Will 16:10 become Obsolete?

Ocean said:
but for computer content it doesnt matter. 20 inches is 20 inches regardless of pixels.
Click to expand...

Wrong, by almost nine square inches.

A 20.1" 1600x900 (16:9) display has a screen area of 444.97 mm x 250.29 mm = 111371.54 sq mm.
A 20.1" 1680x1050 (16:10) display has a screen area of 432.93 mm x 270.58 mm = 117142.2 sq mm.

117142.2 - 111371.54 = 5770.66 sq mm = 8.94454 square inches.

Pixel Size Calculator
sq mm to sq inches calculator
 
brumwald said:
You're assuming 16:9 and 16:10 have the same dot pitch and diagonal length. Which you can't.
Click to expand...

But they DO usually have the same pixel pitch. All of the 23" 16:9 displays flooding the market this year are the same pixel pitch as the 24" 16:10s we had last year. They're all cut from the same families of panels - 16:9 just looses 120 rows.

IMO loosing pixels is never a benefit for computing.
 
obobski said:
not a DCC pro, sorry, but from software engineering I can tell you, doesn't matter, called abstraction for a reason, generally don't need to worry about WHAT the end-user's resolution is

I do understand your frustration, and I'm not saying change is "easy", but at the same time, roll with it or get out basically, thats progress, always has been,
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "software engineering"? The act of writing code? Who cares about the aspect ratio there, although I assuming that more real estate is better for programmers.

If you're talking about the design decisions made when writing software - sure, the guys writing firefox could care less, but I bet just about every coder at Adobe (or at least their managers) have more developed feelings on the matter.

I guess when the new NEC PA series comes out with pro-grade features in both 16:9 and 16:10 ARs we'll see what happens. Unless 16:9 is priced at something crazy like 50% of what the equivalent 16:10 model is, I'm hoping we'll see 16:10 prevail in the pro segment.
 
I am saddened by the lack of 16:10 around. I guess people see "1080" and that's the trigger for them, which is unfortunate.

I'm hoping some of the manufacturers stick to the 16:10 ratio, but I fear they will become less and less.
 
Surly73 said:
But they DO usually have the same pixel pitch. All of the 23" 16:9 displays flooding the market this year are the same pixel pitch as the 24" 16:10s we had last year. They're all cut from the same families of panels - 16:9 just looses 120 rows.

IMO loosing pixels is never a benefit for computing.
Click to expand...

No they don't. Theres 276 more pixels per square inch in a 16:9 23" monitor than a 16:10 24" monitor.

I agree, loosing pixels - especially on the height (compared to 16:10) is bad for *computing*.
 
brumwald said:
No they don't. Theres 276 more pixels per square inch in a 16:9 23" monitor than a 16:10 24" monitor.
Click to expand...

Are you asserting this based on a ppi/dot pitch specification from a panel manufacturer or a tape measure and trig?

I agree, loosing pixels - especially on the height (compared to 16:10) is bad for *computing*.
Click to expand...

...and computing is all that 16:10 was ever used for, therefore the only topic of the discussion of whether 16:10 will "die".
 
evilsofa said:
16:9 23" 1920x1080 = 95.778 ppi = 9173.4253 pixels per square inch
16:10 24" 1920x1200 = 94.339 ppi = 8899.8469 pixels per square inch
9173.4253 - 8899.8469 = 273.5784

brumwald is only a tiny bit off.

http://lcdtech.no-ip.info/en/data/pixel.size.htm
Click to expand...

This is all based on calculation, which doesn't prove anything in my eyes.

Just because the box says 23" doesn't mean it isn't 22.9" or 23.1". C'mon...


The trick will be finding a 23" 16:9 and 24" 16:10 product sample from the same family (like the upcoming NEC PA series) otherwise it isn't apples-to-apples. Finding different numbers comparing an LG to a Samsung panel, or a TN to an IPS just means that they are designed with different pitch.

PPI spec on the NEC 2490WUXi2 is 94 with a pixel pitch of 0.27mm. Samsung doesn't list any pitch or PPI information. Neither does LG. Dell lists pixel pitch, but the TFT types are all over the map from unknown vendors between models so apples-to-apples is hard.
 
Surly73 said:
...and computing is all that 16:10 was ever used for, therefore the only topic of the discussion of whether 16:10 will "die".
Click to expand...

As far as I know the only reason that 16:10 was used is because the first Widescreen monitors were used to edit widescreen content and it gave room for an editor to have the 16:9 image up and still have room for a toolbar.

