16x10 vs 16x9?

Kangg

Ad Blocker - Banned
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
1,994
16:10 sucks big time. End of the story. 16:9 is the future. 16:10 is for those who wants to stay in the past. Honestly Everything is better with 16:9!

Fuck that. I hate that the asshat LCD manufacturers arbitrarily decided that 16:9 is the way to go. For my damn TV thats fine but for my Monitor I still want my 16:10.

You sound like you work for an LCD maunfacturer .....
 

Walker

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
355
Slightly off topic but, what does text look like in portrait mode? Since the subpixels are no longer oriented the same, font smoothing doesn't work anymore, right?
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,262
Portrait only works if you have multiple portrait monitors, because for coding, what you really need is BOTH Horizontal and Vertical space. You will really need to turn off cleartype in portrait. Then it should look much like cleartype off in landscape.

A single 1920x1080 monitor isn't that great for productivity, in either Landscape where it is too short or Portrait where it is too narrow.
 

nalc

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
1,077
I tried using a single 22" 16:10 IPS panel as a portrait at work for going through long design white papers (engineer, not coder here). It was cool at first, but I found that due to the sheer height of it, I still had to move my head to be able to read the entire text.

I have a 25.5" TN panel here at home in 16:10 landscape, and I sit with my head in the center and I can view any part of the screen just my moving my eyes.

IMO, I find landscape to fit in my field of view more. Portrait would have been nice if I had 3 displays, maybe, but my overall field of view is definitely wider than it is high, due to how eyes are laid out. Humans can have as high as 180 degrees of peripheral vision in the horizontal. Vertical field of view is significantly lower.
 

shurcooL

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
1,125
Slightly off topic but, what does text look like in portrait mode? Since the subpixels are no longer oriented the same, font smoothing doesn't work anymore, right?
It still works, you just have to use the ClearType Tuner to adjust it to VRGB (vertical RGB) mode. It may be a problem if you're using two monitors, one portrait, one landscape. That's the case with me, but I just picked a compromise and it looks good to me.

A single 1920x1080 monitor isn't that great for productivity, in either Landscape where it is too short or Portrait where it is too narrow.
Agreed. 1200 pixels wide is just barely acceptable in portrait. So 1080 falls short.
 

hyperion0101

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
148
Every time this comparison is brought up, it always leaves me baffled at how some people think.

People who buy x1080 vs. x1200 are not misinformed consumers, they are looking at display options and thinking that they do not want to pay 50-100% more for a display that could be even worse in terms of response/PQ just because it is x1200. People tend to buy things by judging them as a whole after a few "must have" criteria are met. And I cannot see how x1200 vs. x1080 is a deal breaking criteria for the majority of consumers to warrant saying they simply don't know any better. If you passively followed Steam surveys for instance, most people upgrading to x1080 at the moment are likely coming from x1024 or lower vertical resolution screens. Even coming from a x1050, x1080 still offers them more vertical resolution. There is no strong incentive for most of those people to go out of the way to hunt down and pay more for a x1200 screen.

The thing is, most people who do buy 16:9 over 16:10 probably don't even know what an aspect ratio is. In this respect, the accusation that people are choosing to buy 16:9 out of ignorance is perfectly justified. I expect that there will be subtle differences for those that "upgrade" to 16:9 from a resolution with a taller aspect ratio. Another reason why 16:10 is better is because of the Golden Ratio (google it if you don't know what that is), which is psychologically pleasing.

The other is that the cost savings are not as big as what you would imply. Monitors are already shipped in massive quantities that the economies of scale can already by taken advantage of. Economies of scale are a diminishing marginal sort of thing and the costs of making a 16:10 are not much higher (perhaps 8%). The cost difference that you see now between 16:10 and 16:9 is due to the fact that 16:9 is produced vastly more because manufacturers wish to take advantage of that 8% and translate it into profit. We could have had 16:10 screens by now and at a very similar price (especially for TN ones) had the consumer been more informed.
 

limitedaccess

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
7,594
The thing is, most people who do buy 16:9 over 16:10 probably don't even know what an aspect ratio is. In this respect, the accusation that people are choosing to buy 16:9 out of ignorance is perfectly justified. I expect that there will be subtle differences for those that "upgrade" to 16:9 from a resolution with a taller aspect ratio.

