It's a shame how people get away with such obvious trolling turning a potentially informative thread into a nonsensical bitchfest every time. I feel sorry those trying to actually learn something about different resolutions and aspect ratios by reading this thread or these forums for that matter.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
No good affordable flatscreen on the market?
- Thread starter SXTC
- Start date
- Status
I've been trying to put rational end to it, but it seems I just get ignored. Unfortunate.
garbagemule
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 148
Like Neb said, you called it on page 1, Walker :/ I realize I'm not adding to the informative post count in this thread, but I like messing with the occasional, irrational fanboy, mainly because I don't think they belong on these forums - I used to blindly believe everything I read on here. The fanboyism is so destructive for the site and every thread it pops up in. I suppose reporting posts for "fanboyism without rationality or source/documentation for asserted statements" is a bit over the top?
The problem with that is the extra workload it places on moderators. I'm sure they have their hands full with just the spam/harassment posts
Megalomaniac
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 2,193
I pity the un informed reading much of what he posts since it is so one sided.
The thread could be locked, but then another one would pop up probably.
I don't think it's over the top reporting, but I have had some conversations with a mod on these forums about things like this and they are usually understanding.
This requires a link to Megatokyo for when Pyro shows that "In order to become a forum admin, you must first conquer a room full of 100 crazy monkeys" Or something like that. Unfortunately I can't find it.
The thread could be locked, but then another one would pop up probably.
I don't think it's over the top reporting, but I have had some conversations with a mod on these forums about things like this and they are usually understanding.
This requires a link to Megatokyo for when Pyro shows that "In order to become a forum admin, you must first conquer a room full of 100 crazy monkeys" Or something like that. Unfortunately I can't find it.
quantum112
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 392
What can you do, people are dumb, susceptible to marketing and whatever the industry serves on a silver platter.
They also assume their preferences are everyone elses, or even worse, they assume the preferences of the majority are right, and also embrace these as their own without thinking for themselves.
That said, any and all aspect ratio debates are " ****ing Dumb ", because ultimately it comes down to what's available on the market.
16:10 fans can choose the few models available or buy a used, older model.
16:9 fans can buy 90% of monitors on the market and be happy they like the standard which happens to be (currently) pushed by the industry and widely available.
Simple.
They also assume their preferences are everyone elses, or even worse, they assume the preferences of the majority are right, and also embrace these as their own without thinking for themselves.
That said, any and all aspect ratio debates are " ****ing Dumb ", because ultimately it comes down to what's available on the market.
16:10 fans can choose the few models available or buy a used, older model.
16:9 fans can buy 90% of monitors on the market and be happy they like the standard which happens to be (currently) pushed by the industry and widely available.
Simple.
Blackbeard Ben
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 237
I don't know, personally I find this entertaining - especially when people make fools of themselves...
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,117
^ yes this is fun :>
Yeah. It has become so predictable. Whenever this topic comes up you always see the same people pushing their preferences as facts and blatantly trolling. It really brings the quality of the forum down.
True. I have zero problem with people preferring whatever they want. It's when they present their preferences as the only good choice and back it up with a bunch of misinformative BS that annoys me. I paid 1.5x price of a Dell U2311H for my HP ZR24w because I thought the extra resolution, the extra size, a true 8bit panel, better viewing angles and better uniformity were worth it for me. Now, according to some people, I'm an idiot with too much money because I get narrower FOV in some games....
I'm not going to go around and try to convince everyone 16:10 is the way to go. I do own two 16:9 screens after all so it's not like I'm talking out of my ass trying to justify my purchase either. What works for me doesn't necessarily work best for everyone and as someone said, value is a highly subjective thing. This is why extremely biased views (having a hatred for an aspect ratio, really?) are not only silly but also very unhelpful.
Clock for Clock
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 5
i did not like 1080p for general work. It was nice for watching videos, but unfortunately i don't get to do too much of that. That was my only real qualm of moving to x1200, however, that it cut into screen real estate when watching the occasional HD video. Now I have a x1440 and the best of both worlds 
What most people don't seem to get is that you can get 2x dell u2311hs for the price of 1x U2410....still want to pay a premium for the extra inch, 120 pixels and horrible image quality?