16:9 is very very good for computing. By having TV's and Computers use the same size panel a lot of costs can be saved since manufactures don't need to create a special computer cut and TV cut. From what I've heard when cutting down panels 16x9 usually has less waste than 16:10 also. 120 pixels lost is a pretty minor number and the industry will soon need a new reason to get people to buy screens so 2K or 4K wide screens will be released for PC and TV's. If your arguing that 16:10 is somehow a better aspect ratio I guess thats up to opinion but if squarer is better why switch from 4:3 at all?
 
rsgunter said:
I am saddened by the lack of 16:10 around. I guess people see "1080" and that's the trigger for them, which is unfortunate.

I'm hoping some of the manufacturers stick to the 16:10 ratio, but I fear they will become less and less.
Click to expand...

Amen brother. If you want to buy a 1920x1200 you have to go with a larger monitor. And even those are becoming more difficult to find these days.

Some accountant & marketing executives are making the calls and kicking the customers right in the gonads in the process.
 
Surly73 said:
This is all based on calculation, which doesn't prove anything in my eyes.

Just because the box says 23" doesn't mean it isn't 22.9" or 23.1". C'mon...
Click to expand...

And you think anyone in PR would market a 23.2" screen as a 23" screen?
(remember the 25.5" displays marketed as 26" displays? Or 20.1" displays that were marketed as 20.1" displays?)

Ok I could be wrong, but your claim that they all had the exact same dot pitch begs for just as much proof as the claim that they all are ~exactly 23".

This should be easy enough to check - anyone with a ruler and a 23" / 24" display?

rally9x said:
As far as I know the only reason that 16:10 was used is because the first Widescreen monitors were used to edit widescreen content and it gave room for an editor to have the 16:9 image up and still have room for a toolbar.

16:9 is very very good for computing. By having TV's and Computers use the same size panel a lot of costs can be saved since manufactures don't need to create a special computer cut and TV cut. From what I've heard when cutting down panels 16x9 usually has less waste than 16:10 also. 120 pixels lost is a pretty minor number and the industry will soon need a new reason to get people to buy screens so 2K or 4K wide screens will be released for PC and TV's. If your arguing that 16:10 is somehow a better aspect ratio I guess thats up to opinion but if squarer is better why switch from 4:3 at all?
Click to expand...

And again. Could someone please explain why it would be cheaper to make a 20" monitor 16:9 just because 46" TVs are 16:9, please? I see the argument everywhere but noone even hints at why this would be the case.

The same goes for the "edit 16:9 material" argument. What software do you have in mind that doesn't even have a pixel alongside the viewing area? Theres not any room even a border to the editing-apps window. What software is everyone talking about? It must be quite popular since the whole market had to be adjusted just because of that feature, right?

And if it is *allowed* to use a smaller editing window so that you have room for your window and given that all editors I've ever seen have had way more controls than 120px vertically so that argument just goes out of the window completely.

The only sensible explanation I can come up with is that 16:9 was scrapped for 16:10 just because 16:9 is too wide and sacrifices the height too much. (this of course still applies to editing 16:9 content but it doesn't have anything to do with the aspect ratio of the source content)

4:3 is quite good, yes. And 16:10 is arguably too wide! Perhaps 16:11 would be better - point is 16:10 is, for many purposes, borderline to be too wide already. At some point it gets ridiculous. Just until recently there haven't been any 16:9 display with more than 1080 pixels on the height - thats barely more than the decade-old 17" monitors and less than my CRT from 1998.

16:10 by comparison just widened the monitor whereas 16:9 also cuts the height. Having a wider monitor isn't bad (in the same way) if you don't loose any height, few would probably argue that. And as it seems the largest 4:3 monitor there is (to my knowledge) is 22" CRTs which are basically the same size as 20" LCDs which consequently is the largest 4:3 LCD monitor available (well, 21"). So there really aren't any options anyway. You can't go larger with 4:3 so thats out of question from the start.
And for a very long time there weren't really any alternative that had greater height than a 21" 4:3 LCD or a 24" 16:10 LCD (both of which are in the same ballpark) until the 30" arrived, the sole exception. That was until 4:3 was basically dead and the gap between 24" and 30" began to be exploited.

With 16:9 you really start to compromise the usefulness - which really never has been the case with 16:10. The fact that the market is so in to widescreens (again, just because TVs were turning WS? Do we start to se a pattern here? :)) 4:3 lost all it's appeal - for no good reason and now we barely have any decent 4:3 monitors left - which really is a shame.
 
Last edited:
DSLR manufacturers have been theorizing forever about which is better, 3:2 (Nikon) or 4:3 (Olympus). Canon is similar to Nikon but more like 16:10. Point is, none of them goes in the direction of 16:9. So the whole trend basically says to photo editing types like me, you don't count. Well, fine. I'm buying my second backup for three working 16:10 displays, and then I'm going to ignore the prattle about new 16:9 displays. (Thank you, NEC, for including 16:10 in your new lineup, but the 2470 refurb is a killer deal.)
 
I have always felt 16:10 was superior because, of all the available aspect ratios, it is closest to the Golden Ratio:

Golden Ratio = 1.6180339887

16:10 = 1.6
16:9 = 1.78
4:3 = 1.33
5:4 = 1.25

As many architects and artists will tell you, the Golden Ratio is considered to be one of the pinnacles of aesthetics. This is quite likely when, why I compare 16:10 and 16:9 displays, the 16:10 feels 'just right' and the 16:9 just feels too narrow. Unfortunately, 'good aesthetics' doesn't translate into 'good returns' as far as the book keepers are concerned. Reusing the same production lines for monitors and televisions just makes more financial sense, as much as it sucks for the rest of us.
 
Surly73 said:
This is all based on calculation, which doesn't prove anything in my eyes.

Just because the box says 23" doesn't mean it isn't 22.9" or 23.1". C'mon...
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Post an example of an LCD monitor that isn't the diagonal size it's advertised to be.
 
brumwald said:
And again. Could someone please explain why it would be cheaper to make a 20" monitor 16:9 just because 46" TVs are 16:9, please? I see the argument everywhere but noone even hints at why this would be the case.
Click to expand...

This is pretty simple. Because you can cut 4 23" panels out of one 46" one.

brumwald said:
The same goes for the "edit 16:9 material" argument. What software do you have in mind that doesn't even have a pixel alongside the viewing area?

The only sensible explanation I can come up with is that 16:9 was scrapped for 16:10 just because 16:9 is too wide and sacrifices the height too much.
Click to expand...

Its not really an argument, its history. Who besides high-end video and photo editors would have been able to afford the $2499-3000 dollar price of the Sony FW-900? 16:9 was never scrapped for 16:10. 16:10 Monitors came first.

I would say the fact that many movies, like the Lord of the Rings trilogy are much wider than 16:9 would be an argument that 16:9 is not too wide.

King of Heroes said:
I have always felt 16:10 was superior because, of all the available aspect ratios, it is closest to the Golden Ratio:
Click to expand...

Now we are just getting silly. As an artist and photographer I can appreciate the usefulness of the Golden Ratio but its not magic.
 
So I don't get it. How are PC users not getting the shaft by reducing the resolution from 1920x1200 to 1920x 1080. Isn't the viewable screen smaller by some 120 pixels? Looking at my 1200 BenQ next to my 1080 Acer in dual mode the visual difference (lack of 120 rows of pixels) is pretty obvious, at least to me. Call me picky and ignorant to all your ratios and math.

It is a industry trend. What it seems to me is that a lot of people are using LCD monitors today to play console games or to watch Bluray movies. A lot more than a couple of years ago.

If you look at the 08 & 09 recession companies have done various things to reduce cost. If they can serve two markets (Bluray & Console crowd + PC crowd) with the same product and cut costs why not. Releasing only a 16:9 monitor is cheaper than having both a 16:9 and 16:10. Also, from reading these forums it seems that producing a 16:10 screen that can display 1080p correctly is not as easy as just making a screen with the default 16:9 configuration. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. Seems that there would be more hardware & engineering involved in the monitor.

Also, I will still claim that PC gaming is not dead until consoles get a dedicated keyboard and mouse. Playing something like EVE O or any other MMORPG is extremely difficult without a keyboard.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Even as a user of 16:10, I'd love to see it die if it meant greater standardization in aspect ratio support. I'm really tired of stuff like the 16:9 -> 16:10 stretches that so often happen for people in situations like Blu-ray/PS3 -> computer monitor.
 
rally9x said:
This is pretty simple. Because you can cut 4 23" panels out of one 46" one.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight, so they take one huge 16:9 panel and then cut it into smaller panels?

For starters they can't use the same panel in TVs and PC monitors, if they did the 46" TV would have a resolution of 3840x2160 - which they don't.
And where does the 16:9 46" panel itself get cut? ...

Unless you are constrained in both x and y you could just as easily have made 4 16:10 just with another size.

Not saying that you are wrong I just haven't seen any info as to why it would be true.
 
Not every part gets cut down, but I do know that some parts that make up a large portion of the price do. As I stated in my earlier post I've read that for some reason with the proportions of that their is more waste with 16:10 than their is with 16:9.

crowat said:
So I don't get it. How are PC users not getting the shaft by reducing the resolution from 1920x1200 to 1920x 1080. Isn't the viewable screen smaller by some 120 pixels? Looking at my 1200 BenQ next to my 1080 Acer in dual mode the visual difference (lack of 120 rows of pixels) is pretty obvious, at least to me. Call me picky and ignorant to all your ratios and math.
Click to expand...

Its highly doubtful that 120 rows of pixels would lead to any noticeable visual superiority compared to a million other factors of quality such as backlighting, panel type, etc.

