16:10 vs 16:9 No Doubt About It
- Thread starter C1
- Start date
Blue_Max
Diamond Member
- Jul 7, 2011
- 4,227
- 153
- 106
We can blame 1080P TV's for making 16:9 the standard, but we can also thank that standard for making even IPS monitors super cheap! My amazing IPS 27" 1080P was a lousy ~$150US brand-spanking-new.
I preferred the 16:10 format too, but boy were they more expensive in comparison at the time! I'll take the new format at half the price, thanks.
I'm pretty sure you are just conditioned to prefer 16:10. If you increased the size of your monitor in the process of the change, there is no downside. You just have usable side bars. If you play RTS's and other games, you lose visible areas with 16:10 (rather than giving you more on the top of bottom, they usually take away from the sides).
It's different, but it is something that is easy to adapt to. It's not worth thinking about it. You've been assimilated, now you just need to get used to it.
It's different, but it is something that is easy to adapt to. It's not worth thinking about it. You've been assimilated, now you just need to get used to it.
I went 16:10 -> 21:9 , I can't stand regular 1080p, still have 2x 16:10 monitors on the sides but those might get replaced with a 1440p one. But yes, definately sad that Y:10 isn't as popular. One company is coming out with a 34" 21:10 or something like that I think though, but its probably going to be crazy expensive.
, I can't stand regular 1080p, still have 2x 16:10 monitors on the sides but those might get replaced with a 1440p one. But yes, definately sad that Y:10 isn't as popular. One company is coming out with a 34" 21:10 or something like that I think though, but its probably going to be crazy expensive.
WhiteNoise
Golden Member
- Jun 22, 2016
- 1,075
- 184
- 106
I can do 16:9 or 16:10 with my projector. I prefer 16:10 but some movies only release in 16:9 so go figure.
The blind worship of 16:10 is reminding me of cranky old people who can't accept change. Is it better for productivity? Yes. Is it better for movies and gaming? No. A wider FoV is awesome in most AAA games.
They should still sell 16:10 for those who need it, but this circlejerk about it from the devotees, as if this is a giant conspiracy, is just passé and cliché. It got zoned out because it couldn't compete with the needs of the mainstream. Simple as that. Accept and move on.
They should still sell 16:10 for those who need it, but this circlejerk about it from the devotees, as if this is a giant conspiracy, is just passé and cliché. It got zoned out because it couldn't compete with the needs of the mainstream. Simple as that. Accept and move on.
WhiteNoise
Golden Member
- Jun 22, 2016
- 1,075
- 184
- 106
Well I am referring to movies myself. Some of my blu rays are 16:10 and I like that they fill the entire 120" screen in my HT room. 16:9 looks great too, no complaints here and it seems to be what most movies are released in. I think what I really need is a 150" screen.
Well really, you shouldn't have a wider FOV because you are 16:9, you should have more top/bottom visible and same sides with 16:10.
Why should a 2560x1440 see more screen space than someone using 2560x1600?
21:9 (3440x1440) should have wider view than the other two but less top/bottom than a 16:10 user, but exact same top/bottom as 16:9.
This [16 x 9 vs 16 x 10] is something I don't understand, even for productivity uses. Is a 1920 x 1200 monitor better than a 2560 x 1440 one for more visible screen estate? The pixel and DPI counts are the important values.
You'd think that would be the way it is handled, but it isn't in most cases. Most games will base the view angle off your top to bottom size, and scale the width to match, but it does depend on the game. Games don't base the FOV on your pixel count.
Your visible real estate is based on the actual size of the monitor, not the pixel count. You can scale everything to be the size you want. 16:10 are taller compared to their width. That said, 1920x1200 has more pixels than 1080p, as does 2560x1600 compared to 1440p.
For games, especially 1st person games, they'll based your view on the height of your monitor, so everyone sees the same view as far as top to bottom goes, then they scale the width, which usually gives more field of view to a 16:9 monitor.
For the desktop, many people like the added height of the 16:10 monitors as they can read more of a document. The desktop will show most things in relation to pixel count, unless you scale it, so 16:10 monitors have more pixels than their 16:9 counter parts.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,414
- 8,356
- 126
so many notebooks have ginormous bezels along the bottom of the screen, i have to imagine you could put a 16:10 screen in without much effort. then you'd have more screen and (at a similar DPI) more pixels!
well, yeah, the monitor with significantly higher DPI for a given size is going to have more pixels, but that's eliding the question. with similar DPIs, the more square monitor is going to offer not just more screen area in square inches, but also more pixels. a 27" 2560x1600 screen has more pixels than a 27" 2560x1440 screen. and is bigger.
