Why is 16:9 popular

bAMtan2 said:
both 8:6/4:3/1600x1200 and 8:5/16:10/1920x1200 are VESA standards designed by computer people for computer people.

16:9/1080p/720p are movie and tv industry standards designed for movies and tvs.

stick with the originators or stink with the imitators.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you know, a computer is not a tv. :)
 
King of Heroes said:
Not everyone gives a crap about how movies or games look on their monitor (your first point only matters to people who are easily distracted, your second point is not worth refuting). Frankly, I think 16:9 aspect ratio games and movies look just great on my 16:10 monitor, probably because I and many others don't give a crap about black bars (I'm usually too busy watching the movie or playing the game to notice them). Movies and games are not the be all, end all metrics for the worth of a monitor and/or aspect ratio. There are more than a few people who place more importance on total amount of pixels and vertical space, rather than horizontal. More pixels for the money is generally considered to be a good metric for buying a monitor. This is seriously the first time in my entire life where people have tried to legitimately argue that getting more for your money is a bad thing, that you should settle for less due to factors that not everyone cares about.

I bought my 24-inch 1920x1200, and many of this forum have similar, for just under $300. If I need to switch to a new monitor now, I'm shit out of luck unless I'm willing to around $500. There are no choices in the price range of my monitor, and having that lack of choices is what people are complaining about. Its being assumed by manufacturers that all budget conscious buyers want 16:9, and thats obviously not the case. As an anecdote, I have a 100% computer illiterate friend who was interested in buying a new monitor for around $200. We went over to Best Buy to have a look at their selection (since he's kind of apprehensive about buying a monitor online since he can't look at it first). He saw the shelves full of 16:9 monitors and his very first comment was "Why are they so narrow?", and after telling him about the 16:9 transition his opinion on the matter was "that's dumb" (of course, I then had to explain why that didn't matter for him, since his current monitor is complete garbage).

Thankfully 16:10 isn't going anywhere any time soon, even though its more expensive. New desktop monitors are still being released, and business laptops and desktops still use it in abundance (my university just upgraded 3 computer labs with new Core 2 Duo E8400-based machines, and every single one uses a 1440x900 monitor). And far as what things will look like 5 years from now, there's absolutely no way to know. For all we know 16:9 will have been supplanted by 14:9 by then.
Click to expand...

The consumer is a winner as well cause when the same aspects ratio is used for monitors and TV the costs can be cut. In the end we get more for our money, not less.

The manufacturers doesnt assume that everyone wants 16:9 but they see few reasons to make 16:10 as well. The demand for 16:10 budgetmonitors is to low just as it is for 4:3 and 5:4 monitors for budget consumers. More different ratios -> higher costs -> higher prices
 
Last edited:
kllrnohj said:
1) If you are viewing 16:10 content, then a 16:10 monitor won't have black bars but a 16:9 one will. Likewise, if you are watching 4:3 content (old TV shows, for example), then 16:10 will have smaller black bars.

So basically point 1 isn't true.

2) Only if the extra width makes it just wide enough to comfortably fit two windows side by side whereas 16:10 can't, otherwise it is no different than 16:10.

So point 2 is unlikely

3) True

4) Kind of. This is really just a subset of #1, but if you are making a screen for movie watching then 2.35:1 (the AR of most movies) is far superior to 16:9

Now for the downsides:

1) Web surfing is worse
2) Office work is worse
3) Anything with a vertical list is worse (IM friend list, steam game list, etc...)
4) Modern UI is still designed for screens with more vertical space (menu bars, tool bars, the windows task bar, window decorations, etc...)

Thus, 16:9 is *WORSE* than 16:10 for most computer usage, since web browsing and office work are the dominant use of computers.

Also, doing programming on 16:9 sucks ass. Ditto for using a command line.
Click to expand...

I disagree about the downsides.
1) I feel no difference in 16:9 or 16:10. There is plenty of space so there is no problem to be honest.
2) I disagre because it easier to have two applications side by side with 16:9.
3) I agree
4) Thats true but it will change as more and more have 16:9 monitors.
 
Nearly all 16:9 monitors are 1080p, a term which is nearly interchangable/synonymous with that format ratio. When people think of 16:10 the first thing they think of is 1920x1200, some people in this thread seem to dismiss the idea that having more (vertical) resolution is a good thing, the only explanation for this is self-deception or lack of first hand experience.
 