But this only really effects monitors in the 24-26" range and can lead to huge cost savings. Many people would gladly take a 26" or 30" 1080P 16:9 if its the same cost as a 24 inch 16:10. 1200p is too small of text for a lot of people anyways. Many people would gladly take a very high end panel 24" 16x9 if its the same price as a 24" 16:10 with a crap panel.Their are also very few people outside of these forums that have the computer hardware to run at higher resolutions. Like I said that soon 2K or 4K panels will be sold as televisions and with the normal progress of technology this could mean $300 2000P 30" screens. I don't think the price of 16:10 monitors have gone up, and if they have thats the price of being in the fringe.

So this is a bunch of excitement, that only effects people buying couple hundred dollar 24-26 monitors that will problem only lead to losing about 100 pixels for a short amount of time, if they choose to buy the wrong product.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure prices are still to go down and since Dell sells a lot to Business their stuff tends to be available for longer than most companies. I wouldn't buy anything from Dell unless you have a pretty big discount or coupon since they discount stuff very often.

One thing to be aware of though is that Dell will often do several revisions or running changes to LCD's, even so far as to change panels, with little to no way for a buyer to know for sure which revision they are going to get.
 
I think they do take larger panels and cut them into smaller panels but it is not like they take a TV and cut it into a monitor panel. But the companies who make the displays have to buy glass substrate at certain sizes the largest size is usually the largest sized LCD TV you find at a given point in time. And they try to upgrade their factories to that. Then they figure out based on the size of the substrate they are using what is the best way to use the space. There is sum point based on dot pitch and substrate size where they can make the most use out of their panel size. That is why some companies may make 20.1 inch displays and so on. It just happens they need to or lose nothing to do that. They may cut more than 1 size out of 1 panel like a 22" and a 19" where the other will just have a lower resolution. But this is why you will see a certain panel size storm the market because many factories get upgrades to the largest panel size and now want to make the most out of that when they produce panels. If they leave 4 inches of space at the end of the panel its just waste and they dont want that they would rather just make monitors 1 inch bigger or something.

As for purchasing one you sould be able to get it just under 500$ I would just call them and ask, say I want the monitor but I only want to pay 500$ out the door they will probably get it to you and if not just call again. The monitor goes on sale periodically for about that price.
 
rudy said:
As for purchasing one you sould be able to get it just under 500$ I would just call them and ask, say I want the monitor but I only want to pay 500$ out the door they will probably get it to you and if not just call again. The monitor goes on sale periodically for about that price.
Click to expand...


You mean if I bargain, they can reduce from 599 to 500? I didn't get you quite well
 
I don't think that 16:10 is dead at all.

I think that 1920x1200 is dead. The economy-of-scale of using 1080p panels which can serve as televisions is too great.
 
Yes bargain with them is basically what I mean. What do you not get? Call them and ask if you can have it for $500
 
I was under the impression that companies like Dell have fixed price and they won't bargain a single penny
 
They don't bargin over the phone, but they run sales all the time or have discount codes.
 
No dell is a business with sales people like any company. Look they can afford to sell it at 500 on sale at different times so why is this time any different? Every time I buy anyting from dell I call them and usually I can get a sale price I saw that has expired reinstated or bring them down on a full priced item. Just pick whatever price you want and ask for that. If they do not go for it you just wait until a better sale comes along. What do you have to lose just 5 minutes on the phone and you could have your monitor at the price you want. Or you could listen to darkpaw and just sit around waiting for the sale to come to you. Like I said I do it at least twice a year with dell so they do bargain over the phone and they even do it through their live sales chat.
 
maverick786us said:
I was under the impression that companies like Dell have fixed price and they won't bargain a single penny
Click to expand...
Nope, see rudy's post for more info.

darkpaw said:
They don't bargin over the phone
Click to expand...
Not really true, you may not be able to bargain them on a heavily discounted price, but you can often get them to match one of their old sale or expired coupon prices. If your bargaining attempt does not work, then politely hang up and call them back to speak to a different representative.
 
16:10 isn't becoming obsolete, it's just slowly being reserved for high end displays. You'll find that most low to mid-end LCDs these days are 16:9. I don't see what's wrong with that. Would be nice if everything was 16:10, but the average consumer does not need it and as squeezing less pixels onto a display is cheaper, that's why manufactures are making the transition.
 
albovin said:
1920x1200 dwarfs 1920x1080:
Child.jpg
Click to expand...

The aspect ratio of that content looks like it has been chosen to make the screen on the left appear much smaller.

A similar screenshot showing a 1080p video on the left, filling the entire display, and the same 1080p video on the right with black letterbox bars above and below would have the opposite effect.

As someone else mentioned earlier, if you're producing 16:9 content then you want a 16:10 display but the majority of people are just going to be consuming 16:9 content and possibly prefer having the image fill the entire display.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top