of this poll. There are enough 1920x1200 fans out there to justify it's existence.
 
I have both aspect ratio PC monitors. I prefer 1920 x 1200.

I have a 1920 x 1080 monitor connected to my HTPC which is connected to a HDTV. I use the monitor as an auxiliary screen to monitor processes from time to time.
 
16:9 may be cheaper to make, but I'm a hold-out: I prefer the extra vertical space.

On a related subject:

Has anyone paired up a 16:10 monitor with a 16:9 monitor? How well do they work together?

I have a great 16:10 monitor that's connected to my PC, 360 and PS3, but it doesn't do 1:1 on the consoles and the image is slightly stretched. Given that, I'm considering a dual-monitor setup for my PC and connecting the consoles to the 16:9.

Any thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top