What is more productive 2 monitors or 1? This last question is rhetorical..
What is more productive 2 monitors or 1? This last question is rhetorical..
Where do you get the horrible image quality from? I ask because I use two of them at work without an issue...moderate AG, but that's about it from what I can tell.
There are other differences between the the U2311 and U2410 than size and pixel; the U2410 is a wide gamut panel for one. That's the problem with simply comparing sizes, many times there are subtle differences that add up. It also brings back the subjectivity of value.
With retail prices, a U2711 costs the same as 4x U2311H's, yet "only" adds 4 inches. Does that mean that someone who bought a U2711 is a fool? No, it just means they have different priorities/budgets/values.
Taken even further, why would someone spend $1500 (retail) on a U3011 when they can get an eyefinity six monitor setup using U2311H's? You see, it all depends on each person's priorities.
Let me ask you this, why did you start your post out with "What most people don't seem to get..."? Did you start off with the assumption that just because they chose differently than what you would have, that they were missing the point?
Blackbeard Ben
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 237
What that's doing is moving the argument from which piece of hardware is "better" to which is more popular... Economies of scale and the smaller panel size for a given diagonal means that 16:9 panels have become far, far less expensive to produce than if they were produced in equal quantities as 16:10.
If there was only an 11% premium to get a 1920x1200 monitor instead of a 1920x1080 monitor, as the extra pixel count would suggest, I'd pay the extra in a heartbeat. I already paid $250 to upgrade to a wide-gamut 1920x1080 display on my laptop, and I would have paid more if it was 1920x1200 and/or an IPS display (but I didn't want to move to 17").
But that's not the case, and we're left with arguing about current products and their suitability instead of what would really be ideal if the hardware and software manufacturers were working towards such a solution. The problem is that no one is making that distinction.
That's a very good point.
I have a few year old CRT (box size) 20" RCA TV recently... it has a FLAT SCREEN but its a box style CRT TV. It does have both analog + a digital tuner. All I can say is most of the digital stations look insanely crisp... better than almost all LCDs without a damn doubt in my mind.
If you can find an older Sony Trinitron CRT with a digital tuner or at least HDMI, you are GOLDEN for YEARS as they are built to last much longer it seems than these new TVs. The picture is just insanely nice, and the colors are so much more vivid to me on the older digital, box-sized TV sets.
If you can find an older Sony Trinitron CRT with a digital tuner or at least HDMI, you are GOLDEN for YEARS as they are built to last much longer it seems than these new TVs. The picture is just insanely nice, and the colors are so much more vivid to me on the older digital, box-sized TV sets.
1920x1200 is fine for gaming, the only FOV loss comes from movies and CRAPPY designed games. There is no reason more vertical resolution can't be implemented in games. Starcraft may be a special case of trying to normalize the amount of stuff visible on screen across different monitor resolutions and sizes for "fairness"
But most new games should be fine showing more vertical resolution, your statements are incredibly misleading.
16:10 gives more screen area, period. Even if you lose field of view on movies and a tiny fraction of the games out there made today, it's still nicer to have more vertical res.
Personally, I wish they would have given more intermediate resolutions like 2133x1200, then they would not have moved the entire industry BACKWARDS on vertical resolution, but instead you either take less vertical space, pay more for 1920x1200 for marginal if any improvements, or spend LARGE chunks of money on much larger screens. There is no middle ground, it sucks, it's pathetic, but that is the market we have been given.
Last edited:
That is like saying that an American buffalo is fine in the centre of Houston. Cause they would if it wouldnt be for that humans have taken over the buffalos original habitat.
Deal with reality man. Games are designed the way they are. And they are designed for 16:9.
There is some built up nerd rage unloading in this thread, lol. Obviously there is a huge demand for 16:10 or the professional 24" screens wouldn't cost so much compared to the 23" 1080's. Anyone who works with photography, does web design, or codes are quite happy to pay double for the extra inch and vertical space.