Last edited:
What I mean is that the # of vertical pixels is what counts. Whether its a 16x10 or 16x9 is not important. A lower rez 16x10 holds less info than a higher rez 16x9 assuming the PPI are usable in both cases without scaling.
I'm wondering if the preference issue is simply a subconscious esthetic one based on the golden ratio.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,414
- 8,356
- 126
Again, that's eliding the argument because those will be vastly different DPI if the diagonal is same/similar. At similar DPI you will get more vertical space with a 16:10 screen than a 16:9.
When it comes to general purpose working or even movie watching, 16:10 (as movie ratios are non-standard) is better than 16:9.
Going to a higher resolution, but with a physically larger screen, although a theoretical work-around, is not practical, for example with notebook users.
I have now a Lenovo T420 (14") with 1600x 900 capability, but using it at that resolution on 14" for general purpose is not fun. (I have concluded that providing 1600x900 on that system was made available more so for scientific or medical application.)
Now I see some web pages are using fixed banners and the scroll-able portion of the page is like looking thru the slit of some kind of gun turret - ha. (What a joke.)
I used to notice that the local DATEL computer store featured a good number of used 16:10 (or even 5:4) monitors as DATEL's main line support is to businesses.
Going to a higher resolution, but with a physically larger screen, although a theoretical work-around, is not practical, for example with notebook users.
I have now a Lenovo T420 (14") with 1600x 900 capability, but using it at that resolution on 14" for general purpose is not fun. (I have concluded that providing 1600x900 on that system was made available more so for scientific or medical application.)
Now I see some web pages are using fixed banners and the scroll-able portion of the page is like looking thru the slit of some kind of gun turret - ha. (What a joke.)
I used to notice that the local DATEL computer store featured a good number of used 16:10 (or even 5:4) monitors as DATEL's main line support is to businesses.
Increasing the size does nothing. A 24" 1200p monitor has more real estate then a 27" 1080p monitor. You have to step up to 1440p to make up for the loss.
KingFatty
Diamond Member
- Dec 29, 2010
- 3,034
- 1
- 81
Has OP identified the screen sizes here, what was the 16:10 size/pixel dimensions, and what was the 16:9?
I have to say, I have an opposite conclusion than OP. I went from 24" 1920x1200 as my main monitor, to a 32" 2560x1440.
Note that the pixel density is almost identical between the two monitors, so the visual appearance of graphic elements looks identical between monitors (I still use two of the 24" as my side monitors).
However, the new, larger 16:9 is simply like an enlargement of my old 16:10 canvas. More pixels, more screen, just bigger and better. You could literally mask off portions of my big screen to produce the old 16:10 - its display is contained within my new 16:9.
So instead of feeling like OP, pessimistically feeling like the top and bottom of the screen has been chopped off, I instead feel like I've increased my display by adding more strips of display along the top and sides, just extra free pixels.
Sometimes I feel like there is a critical vertical height threshold, once you reach it, your eyes will be satisfied. I think that OP just chose a 16:9 display with a vertical height that falls below his threshold, and just needs a bigger display with more pixels, even if 16:9.
I have to say, I have an opposite conclusion than OP. I went from 24" 1920x1200 as my main monitor, to a 32" 2560x1440.
Note that the pixel density is almost identical between the two monitors, so the visual appearance of graphic elements looks identical between monitors (I still use two of the 24" as my side monitors).
However, the new, larger 16:9 is simply like an enlargement of my old 16:10 canvas. More pixels, more screen, just bigger and better. You could literally mask off portions of my big screen to produce the old 16:10 - its display is contained within my new 16:9.
So instead of feeling like OP, pessimistically feeling like the top and bottom of the screen has been chopped off, I instead feel like I've increased my display by adding more strips of display along the top and sides, just extra free pixels.
Sometimes I feel like there is a critical vertical height threshold, once you reach it, your eyes will be satisfied. I think that OP just chose a 16:9 display with a vertical height that falls below his threshold, and just needs a bigger display with more pixels, even if 16:9.
This is exactly what I am saying. The vertical pixels determine the # of text lines and spreadsheet cells visible assuming normal, usable for most people, PPI values.
The 16x10 vs 16x9 argument is irrelevant and a sideshow. What is important is the # of vertical pixels. Yes a 16x10 will have more than a 16x9 for the same horizontal value, but so what? Just choose the higher 16x9 resolution and you beat both of those options at the lower rez. I use a 2560x1440 and there is no way a 1920x1200 at the same size will be better.
Probably the most forgettable aspect ratio that ever existed. If for gaming/movies, you will either have to accept missing periphery or put up with black bars above and below a smaller image. Sorry, cant help but feel the need for a massive face-palm at the mention of that aberration of an aspect ratio.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter