16:9 vs 16:10

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Oled

Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
574
Discussion about the advantages and disadvatages with the aspect ratios 16:9 and 16:10.
 
There are several of these already.

16:10 has higher rez, or at least a higher AR than 16:9, so its better. All the plusses of more vertical rez. There is no downside.
 
Valnar said:
There are several of these already.

16:10 has higher rez, or at least a higher AR than 16:9, so its better. All the plusses of more vertical rez. There is no downside.
Click to expand...

Just to point out 16:10 doesnt mean higher resolution than 16:9.

If you wanna discuss 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 there are two disadvantages with x1200.

1) Higher price
2) Black bars in games, TV and movies.
 
Only issue is games that aren't written properly to take advantage of the extra screen real estate and instead render a "cropped" 16:9 view. This is the fault of game developers, not a downside of the display AR. ;)
 
That about covers it. A 24" 16:10 will have higher resolution and a taller screen (which is more important to me as it makes it seem like a larger picture) the a 24" 16:9.

But once you get into bigger screens like 27", it doesn't matter. 16:10 only matters to me in 22-24".
 
Oled said:
Just to point out 16:10 doesnt mean higher resolution than 16:9.

If you wanna discuss 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 there are two disadvantages with x1200.

1) Higher price
2) Black bars in games, TV and movies.
Click to expand...

Wot? Black bars?

You make the incorrect assumption that every video is 16:9. You'll have black bars all the time on a variety of material, but most people don't sit and watch movies anyway on their PC. 1200 > 1080. For viewing documents or web pages, its better.
 
well at least now he will keep it in 1 thread, instead of derailing every bloody thread with 16:9 is better rhetoric.

have you ever heard of the golden ratio? a rectangle that falls within the golden ratio is more aesthetically pleasing, 16:10 happens to be incredibly close to that ratio, which is 1.61:1

Anyhoo none of my games have black bars either.
 
Last edited:
Oled said:
Just to point out 16:10 doesnt mean higher resolution than 16:9.

If you wanna discuss 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 there are two disadvantages with x1200.

1) Higher price
2) Black bars in games, TV and movies.
Click to expand...

No black bars in any of my games. They all scale to 16:10.

TV's are for movies, and they are pretty cheap now. Get one.
 
Seems like you already know the advantages and disadvantages of each. I therefore see no purpose for this thread to exist (particularly because these threads tend to devolve into name calling and personal attacks).
 
Just fair warning to everyone who contributes to this thread, everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Not everyone will agree with those opinions.
You can discuss the advantages and disadvantages as you see them, and feel free to post links to back up your argument

Keep it civil and keep it on topic, and no one gets hurt..:)
 
Oh no, it's back


16:10:
- more pixels in an absolute sense (1920x1200 instead of 1920x1080). More pixels means more data on screen.
- better aspect ratio match to "PC work" (3:2 dSLR or 4:3 P&S photos, documents etc...) excluding watching movies (although you can watch 16:9 content with small black bars which can conveniently contain player controls or captions)

16:9:
- no black bars if you're watching 16:9 content (don't see the big deal, it's not like the content gets scaled or fails to line up pixel-by-pixel)
- cheap
- seems to satisfy a whole bunch of Hor-, Hor+ FOV whining for gamers
 
Last edited:
Yeah i pretty much dislike 16:9 too. Not only is the vertical screen too short but it makes laptops way too rectangular.
 
With the way the resolution pairs work (that is, with a fixed horizontal resolution), 16:10 provides more screen real estate, and by the evidence in many productivity studies readily available through Google, 16:10 is superior to 16:9 today. The highest available resolution in modern consumer monitors is 2650x1600 (if you ignore the 4:3 resolution of 2560x2048), which is 16:10, and the closest 16:9-resolution is 2560x1440. Ergo, if more screen real estate is beneficial to a task (which is close to any task), 16:10 > 16:9.

The only two places 16:9 shines, besides pricing and subjective matters such as aesthetics, are gaming and movies, where black bars are smaller than those of 16:10, or non-existent, for widescreen content. The 16:10 FOV-case is null and void by the fact that anamorphic scaling can be forced with all modern graphics cards.