Now for the kiddies who are playing WoW and watching Vin Diesel movies on their monitor (90% of this thread so it seems), I don't argue against your choice of a 23"
Now for the kiddies who are playing WoW and watching Vin Diesel movies on their monitor (90% of this thread so it seems), I don't argue against your choice of a 23"
I agree. The way I see it, 20" and 22" monitors used to be 1680x1050. The 24", 25.5", 26" and 27" were 1920x1200. Then 1920x1080 came over from TV market and started replacing those resolutions at all sizes except in premium models. That's good for smaller monitors because 1920x1080 is obviously better than 1680x1050 and is still an upgrade but it kind of sucks for people used to larger screens and a decent amount of vertical space. What choice does someone coming from an older 1920x1200 monitor have? If he doesn't want to lose the valuable vertical space, he either has to go with a premium model or go with a much larger resolution of 2560x1440 that is also x times more expensive and hardly ideal pixel pitch wise. 16:9 or not, more intermediate resolutions would be good. It's ridiculous that monitors from 21.5" to 27" all share the same resolution.
garbagemule
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 148
Fixed it for you
Edit: To clarify - a properly designed game will adjust the field of view according to the aspect ratio. I don't have any games installed at the moment, but try both 16:9 and 4:3 in several games (and try to be scientific rather than a fanboy about it), and you'll see what I mean. Don't you ever get tired of getting so riled up when people disagree with you?
Edit2: Also, this is just games. So basically game developers developing specifically for 16:9 "got it right", while application developers who don't develop specifically for 16:9 are "doing it wrong"? This brings me to a very important point: Just because an application works better in 16:10 than in 16:9, it doesn't mean the developers are moronic. It means (and this is very important, Oled, pay attention!) that 16:10 is simply better for the specific task/application. That's not to say 16:9 is bad, it's just not as good. And if developers then resolve to workarounds to make things a little better for 16:9, that's not a decision based on which aspect ratio is "better", it's based on which aspect ratio is more popular. Why is 16:9 more popular? Not because it's better - because it's cheaper to make. It really is that simple. I think Walker mentioned in an earlier post that the industry has made terrible decisions before - 16:9 is not necessarily one of them, but it's far from the smartest decision they've made.
Last edited:
U2410 is a premium priced IPS panel, yet has the worst contrast, poor QC and aggressive AG. Easily the worst IPS panel on the market next to that e-ips ViewSonic.
Not comparing the 1080 screens vs 1440p. As far is 23-24" 1080 vs 24 1200p, getting 2x 1080's is the best value and most effective in terms of productivity.
The HP ZR24W price makes it more appealing for a 1200p screen, but arguing that 1200p is better for office efficiency is wrong when you can get 2 screens for only a bit more or the same price, unless you can't fit 2
the 6 bit vs 8 bit IPS argument is irrelavent for office work, and as far as I am concerened if one is serious about photo work they will be staying far away from the Dell/HP offerings (including the 27-30").
Is 1200p better for gaming in terms of TN panels for new buyers? No. There is not a single 1200p TN with better performance over the 16:9 TN's.
Is having the extra 120 pixels nice? Yes, but as for TN's go there is no way I am sacrifcing contrast, response time and input lag for the extra pixels.
Last edited:
Blackbeard Ben
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 237
The problem is that your argument has turned into this:
"The slight savings of making 16:9 monitors over 16:10 (in combination with "Full HD" marketing tactics) means that all manufacturers switched to making them, so now the economies of scale means that 16:9 monitors are, instead of slightly cheaper, much cheaper - thus better."
That has nothing to do with the actual merits of 16:10 monitors themselves, and everything to do with the prevailing climate of manufacturers.
Same goes for the "gaming is better on 16:9" argument - with respect to software companies, in the case of Hor+ scaling in games instead of the proper fixed (or user-variable) diagonal aspect ratio method. Just because companies are too lazy to do that right doesn't mean that all a specific aspect ratio is better by its own merits.
By that same argument, a 1920x800 (2.39:1 cinema aspect ratio) monitor should be far superior to 1920x1080 since it would give a wider horizontal angle of view with Hor+ scaling... Oh, and for 2.39+ you could run it in a "center and crop" mode and do without letterboxing in movies at that aspect ratio... So it must be better then, Oled, right?
How about a 1920x1 monitor?
Fixed it for you
Edit: To clarify - a properly designed game will adjust the field of view according to the aspect ratio. I don't have any games installed at the moment, but try both 16:9 and 4:3 in several games (and try to be scientific rather than a fanboy about it), and you'll see what I mean. Don't you ever get tired of getting so riled up when people disagree with you?
Edit2: Also, this is just games. So basically game developers developing specifically for 16:9 "got it right", while application developers who don't develop specifically for 16:9 are "doing it wrong"? This brings me to a very important point: Just because an application works better in 16:10 than in 16:9, it doesn't mean the developers are moronic. It means (and this is very important, Oled, pay attention!) that 16:10 is simply better for the specific task/application. That's not to say 16:9 is bad, it's just not as good. And if developers then resolve to workarounds to make things a little better for 16:9, that's not a decision based on which aspect ratio is "better", it's based on which aspect ratio is more popular. Why is 16:9 more popular? Not because it's better - because it's cheaper to make. It really is that simple. I think Walker mentioned in an earlier post that the industry has made terrible decisions before - 16:9 is not necessarily one of them, but it's far from the smartest decision they've made.
In his world, the only "properly" designed game is permanently stuck at a focused 16x9 field of view.
I am not even against 16x9, I just wish there were more gradations in the vertical resolution jump from 1080p to 1440p. The ratio is not the problem perse, it's that the options for more vertical space is to basically spend a 1000 dollars or go for an infinitesimal increase in a 1920x1200 res monitor.
We are probably going to just have to wait until 4k starts appearing on tvs before panel makers bother upping the resolution on monitors on a wider scale, and how long is that going to take? another + years? just wait till around 2016? May as well drop the grand and get the 1440p screen for a wait that long.
Last edited:
@garbagemule
You still dont get it. You call games properly designed when you are able set the Field.-Of-View your self. The intresting thing is HOW the games are design not how you want them to be designed.
And basically all games are hor+ (narrower field of view to 16:10 monitors) or 16:9 Anamorphic (black bars on 16:10 monitors).
And the amount of 16:9 anamorphic games are increasing which means that even if 16:10 users who want to remove the black bars for smaller Field pof view will not be able to do that. The biggest PC-title this year (witcher 2) is designed like this.
black bars when youdont have to.... No reason to go that way.
You still dont get it. You call games properly designed when you are able set the Field.-Of-View your self. The intresting thing is HOW the games are design not how you want them to be designed.
And basically all games are hor+ (narrower field of view to 16:10 monitors) or 16:9 Anamorphic (black bars on 16:10 monitors).
And the amount of 16:9 anamorphic games are increasing which means that even if 16:10 users who want to remove the black bars for smaller Field pof view will not be able to do that. The biggest PC-title this year (witcher 2) is designed like this.
black bars when youdont have to.... No reason to go that way.
Last edited:
I would have to agree with your explenation, the bigger the better at 16:10 since black bars of that size aren't big enough to annoy me & I would see more while googling (hate scrolling), still having only 120p more is not a reason to pay double...
1/4th more expensive, that I could agree with but not half, not worth it !
Blackbeard Ben
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 237
garbagemule
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 148
I gotta say I'm jumping on the entertainment band wagon. At this point, it's just a matter of saying something random to him and eagerly waiting to see what twaddle comes out. It's amazing!
No, you still don't get it. You're saying "basically all games", and you have so far provided data on two games, StarCraft II and Witcher 2. Your problem is your zealotry, which renders you blind to any rational, logical explanation to why things are the way they are, and just one or two examples that go your way is good enough for you; forget any examples that show the opposite. My favourite game is Team Fortress 2, so I should just go ahead and say that if that game proves my point, then I'm right and you're wrong? No. However, I'm not the one making the claim, you are, so back it up with something other than "16:9 is better, 16:10 is just really bad".
I'll take you seriously when you show me examples from both worlds; and not just with gaming. I'm not saying 16:9 is awful, or that 16:10 is perfect. I'm saying that pretty much everything I've seen so far convincingly dictates an advantage on 16:10 monitors, because they can do whatever 16:9 monitors can do and more. Especially when you take into account the actual resolutions. 1920x1200 monitors will run 1920x1080 just fine but with black bars. Your phobia for black bars is not only ridiculous and over-exaggerated, it's unbelievable and irrational.