First I think in this discussion we need to look at two issues, aspect ratio and resolution. As far as I know people who believe they are upgrading into terms of resolution from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 has to border on almost 0, I cannot see a logical reason for this (so yes ruling out people who do not think). You can see that x1080 fits inside x1200. You can see by the posts on these forums, people who are changing from a x1200 always state that they do not wish to move to down to x1080. Those that do cite the cost savings and better availability in moving down to x1080. Yes there might be a few unreasonable people that argue somehow a 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200 that the x1080 is better from a resolution standpoint in some way (maybe if your monitor has terrible contrast/black levels so you hate black bars during movies, I don't know), but you cannot conclude that the majority are thinking this way.

For those going from 16:10 1680x1050 (or if your still on some 5:4 1280x1024) to 16:9 1920x1080, this is an "upgrade" any way you slice it in terms of resolution. I cannot again see a reasonable argument otherwise, especially if there stated content usage is gaming/multimedia.

16:9 1920x1080 is suitable resolution for a lot of users and offers a very cost competitive advantage over 1920x1200, this is why a lot of people are choosing this route. I don't see some huge suggested movement of people junking x1200 to x1080 screens out ignorance that x1080 resolution is better. There are some moving due to being able to find a more responsive and/or better contrast/black level and/or color and/or price screen at x1080 then x1200.

My points are not based around what format is better. I arguing against the notion that people who don't buy a 16:10 simply don't know any better. I have actually mentioned several times it doesn't make sense for someone to pick a x1080 vs. x1200 monitor given if every other factor is the same. However in terms of current content for those that primarily use there display for gaming/multimedia the benefits of x1200 vs. x1080 does not warrant enough of a difference for them to go out of there way and get a x1200 screen ignoring all other factors. Even in a idealized situation where a x1200 screen simply costs 11% more, many people will still not choose that option simply because it isn't needed and choose the cheaper screen.

The other is that the cost savings are not as big as what you would imply. Monitors are already shipped in massive quantities that the economies of scale can already by taken advantage of. Economies of scale are a diminishing marginal sort of thing and the costs of making a 16:10 are not much higher (perhaps 8%). The cost difference that you see now between 16:10 and 16:9 is due to the fact that 16:9 is produced vastly more because manufacturers wish to take advantage of that 8% and translate it into profit. We could have had 16:10 screens by now and at a very similar price (especially for TN ones) had the consumer been more informed.

Scale is a relative thing. Inherently a x1200 monitor will cost more to make then a x1080, as quite obviously it contains more pixels, and usually we are in a 24 inch vs. 23 inch comparison. However because of how lines can be shared with 16:9 TVs the a x1080 monitor can be manufactured for much less then the loss of resolution would suggest. I can't find the source anymore, but I recall seeing an interview with someone in manufacturing before were it was mentioned that the cost differential is upwards of 50% in some cases. Which if you look at actual retail prices of monitors that are 16:10 vs. 16:9 this does seem more plausible then the 8% differential you are thinking.

You can find 23 inch + "HD" monitors now are very low prices now, and large part of that reason is the move down from x1200 to x1080. Since a large subset of consumers simply require 1080p for gaming/multimedia and want it at a very cheap price, this why this format has become popular. For most people they do not buy the absolute best thing they can, they buy something that is suitable for them given how much they want to spend.
 

hyperion0101

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
148
Which if you look at actual retail prices of monitors that are 16:10 vs. 16:9 this does seem more plausible then the 8% differential you are thinking.

You can find 23 inch + "HD" monitors now are very low prices now, and large part of that reason is the move down from x1200 to x1080. Since a large subset of consumers simply require 1080p for gaming/multimedia and want it at a very cheap price, this why this format has become popular. For most people they do not buy the absolute best thing they can, they buy something that is suitable for them given how much they want to spend.

I am talking about the panel manufacturing itself. I suspect that had the consumer been a bit more aware, we would see 16:10 TN panels at similar prices and with similar availability. I suspect that what really happened here is that one manufacturer decided that they wanted to go the 16:9 route. Given how low the margins can be in the monitor industry, we had everyone follow and now ... crappy 16:9 displays. With the market being inefficient (due to consumer ignorance), these displays were not rejected and now, we have 16:9 effectively dominating all displays under the $400 mark. It is entirely possible that had there been no 16:9 transition, we'd see 24" 16:10 displays at very similar costs. Unfortunately, with 16:9 so dominant, this will not happen due to the low monitor margins.