Oled said:
The consumer is a winner as well cause when the same aspects ratio is used for monitors and TV the costs can be cut. In the end we get more for our money, not less.

The manufacturers doesnt assume that everyone wants 16:9 but they see few reasons to make 16:10 as well. The demand for 16:10 budgetmonitors is to low just as it is for 4:3 and 5:4 monitors for budget consumers. More different ratios -> higher costs -> higher prices
Click to expand...

Check the steam hardware survey. Done this year. Last month. I picked this because first of all steam is the easiest and largest source, and covers all branches of computer user. The method of collection is based on real figures, and is presented simply (apart from 4570 and later ATI cards being in family groups and all others being singles. for some reason.)
Most Popular resolution on single monitor (Multi monitor listings are less accurate because most titles not supporting eyefinity/nvidia vision so people only using one monitor etc. lots of variables.);

1.1680 x 1050 17.90% +1.27% = 16:10
2.1280 x 1024 17.28% +0.23% = 5:3
3.1920 x 1080 11.70% +1.51% = 16:9
4.1440 x 900 11.28% -0.30% = 16:10
5.1024 x 768 9.98% -0.92% = 4:3
6. 1280 x 800 6.83% -1.85% = 16:10
7. 1920 x 1200 6.29% +0.29% = 16:10

SO the top formats used by general computer users that use steam are both 16:10 and going up. The second intrestingly is 5:3 AND going up. and futher down the third is the first16:9. Older smaller formats are all declining.
The reason for the increase as I said before, is the marketablity of buzz words like "'1080p''. Recently most people quickly became educated in that term, and thus resolutions, so people have started selling monitors as 1080p monitors. People are familiar with that term, so it makes it sell, however a awkward, weird a size it is. Look at the ipad...useless, and sells 2 million on brand identity alone. All someone has to do is sell a 16:10 as 1200p. Its betterer. But now we have "3d" monitors that is the new buzzword. So 3d monitors are whats going to sell.
 
DeathPrincess said:
Check the steam hardware survey. Done this year. Last month. I picked this because first of all steam is the easiest and largest source, and covers all branches of computer user. The method of collection is based on real figures, and is presented simply (apart from 4570 and later ATI cards being in family groups and all others being singles. for some reason.)
Most Popular resolution on single monitor (Multi monitor listings are less accurate because most titles not supporting eyefinity/nvidia vision so people only using one monitor etc. lots of variables.);

1.1680 x 1050 17.90% +1.27% = 16:10
2.1280 x 1024 17.28% +0.23% = 5:3
3.1920 x 1080 11.70% +1.51% = 16:9
4.1440 x 900 11.28% -0.30% = 16:10
5.1024 x 768 9.98% -0.92% = 4:3
6. 1280 x 800 6.83% -1.85% = 16:10
7. 1920 x 1200 6.29% +0.29% = 16:10

SO the top formats used by general computer users that use steam are both 16:10 and going up. The second intrestingly is 5:3 AND going up. and futher down the third is the first16:9. Older smaller formats are all declining.
Click to expand...
From what I can see 16:10 declining as well.

0.29 + 1.27 - 1.85 - 0.3 = - 0.59 -> (16:10 is declining)

and 16:9 is by far the most increasing format.

You should also have in mind that recently 120Hz and cheaper IPS screens have been in 16:10. Newer 120Hz screens are 16:9 and new budget-IPS screens as well. There is no reason to not believe that more and more people will go over to 16:9.

(1280 x 1024 is used for 4:3 monitors)
 
Last edited:
Thar be something screwy with that thar adding!
There are 100 people. Last time 50 Buy Big gold bars. 1 buys a small one. This time 55 bought big ones and the cheap ass could only afford a little one at 15% off. So people buying gold bars are up 5% from 50%. People buying smaller gold bars are down -15% from 1%. So people are buying less gold bars? 5%-15%=-10%. 45 people bought gold bars???
It's always easier to gain percentage from nothing, than gain it from the top. You can prove anything with statistics, but my point was that 16:10 is still growing, and I just bought 2 more so thats a 50% growth! Im now at 60% 16:10 20% 16:9 (TV) and 20% 4:3. godamnit I hate statistics! The computer shop I was just at had loads of 16:10 some were new, some were old. All the laptops apart from ASUS weirdness were 16:10. Next to each other 16:9 looks weird. By itself 16:9 dosen't look so odd.
 