Let's take a trip over to your favourite non-GIF link: http://tvcalculator.com/. I would compare a 24" 16:10 and a 23" 16:9, because there's a trend of 23" 16:9 monitors on the market today, but I figure you'll call me a bully and show me a StarCraft II GIF if I don't use the same diagonal, so let's observe two 24" monitors, one 16:10 and the other 16:9:
On the 4:3 image, there is absolutely no doubt that the 16:9 produces the biggest black bars the world has ever seen, and will thus make you wet your pants, so I recommend not even looking at that.
Moving on to the 16:9 image, we see those god awful black bars on the 16:10 monitor. Notice the image dimensions; specifically the height. A difference of 0.33 inches. That's less than a centimeter, and if I dare bring up 23" 16:9 monitors, the 16:9 image is literally smaller on the 23" 16:9 monitor than on the 24" 16:10 monitor.
BUT, before you tell the grownups that I'm teasing you, let's go back to 24" 16:9. Observe the 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 images. At this point in time, you're out of luck, because the difference decreases to 0.32 inches (8 millimeters) and 0.25 inches (just over 6 millimeters) respectively.
To conclude, a 16:10 monitor of same diagonal and general resolution as a 16:9 monitor will be able to produce images 16:9 and wider at very close to the same size as a 16:9 monitor, and THAT is what matters. Forget the black bars. You've convinced yourself that black bars means the image is a lot smaller than it should be, but this little roundup clearly proves that the difference in image size is negligible. So why cuss out 16:10 monitors so much, when they're perfectly capable of doing whatever similar 16:9 monitors do and more? Forget prices. What if I don't play any games or watch any movies at all, and spend all day writing code and reading API documentation? Would you still say 1920x1080 is the better choice?
Last edited:
You still dont get it.
Basically all games are hor+ or 16:9 anamorphic yes (most hor+). I dont have time to list all games cause it would take ages. It is widely known that basically all games are hor+ or 16:9 anamorphic. Thats why people are aware of that 16:10 give you smaller field of view or black bars. Just ask anyone on this forum. That you dont know what you are talking about in this issue is not my problem. Educate yourself and just get over it.
Basically all games are hor+ or 16:9 anamorphic yes (most hor+). I dont have time to list all games cause it would take ages. It is widely known that basically all games are hor+ or 16:9 anamorphic. Thats why people are aware of that 16:10 give you smaller field of view or black bars. Just ask anyone on this forum. That you dont know what you are talking about in this issue is not my problem. Educate yourself and just get over it.
garbagemule
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 148
We've already established many pages ago that you're biased and full of crap. I provided you with a perfectly valid example of how the aspect ratio is irrelevant when it comes to games given the relevant monitor sizes and resolutions. Why can't you show me (and everyone else) the same respect? And why won't you answer my last question? Is it because you can't back up answering "yes"?
You still don't get it. This is [H]ard|Forum. Source or gtfo Besides, I didn't ask you to list all games. I asked you to list more games than StarCraft II. I like Minesweeper. Is 16:9 better than 16:10 for Minesweeper?
And what do you mean you "don't have time"? You've got plenty of time to sit here and repeat yourself over and over again. Bring something new to the table.
You still don't get it. This is [H]ard|Forum. Source or gtfo
Besides, I didn't ask you to list all games. I asked you to list more games than StarCraft II. I like Minesweeper. Is 16:9 better than 16:10 for Minesweeper?And what do you mean you "don't have time"? You've got plenty of time to sit here and repeat yourself over and over again. Bring something new to the table.
This link explains it all so please try to read and learn.
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=32&sid=d9e72bc6c115c5c0bd172144f0265c90
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=32&sid=d9e72bc6c115c5c0bd172144f0265c90
garbagemule
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 148
Ah, there we go. Finally something worthwhile! Thank you!
With that out of the way, we can move on to the more interesting questions, which are: Why do you hate 16:10 so much, when 16:10 does what 16:9 does and more? And why do you hate black bars, when the image size is what matters?