A similar example may be the Dell U2311H - an IPS panel with prices competitive with TN panels when on sale. As most customers remain ignorant, they will not rush out and purchase this when it is one sale rather than buying a TN panel (most customers don't know what a TN panel even is).

So yes, I stand firmly by the notion that it was out of ignorance.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2010
Messages
24
First I'd like to clarify I am neither for 16:9 nor 16:10. Both have their uses.
*EDIT: Removed content, pending revision and proof. Made a mathematical error.
*EDIT2: Removed permanently, proved that it isn't the case for 16:10.
Pixel difference:

Anyways. Was it also beneficial to manufacturers to produce 16:9? Yes it was without a doubt but what are you missing really in terms of resolution, let's take a look? Also keep in mind 16:10 back in it's day was the time where LCD's easily cost $400~ for a simple 24" monitor.
Let's take a close look at it. First up pixel amount.

x1080: 2,073,600 Pixels

x1200: 2,304,000 Pixels

Difference: 230,400 Pixels... 10% pixel loss. Significant loss? Yes it is.

Let's continue, next up Pixels per square inch (this, or dot pitch impacts image sharpness and clarity depending on size... Sometimes noticeable sometimes not):
x1080: 91.8 pixels per squared inch
x1200: 94 pixels per squared inch

Loss: 2.2 pixels per squared inch are lost. this translates to 2.3% pixel density loss on a 24" monitor, going upwards to 27" you loose about 2.6%. Hmm doesn't sound too bad actually considering manufacturing processes will likely render 5%-10% variance in specifications which will impact image quality more then the 2.3% pixel density loss... Overall not much lost.

Hope it helps.
Mostly 16:10= helps a bit with 100 additional horizontal lines for productivity usage (word/programming etc).
That's about it.

Also I'd like to mention 16:9 is quickly becoming the standard in HD movies. Even if it wasn't it would at least support even ultra wide aspect ratios.
 
Last edited:

HoppyChris

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
313
I'm still waiting for the introduction of "tall" widescreens. Everyone loves their widescreens, so I would never ever dream of taking that away from them, but just imagine the glory of a monitor that was not 1920*1080, not 1920*1200, but 1920*1440. BOOM. It's wide, but it's tall, too! It's a tall widescreen, my friends, and they're coming soon to a computer near you!

(note: soon is about 10 years ago, when companies made very nice high-end CRTs)
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
521
He's probably just trolling; trying to piss ppl off.

Probably. 16:10 will always trump 16:9 for pc monitors.

1680x1050 > 1600x900 (seriously? who wants this shitty res on a 22 inch monitor lol)
1920x1200 > 1920x1080 (i want my 120 pixels yo)
2560x1600 > 2560x1440 (really would hate to see 30" monitors with this res, these were always the holy grail of pc monitors)
 

Oled

Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
574
Probably. 16:10 will always trump 16:9 for pc monitors.

1680x1050 > 1600x900 (seriously? who wants this shitty res on a 22 inch monitor lol)
1920x1200 > 1920x1080 (i want my 120 pixels yo)
2560x1600 > 2560x1440 (really would hate to see 30" monitors with this res, these were always the holy grail of pc monitors)

That's a foolish comparison.

You could instead do

1920*1080 > 1680*1050 (Honestly who wants this shitty res on a 22 inch monitor lol)
2560*1440 > 1920*1200 (you want your 120 pixels so why do you say no to 360?)

Honestly. 16:9 is better than 16:10. You get a bigger screen and more pixels for the money.
 
Last edited:

PGHammer

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
3,315
widescreen is annoying when web browsing and reading PDFs and other things that were all designed for narrow screens. Many websites don't scale well and just have massive blank space when viewed on widescreen.