Nielo TM said:
IT is and thanks for posting
Click to expand...

kache said:
Nice post. Thanks for posting it. ;)
Click to expand...

You're welcome. It was posted in response to a Cesi est un blog over on the Tech Report.

You can read the original article here.

10e said:
Mr. Bluntman thanks for posting that. Funny that I make my living on computers (in IT) and I first got into them because of the great games that attracted me to them over 25 years ago.
Click to expand...

Yeah! The games were the reason I first started getting interested in computers also. I wondered why newer games didn't look/run well so I took it upon myself to learn how to fix that. Shortly thereafter I was putting together my first PC. Little did I know it would become a full blown hobby! :D
 
I have both 24" 1920x1200 and 24" 1920x1080.

Coming from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 is a real downgrade.

Internet (more scrolling):
100cml.jpg


Wide screen games:
18975978.jpg


Other games:
75587384.jpg


Editing photos:
101ry.jpg

23093873.jpg


Editing video:
35602187.jpg


Wide screen movies:
22357817.jpg
 
Nielo TM said:
You may be able to detect moments around the edges but it the majority of information is wasted if the viewing distance is close.

I find it difficult to keep track of a 22" 16:10 monitor from the distance of 22". However, from the recommended distance of 44" (2X the diagonal size for motion picture), I can just about cover the entire screen straining me eyes.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. You can't do things like read text on the side monitors, but your peripherals are engaged and the information definitely isn't wasted. Put your hands on the side of your eyes to block off your peripherals and then tell me how much of that is wasted information :p
 
albovin said:
Coming from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 is a real downgrade.
Click to expand...
It's not necessarily a downgrade for games that perform horizontal FOV expansion as the aspect ratio widens. On a 16:9 display at native resolution, you're presented with more of the game world in those games. Assuming the actual horizontal width of the display is the same, you do lose some 'definition' moving from 16:10 to 16:9, however.
 
phide said:
It's not necessarily a downgrade for games that perform horizontal FOV expansion as the aspect ratio widens. On a 16:9 display at native resolution, you're presented with more of the game world in those games. Assuming the actual horizontal width of the display is the same, you do lose some 'definition' moving from 16:10 to 16:9, however.
Click to expand...

No.
1920x1200 displays whatever 1920x1080 is capable of with no loss.
Whatever you have on 1920x1080, you get the same on 1920x1200 with some extra space.
Again, this is horizontal FOV game:

18975978.jpg
 
When you run a hor+ game at the native resolution of a 16:10 panel, your HFOV is lower than if you were to run the same game at a 16:9 resolution, as you would on a 16:9 display. If you run the game at 16:9 on 16:10 display, you end up with the same HFOV, though you also get letterboxing — not as optimal as a bezel-to-bezel image. Given the choice between a 16:10 display and a 16:9 display of the same horizontal resolution for games, I would, more often than not, choose the 16:9 display for the widest possible bezel-to-bezel presentation.

We've had this discussion before, as you might recall. Nothing has changed since that time.
 
phide said:
When you run a hor+ game at the native resolution of a 16:10 panel, your HFOV is lower than if you were to run the same game at a 16:9 resolution, as you would on a 16:9 display. If you run the game at 16:9 on 16:10 display, you end up with the same HFOV, though you also get letterboxing — not as optimal as a bezel-to-bezel image. Given the choice between a 16:10 display and a 16:9 display of the same horizontal resolution for games, I would, more often than not, choose the 16:9 display for the widest possible bezel-to-bezel presentation.

We've had this discussion before, as you might recall. Nothing has changed since that time.
Click to expand...

So surely youd get one of these It has even more HFOV. Or eyefinity/nv that is usually done with 16:10 monitors. Which work better in portrait.

Oh and yes, it's cheaper.
 
phide said:
If you run the game at 16:9 on 16:10 display, you end up with the same HFOV, though you also get letterboxing — not as optimal as a bezel-to-bezel image. Given the choice between a 16:10 display and a 16:9 display of the same horizontal resolution for games, I would, more often than not, choose the 16:9 display for the widest possible bezel-to-bezel presentation.
Click to expand...