Edit: I'd like to point out that I am genuinely happy to see a link from you that backs up one of your points. This is what it's all about. I'm just unhappy that it took you over 7 pages to provide such a link. On the same note, I'd like to say that the only thing you've actually established is that games "fill the screen" on 16:9 monitors, and thus one is free of black bars. But assuming the black bars don't matter, with the current monitors and their resolutions, 16:10 still offers more vertical space. Like tybert7 said, the problem is not the aspect ratio but how the resolution pairs work. 16:10 offers more vertical space in all of the pairs (1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080, 1280x800 vs. 1280x720, or even 2560x1600 vs 2560x1440), but if it was, say 2133x1200 instead of 1920x1080, or 1728x1080 instead of 1920x1200, there's no doubt that 16:9 > 16:10 in that regard. The beef people have with the current situation is that with 16:9 monitors, you LOSE pixels instead of GAINING pixels. Does that make sense or would you like me to elaborate?
With that out of the way, we can move on to the more interesting questions, which are: Why do you hate 16:10 so much, when 16:10 does what 16:9 does and more? And why do you hate black bars, when the image size is what matters?
Edit: I'd like to point out that I am genuinely happy to see a link from you that backs up one of your points. This is what it's all about. I'm just unhappy that it took you over 7 pages to provide such a link. On the same note, I'd like to say that the only thing you've actually established is that games "fill the screen" on 16:9 monitors, and thus one is free of black bars. But assuming the black bars don't matter, with the current monitors and their resolutions, 16:10 still offers more vertical space. Like tybert7 said, the problem is not the aspect ratio but how the resolution pairs work. 16:10 offers more vertical space in all of the pairs (1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080, 1280x800 vs. 1280x720, or even 2560x1600 vs 2560x1440), but if it was, say 2133x1200 instead of 1920x1080, or 1728x1080 instead of 1920x1200, there's no doubt that 16:9 > 16:10 in that regard. The beef people have with the current situation is that with 16:9 monitors, you LOSE pixels instead of GAINING pixels. Does that make sense or would you like me to elaborate?
Last edited:
You dont really lose cause you have to pay for the pixels. 16:9 just have a different system. If you think 1920*1080 is to few pixels then you can go 2560*1440. If you think 1920*1080 is to many pixels then go 1600*900.
Black bars do matter because
1) The extra pixels for 1200 are really expensive.
2) Most people prefer a monitor that rarely will show black bars. This is one of the reasons why 16:9 is so easy to market.
hate and hate!? I really dislike that many 1920*1200 users give false information on how that resolution works compared to 1920*1080 in games which may lead to that someone make a poor investment. That probably is the mainreason.
Last edited:
garbagemule
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 148
Given that 1920x1200 is older than 1920x1080, changing standards means you're losing pixels. That's just how it is, it's irrefutable, and it's downright idiotic. Price is not relevant to the point in case. If they had instead gone with 2133x1200, I don't think anyone would have any problems completely ditching 16:10, but 16:10 and 1920x1200 came first, and with the change in standards, we're losing pixels. Like I said, the resolutions come in pairs, and they are e.g. 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080, not 2560x1440 vs. 1920x1200. Instead of saying "let's make a 16:9 format based on 1920x1200 that's bigger", the industry decided to make an inferior version, and that's why 16:10 still exists.
The point I'm trying to make is that 16:9 is a step down - not a step up - from 16:10, because of the way these resolution pairs work. It's inferior. The difference between you and me is that you don't mind the loss of pixels because it means smaller black bars on widescreen content, but I mind because it means loss of screen real estate, and thus a decrease in productivity. You can't "upgrade" to a 1920x1080 monitor from a 1920x1200 monitor, if you consider only the resolution. It doesn't make any sense.
Your second point is again an assumption based on nothing. I haven't seen a single ad for a TV or monitor saying "No black bars!" or "Smaller black bars than with a similar 16:10 format monitor!", so I'd love to see a link or two proving that that's the one of the reasons 16:9 is easier to market than 16:10.