So, besides pricing and subjective matters, there really is no discussion which is "better" overall. If 16:10 is too expensive, if one uses one's computer solely for playing HOR+ games, or if one has blackbarophobia (yes, it's a word!), then 16:9 is advisable, but other than that 16:10 just has more to offer.

And like WorldExclusive said - if you already have a TV, why not use that for movies instead of a monitor? ;)
 
garbagemule said:
With the way the resolution pairs work (that is, with a fixed horizontal resolution), 16:10 provides more screen real estate, and by the evidence in many productivity studies readily available through Google, 16:10 is superior to 16:9 today. The highest available resolution in modern consumer monitors is 2650x1600 (if you ignore the 4:3 resolution of 2560x2048), which is 16:10, and the closest 16:9-resolution is 2560x1440. Ergo, if more screen real estate is beneficial to a task (which is close to any task), 16:10 > 16:9.

The only two places 16:9 shines, besides pricing and subjective matters such as aesthetics, are gaming and movies, where black bars are smaller than those of 16:10, or non-existent, for widescreen content. The 16:10 FOV-case is null and void by the fact that anamorphic scaling can be forced with all modern graphics cards.

So, besides pricing and subjective matters, there really is no discussion which is "better" overall. If 16:10 is too expensive, if one uses one's computer solely for playing HOR+ games, or if one has blackbarophobia (yes, it's a word!), then 16:9 is advisable, but other than that 16:10 just has more to offer.

And like WorldExclusive said - if you already have a TV, why not use that for movies instead of a monitor? ;)
Click to expand...

actually, 16:10 is more pleasing aesthetically, and there is math behind it :D
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
actually, 16:10 is more pleasing aesthetically, and there is math behind it :D
Click to expand...
You made me read up on this on Wiki... very interesting.
Slightly off topic, perhaps, but it wouldn't require a lengthy reply. Since cinemas have now existed for a very long time, and the golden ratio has existed for even longer, why didn't they actually opt for 1.61:1 or ~16:10 film to begin with? I haven't been able to find any answer for this anywhere - only that 2.35:1 seems to be what many swears by and want to maintain in the industry and also that a lot people hate the black bars on 16:9 when viewing at home. Is it just done in order to achieve more columns of seats?
 
I didn't like 16:9 when it first came out but after using them for a while, I prefer the wider shape of the 16:9.
I haven't experienced a loss of vertical resolution since I was using 1050 and 900 tall screens and now 2 of my screens are 1080 tall so I gained 30 pixels.

I watch a lot of TV on my PC so the 16:9 is nice as it fills the screen without zooming.
 
The argument of aspect ratio doesn't make a lot of sense by itself without including screen size and pixel dimensions.

The wideness of 16:9 is not really ideal on a tablet-sized screen, but on much larger screens where the vertical size fills more of our FOV, 16:9 and even wider aspects are preferable.

For a desktop PC, I will not settle for less than 1200 pixels vertically, but I would want an even wider aspect than 16:9 instead of having multiple monitors to compensate.
 
tk-don said:
You made me read up on this on Wiki... very interesting.
Slightly off topic, perhaps, but it wouldn't require a lengthy reply. Since cinemas have now existed for a very long time, and the golden ratio has existed for even longer, why didn't they actually opt for 1.61:1 or ~16:10 film to begin with? I haven't been able to find any answer for this anywhere - only that 2.35:1 seems to be what many swears by and want to maintain in the industry and also that a lot people hate the black bars on 16:9 when viewing at home. Is it just done in order to achieve more columns of seats?
Click to expand...
Because i don't want my screen to be aesthetically pleasing. I want to be immersed into it and forget it exists. For immersion (for me anyways) I need an ultra wide screen, vertical and horizontal need to hit a certain dimension, but after that, i dont really care about vertical and horizonal anymore, and then it's all about getting a screen that engulfs my horizontal field of view.

That's for media applications, for work none of that applies.

edit: sorry, i meant vertical needs to hit a certain dimension, the more horizontal the merrier.
 
Last edited:
Aesthetically, I'm not even too thrilled with my 22" 16:10 monitor, but I adapted (note: didn't say got used to it). A 16:9 monitor would be even wider.