I don't have a specific preference in aspect ratio, but rather number of pixels. I'd rather have a 1920x1200 display than a 1920x1080 display, because it's a 10% reduction in number of pixels. I can always black-bar the extra 120 pixels on a 1200 vertical res screen, but I can't magically make 120 pixels appear on a 1080 vertical res screen.
[/I]

Most webpage creation tools (and all PDF creation tools) are designed for 4:3 (portait, as opposed to landscape) page creation as they have changed little or not at all from when *all* displays were both CRT and 4:3. I don't see PDFs changing, as, after all, PDFs are designed deliberately to mimic the infamous sheet of paper (typically 4:3); ditto most document editors (some of the better ones, including Word, offer a two-page side-by-side option that is ideal for widescreen displays, whether 16:9 or 16:10).

In short, the tools have trailed the technoilogy, not the other way around.
 

King of Heroes

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
2,006
That's a foolish comparison.

You could instead do

1920*1080 > 1680*1050 (Honestly who wants this shitty res on a 22 inch monitor lol)
2560*1440 > 1920*1200 (you want your 120 pixels so why do you say no to 360?)

Honestly. 16:9 is better than 16:10. You get a bigger screen and more pixels for the money.


1920x1080 vs 1680x1050 is actually a valid comparison because they fall in the same price range.

2560x1440 vs 1920x1200 is a retarded comparison because x1440 monitors are nowhere near in the same price range as x1200. x1440 monitors start at around $950, while x1200 monitors still float between $300 and $450.

I've always been of the opinion that 1920x1080 makes an excellent replacement for 1680x1050. The problem is that there is no price competitive replacement for 1920x1200.
 

Oled

Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
574
1920x1080 vs 1680x1050 is actually a valid comparison because they fall in the same price range.

2560x1440 vs 1920x1200 is a retarded comparison because x1440 monitors are nowhere near in the same price range as x1200. x1440 monitors start at around $950, while x1200 monitors still float between $300 and $450.

I've always been of the opinion that 1920x1080 makes an excellent replacement for 1680x1050. The problem is that there is no price competitive replacement for 1920x1200.

I agree. My point is that if you do that kind of comparisons most people would prefer more pixels. But without taking the price in mind it is a totally unintresting comparison.

The result so far of 16:9 is that the producers can produce 1920*1080 monitors for a really low price. 16:9 is a standard ratio also for TV:s and many other products, 16:10 is a unique ratio¨basically only used for monitors which obviously make it more expensive to produce. For this reason we also can buy monitors for a price that earlier was totally unrealistic with 16:10.

Another result is that TN 1920*1200 is on the way out simply because they can't compete. Yes, many people prefer 1920*1200 over 1920*1080 because it is more pixels but not when they have to pay close to 50 percent more for a similar size monitor with that resolution.

The over all intresting thing is that most costumers have not made the 1920*1200 to 1920*1080 switch but the 1650*1080 to 1920*1080 switch. And as you say they are in the same pricechange so people get bigger screens with more pixels because of 16:9.

Those who went from 1920*1200 to 1920*1080 at least saved much money that they could use for other things so in my opinion they are winners as well. Wait a few years and there probably will be decently priced 2560*1400 monitors so those 1920*1200 owners with a limited budget can get more pixels as well..
 
Last edited:

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
I agree. My point is that if you do that kind of comparisons most people would prefer more pixels. But without taking the price in mind it is a totally unintresting comparison.../snip

So the argument you lay out is that people want more pixels. Which 16:10 gives you. 16:9 gives you less.

There isn't many people buying TVs the size of monitors. I don't think many people go out and buy a new 22" TV, plus the process of making a 16:10 monitor is the same as a 16:9.

You save money because you're paying for less. Its like saying I got a 9 bar pack of chocolate bars for cheaper than a 10 bar pack, so saved money. If you wanted to pay for less pixels and save money, you could get a 1inch 640x480 LED monitor for 10$ from Akihabara.

16:9 sucks penus for film work, because films are 2.35:1 not 16:9. But film editing software likes height, even 16:9 film edits better in 16:10 as you have space for junk above and below it. Photographs fit better in 16:10. blah blah. Golden ratio, nicer to look at etc. /thread
 

Oled

Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
574
So the argument you lay out is that people want more pixels. Which 16:10 gives you. 16:9 gives you less.

There isn't many people buying TVs the size of monitors. I don't think many people go out and buy a new 22" TV, plus the process of making a 16:10 monitor is the same as a 16:9.