What is this false information you speak of? Do you deny that a 16:10 can do what a 16:9 can do and more? If that "and more" is relevant and useful for a person, is it still a poor investment? Your whole argument revolves around games. Can you mention any photo editors, office suites, programming IDEs or database management applications that work better in 16:9 than in 16:10? I think you'll find that quite a great deal (if not the majority) of all computers (with monitors, obviously) today are used for office work, perhaps with gaming on the side.
I think your problem is your inability to grasp the idea that not everyone uses their computer primarily for games and movies. Drop the "16:9 is just better" attitude - that's what makes you sound like an untrustworthy, frivolous fanboy. There are other factors than price tags and black bars in gaming for a lot of people.
The point I'm trying to make is that 16:9 is a step down - not a step up - from 16:10, because of the way these resolution pairs work. It's inferior. The difference between you and me is that you don't mind the loss of pixels because it means smaller black bars on widescreen content, but I mind because it means loss of screen real estate, and thus a decrease in productivity. You can't "upgrade" to a 1920x1080 monitor from a 1920x1200 monitor, if you consider only the resolution. It doesn't make any sense.
Your second point is again an assumption based on nothing. I haven't seen a single ad for a TV or monitor saying "No black bars!" or "Smaller black bars than with a similar 16:10 format monitor!", so I'd love to see a link or two proving that that's the one of the reasons 16:9 is easier to market than 16:10.
What is this false information you speak of? Do you deny that a 16:10 can do what a 16:9 can do and more? If that "and more" is relevant and useful for a person, is it still a poor investment? Your whole argument revolves around games. Can you mention any photo editors, office suites, programming IDEs or database management applications that work better in 16:9 than in 16:10? I think you'll find that quite a great deal (if not the majority) of all computers (with monitors, obviously) today are used for office work, perhaps with gaming on the side.
I think your problem is your inability to grasp the idea that not everyone uses their computer primarily for games and movies. Drop the "16:9 is just better" attitude - that's what makes you sound like an untrustworthy, frivolous fanboy. There are other factors than price tags and black bars in gaming for a lot of people.
Blackbeard Ben
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 237
I love circular logic.
Well, what if 2560x1440 is too little? Actually, 3840x2160 is too small as well.
Rarely show black bars? How many movies are there in 16:9? Actually, as it turns out there's quite a few of them - but here's the kicker: They're cropped! That's right, the sides are cut off. Your precious horizontal space is cropped away from the original 2.39:1 or 1.85:1 aspect ratio!
For the rest of them - the vast, vast majority of movies on Blu-Ray and DVD - you get black bars anyway.
Again, again, again: The problem with gaming is with lazy Hor+ scaling by programmers, not with 16:10 screens. If you can handle black bars when watching movies - and I'm assuming you can, because you've haven't proposed buying a 1.85:1 monitor for those movies, and a 2.39:1 monitor for those... you can handle black bars when playing games if you want the maximum possible horizontal field of view in poorly programmed Hor+ games. If you can't handle black bars, you can zoom and crop, just like what happens with Blu-Rays that have no letterboxing. You get the same loss of field of view with full-screen Blu-Rays as you do from Hor+ games in 16:10.
I don't even want to get started on the poor meshing of available monitor resolutions and typical website height and width...
I love the fact that this topic has gotten so popular
Anyhow nuff bout the 1920x1080 Vs 1920x1200 res debate since as mentioned above, 1920x1080 (16:9) performs well and 1920x1200 (16:10) performs ok but lacks and is not worth it's money compared to the 16:9 config.
Eitherways what do you guys think about the new LG monitor? LG E2770V-BF
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005237
Anyhow nuff bout the 1920x1080 Vs 1920x1200 res debate since as mentioned above, 1920x1080 (16:9) performs well and 1920x1200 (16:10) performs ok but lacks and is not worth it's money compared to the 16:9 config.
Eitherways what do you guys think about the new LG monitor? LG E2770V-BF
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005237
garbagemule
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 148
What does 1920x1200 lack? It has more pixels and does whatever 1920x1080 does Value is again a subjective matter. It's not worth it for you, is what you meant to say
Value is again a subjective matter. It's not worth it for you, is what you meant to say - Status