It's a very bad tone in technical discussion to say at first that "you lose some definition" (which is nonsense) and then turn it into just the way of "presentation".
You mix up two different things - monitors capabilities and your personal preferences.
This is misleading.
Many people are already mislead. You see lazy posters start threads on the same topic over and over, picking up an old chewing gum from the pavement and chewing it again - instead of using "search".
I post comparison photos that instantly tells everything, including quite questionable "bazel-to-bazel experience".
 
What display is that? Looks sick.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
albovin said:
It's a very bad tone in technical discussion to say at first that "you lose some definition" (which is nonsense) and then turn it into just the way of "presentation".
Click to expand...
I put the term definition in single quotes to suggest that what you're losing is not actual definition but 'definition' in loose terms. I did that quite purposefully.

Consider this: two displays, one 1920x1200 and one 1920x1080, assuming equal panel width. Let's also assume that the we're rendering an FPS on the 16:10 display at 100 degrees horizontal and the 16:9 display at 106 degrees horizontal. Native resolution on both panels (producing a bezel-to-bezel, panel-filling image, which we naturally assume is optimal). Thus, we lose a bit of horizontal FOV on the 16:10 display compared to what we'd be seeing on the 16:9 display. However, because the panels in both displays are of an identical width and the horizontal resolution is identical (1920 pixels), game objects on the 16:9 display appear slightly smaller than they would on the 16:10 display. Because we are not increasing the display's resolution, these smaller objects are not as well-defined as they are on the 16:10 display (because they're slightly smaller and thus rendered with fewer pixels). That is the 'definition' loss in this scenario, the term used loosely: game objects are rendered with slightly less clarity as they become smaller due to an increase in the horizontal field of view without a corresponding increase in the display's resolution.

albovin said:
You mix up two different things - monitors capabilities and your personal preferences.
Click to expand...
Please point out where I mixed up personal preference with display capabilities. I only pointed out that a bezel-to-bezel, panel-filling image is an optimal scenario and that a letterboxed image is not (on this you would agree, no?). Otherwise, I've treated both concepts distinctly. I'm trying to be very clear here in what I'm saying.

albovin said:
I post comparison photos that instantly tells everything, including quite questionable "bazel-to-bazel experience".
Click to expand...
What is a "bazel"? I also used the term "presentation", not "experience", presentation referring to the manner in which an image is displayed on a monitor (the way it is presented, in other words).
 
Last edited:
DeathPrincess said:
It's an $8000 NEC CRV43 it's 43 inches. and 2880x900 (3.2:1) It's not even 1080p! But its curved!! Heres an article about it.
Click to expand...
Very nice. The resolution isn't particularly impressive, but it's otherwise very cool.

I'm actually hoping that once we start seeing 4K consumer content we'll see more displays of this nature. At lower resolutions, something like this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but with a 4K horizontal resolution, I'd expect it would work out perfectly. That's my thinking, anyway.
 
phide said:
Very nice. The resolution isn't particularly impressive, but it's otherwise very cool.

I'm actually hoping that once we start seeing 4K consumer content we'll see more displays of this nature. At lower resolutions, something like this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but with a 4K horizontal resolution, I'd expect it would work out perfectly. That's my thinking, anyway.
Click to expand...

That new panasonic 145 inch display is 4k! but the standard 4k pixels not 4000p. But when UHD comes along (supposed to be by 2020) then a standard TV display will be 7,680×4,320! Which is still nothing to video cameras that are around now like the Red EPIC 617 at 28000x9334. Damnit I want one of them. But anyway, if normal consumers are going to have that size definition in 2020 then we shall have to see some push towards this kind of resolution before that (especially with video cards, I mean it's going to have to have better graphics than games now, and push more pixels than a 3 monitor setup. So a 480 is going to be lacking. even with SLI. Oh and display port too. UDP???). The best thing about UHD is the 22.2 sound! 2 subwoofers!!!
But yeah..900 pixels is a bit shitty...But you'd have black lines at the sides, unlike black lines above and below with 16:9 when you watched movies!
 
Yes i've been to mers! in 16:10 (and im talking full bazel to bazel! Up annnd down. 16:9 burrrnnn!)
 
albovin said:
And you've seen the border between two "bazels".. Awesome!
Click to expand...

There is no border between the two bezals.

jiys00.jpg
Running on one screen only. Theres no gap at the top or the bottom! I'm guessing there was in the other screenshots because the left monitor was cloning the right...but they both had letterboxing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top