You save money because you're paying for less. Its like saying I got a 9 bar pack of chocolate bars for cheaper than a 10 bar pack, so saved money. If you wanted to pay for less pixels and save money, you could get a 1inch 640x480 LED monitor for 10$ from Akihabara.

16:9 sucks penus for film work, because films are 2.35:1 not 16:9. But film editing software likes height, even 16:9 film edits better in 16:10 as you have space for junk above and below it. Photographs fit better in 16:10. blah blah. Golden ratio, nicer to look at etc. /thread

Did you actually read my message? The intresting thing is that pixelamount / (cost for monitor) is higher for 16:10 monitors than 16:9. And as I said in my previous post it is not because 6:9 means less pixels. Usually 16:9 means more pixels than 16:10 because 1680*1050 is the most common used resolution for 16:10 screens. The reason why 16:9 monitors are cheaper pixel/cost is because of 16:9 is a standardratio used for many productfamilies while 16:10 is basically a unique ratio only used for monitors.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
521
Did you actually read my message? The intresting thing is that pixelamount / (cost for monitor) is higher for 16:10 monitors than 16:9. And as I said in my previous post it is not because 6:9 means less pixels. Usually 16:9 means more pixels than 16:10 because 1680*1050 is the most common used resolution for 16:10 screens. The reason why 16:9 monitors are cheaper pixel/cost is because of 16:9 is a standardratio used for many productfamilies while 16:10 is basically a unique ratio only used for monitors.

Why did I even bother.. :rolleyes:
 

TehQuick

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
3,738
he means it's useless to argue with people who are stupid and/or ignorant :D

On topic, I've replacement my old notebook with 16:10 screen with a new one 16:9 ratio. Even though the new one has higher resolution (1600x900 vs 1280x800), it has noticeably less screen estate since the screen size is smaller - even though both are about the same in width, the 16:9 maybe even a little wider, it's still shorter vertically. Real bad for working with text - need to scroll a bit more often than before. I love the new notebook but 16:9 ratio is really pissing me off.
 
Last edited:

W.O.T. Stang

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2003
Messages
363
My 28" Monitor that I bought in '09 i think (and still use to this day) is a 16x10 aspect ratio. Always wondered why all the new ones are 16x9.
 

Panmaster

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2013
Messages
228
16:10 is a PC monitor standard while 16:9 is an inferior HDTV standard.

Strategy games such as COH, AOE3, RA3 are awful on 16:9.
 

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
I recently switched to a 16:9 monitor and am less affected by it than I thought I'd be. But still, 16:10 is naturally better.

The aspect ratio for 16:9 is more suited to movies, but you still get black bars, so I don't see the point.
 

Namelessme

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
1,161
Monitors are 16:9 instead of 16:10 because it saves manufacturers money (less actual screen). Yet they can still list a larger number as the monitor size.

Ex:
A 21.3" 4:3 monitor has approx the same usable screen size as a 23" 16:9 does.
A 27" 16:9 has more usable screen size than a 29" 21:9 does.

So for marketing purposes, they can sell more to the ignorant customer. Nowadays all multimedia is 16:9, so they can push 'True HD', and somehow spin it so than 16:9 is providing more screen than a 16:10 does.

I've played around with setting my browser window to 16:9 (on my 16:10) and it just feels too cramped to me. Perhaps I'd get used to 16:9, especially if I went 27", but 16:10 seems to make much more sense for most PC work than 16:9 does.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
703
16:10 is a PC monitor standard while 16:9 is an inferior HDTV standard.

Strategy games such as COH, AOE3, RA3 are awful on 16:9.

Those games are even better on 4:3 since they often have a horizontal bar with buttons / info.

Around a year ago I got my first 16:9 screen (new notebook), and it wasn't too bad, but only because I upgraded from 14.1" 1440x900 16:10 to 15.6" 1920x1080 16:9 meaning the vertical space went from 7.47" to 7.63" wohoo!

The stupid thing is that the same lid would perfectly fit a 16:10 15.4" panel with 8.16" vertical space. The depth is needed anyway for a comfortable palm rest and decent 7-row keyboard. But perhaps that's behind the idiotic drive towards 6-row keyboards.

I would have gladly payed $100 more to get the same notebook with 16:10 x1200 panel.
 
Top