It takes up too much desk space and moves my speakers too far apart. I have plenty of vertical space above my desk that is not used. Heck, I have the space to my ceiling to play with. Desk space, not so much.
 
Zepher said:
I watch a lot of TV on my PC so the 16:9 is nice as it fills the screen without zooming.
Click to expand...

I just don't get this.... You're still displaying every pixel of HD content on a 1920 16:10 screen - all 1920x1080 of them. I don't understand why "filling the screen" is so important when you are not forced into scaling content, loosing pixels, and burn-in/IR is a non-issue on LCD PC monitors...
 
I will agree that 16:10 is more pleasing and u have more scrolling area and better with ebooks when u use a monitor with pivot...
 
shoota said:
Yeah i pretty much dislike 16:9 too. Not only is the vertical screen too short but it makes laptops way too rectangular.
Click to expand...
copy that, 16:10 is definitelly better, I don't even know why 16:9 is main res for videos and movies, probably because of our vision field that has 16:9 AR as well.
 
I miss 4/3, really.
Even when watching films it didn't bother me as long as the monitor was not too small.
But CRTs had true blacks though, on LCDs it does look a bit bad in the dark.
 
Surly73 said:
I just don't get this.... You're still displaying every pixel of HD content on a 1920 16:10 screen - all 1920x1080 of them. I don't understand why "filling the screen" is so important when you are not forced into scaling content, loosing pixels, and burn-in/IR is a non-issue on LCD PC monitors...
Click to expand...

I prefer to have the entire panel filled with an image.
 
Acer_Sheep said:
copy that, 16:10 is definitelly better, I don't even know why 16:9 is main res for videos and movies, probably because of our vision field that has 16:9 AR as well.
Click to expand...

My Field of vision is far wider than 16:9. do you wear blinders or glasses maybe?
 
Zepher said:
My Field of vision is far wider than 16:9. do you wear blinders or glasses maybe?
Click to expand...
I wear glasses, but those are not changing size or ratio of your vision field. The AR of one eye is 4:3, so when you have both eyes open, you see 16:9, it doesn't need to be absolute 16:9, but it is widescreen so that's why are also monitors made to be widescreens.
 
Zepher said:
My Field of vision is far wider than 16:9. do you wear blinders or glasses maybe?
Click to expand...
true, if our horizontal is 180 degrees or above, which most source seem to claim it is, and the vertical doesn't go above 180, than you can make the argument that the perfect flat screen ratio for the human is:
infinity:1,
which would still only aproximate 180 degrees. If you have higher than 180 horizontally... well... then... you'll never get a monitor to fill your peripheral vision, even ones that infinitly wide.

Time to get round monitors.
 
Acer_Sheep said:
I wear glasses, but those are not changing size or ratio of your vision field. The AR of one eye is 4:3, so when you have both eyes open, you see 16:9, it doesn't need to be absolute 16:9, but it is widescreen so that's why are also monitors made to be widescreens.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand
What are you measuring? angles?
also
How do you get from 4:3 to 16:9? What mathematical function did you use to approximate two eyes versus one that allows you to go from 4:3 to 16:9
 
The angles and AR of VF warries from person to person I guess, it is widecreen as I said before, but it is very similar to 16:9.

And, you don't need any math here, try to watch your 16:9 screen with one eye closed and you will see the effect.
 
Acer_Sheep said:
Reported this thread, so mods will move the new articles to old one.
Click to expand...
Crosshairs said:
Just fair warning to everyone who contributes to this thread, everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Not everyone will agree with those opinions.
You can discuss the advantages and disadvantages as you see them, and feel free to post links to back up your argument

Keep it civil and keep it on topic, and no one gets hurt..:)
Click to expand...
Moderators are already aware.
 
Valnar said:
Aesthetically, I'm not even too thrilled with my 22" 16:10 monitor, but I adapted (note: didn't say got used to it). A 16:9 monitor would be even wider.

It takes up too much desk space and moves my speakers too far apart. I have plenty of vertical space above my desk that is not used. Heck, I have the space to my ceiling to play with. Desk space, not so much.
Click to expand...

Turn it to portrait mode if stand supports it and viewing angles are decent?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top