16:9 or 16:10 WHAT WOULD YOU DO ?

[n7]

The 2048x1152 displays are interesting, as you do gain overall pixels over 1920x1200.

/rant begins...

I just personally really dislike the lack of height that you sacrifice with most widescreen displays; it's a pet peeve of mine.

I got two 1600x1200 displays years ago, & i realized i would never ever go back lower than 1200 pixels high.

Yet since then, what have we gotten in improvements...nothing.
Only 2560x1600 has more height.

Back in the CRT days, we had 2048x1536, or 1920x1440...yet no such thing for LCDs...no, that would be too much of an improvement since obviously retarded lower resolutions in widescreen are better, because z0mg it's wide-effing-crippled-height-screen.

So because 16:10 isn't bad enough, we have to go to 16:9, which is completely pointless.

Maybe we should just go to 2.35:1 like movies...who wants to be able to use their display without scrolling anyway...scrolling constantly is awesome.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

We shouldn't have had 16:10 in the first place. Yes, many movies these days are going to be wider than 16:9, however not all are wider, and all HDTV programs are 16:9. There's also consoles to consider. 16:9 is perfectly acceptable standard for widescreen monitors meant primarily for media, there is no reason we should have had anything different.

If you're crying about scrolling, get monitor that can tilt or stick with one of the many 4:3 or 5:4 monitors that still exist.

 

[Piuc2020]

16:10 definitely, all PC games are designed for it in mind (except console ports like FEAR 2) and a 1920x1200 monitor can do 1920x1080 letterboxed but a 1920x1080 can't do 1920x1200 in any way, shape or form.

16:9 is only useful for TV, DVD/Blu-Ray and consoles.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
16:10 definitely, all PC games are designed for it in mind (except console ports like FEAR 2) and a 1920x1200 monitor can do 1920x1080 letterboxed but a 1920x1080 can't do 1920x1200 in any way, shape or form.

16:9 is only useful for TV, DVD/Blu-Ray and consoles.

Seeing as most of the new releases on PC are just console ports anyways, I don't see a problem going 16:9.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
16:10 definitely, all PC games are designed for it in mind (except console ports like FEAR 2) and a 1920x1200 monitor can do 1920x1080 letterboxed but a 1920x1080 can't do 1920x1200 in any way, shape or form.

16:9 is only useful for TV, DVD/Blu-Ray and consoles.

Seeing as most of the new releases on PC are just console ports anyways, I don't see a problem going 16:9.

That argument posed by Piuc2020 was the same used back when people were trying to decide between 4:3 and 16:10. People shouldn't have been choosing between 4:3 and 16:10 to begin with, it should have been 4:3 and 16:9, none of this additional format garbage causing yet another shift.

I love my 16:10 monitor, yet if I could have chosen a comparable quality 16:9 monitor back then I wouldn't have hesitated.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
16:10 definitely, all PC games are designed for it in mind (except console ports like FEAR 2) and a 1920x1200 monitor can do 1920x1080 letterboxed but a 1920x1080 can't do 1920x1200 in any way, shape or form.

16:9 is only useful for TV, DVD/Blu-Ray and consoles.

Seeing as most of the new releases on PC are just console ports anyways, I don't see a problem going 16:9.

That argument posed by Piuc2020 was the same used back when people were trying to decide between 4:3 and 16:10. People shouldn't have been choosing between 4:3 and 16:10 to begin with, it should have been 4:3 and 16:9, none of this additional format garbage causing yet another shift.

I love my 16:10 monitor, yet if I could have chosen a comparable quality 16:9 monitor back then I wouldn't have hesitated.

16:10 or 16:9 does not really bother me,I just wish they sort out a single standard size rather then confusing people with the formats that are available,however I do think 16:9 will become the norm for PC monitors down the road.

 

[BassBomb]

16:10 was brought in as a compromise between 16:9 and 4:3

I much prefer 16:10. I use a 16:9 (1920x1080) at work and 16:10 (1680x1050) at home.

I mean its great that the one at work is so wide, but for things that use the vertical space it ruins everything. I constantly find the need to move around my toolbars so that I can get back some vert room for something else. It is a pain.

I think 16:10 should be standardized to PC's and leave TV's to be 16:9. As long as a PC monitor can 1:1 map to the 16:9 res everything will be fine.

For example, I hook my PS3 via Component to my 16:10 monitor, it will display the PS3 signal (1280x720) in 16:9 with black bars on top and bottom.

If I hook via DVI it will stretch it vertically (this needs to be resolved!)

 

[RallyMaster]

I like 5:4. Two of them side by side, that is.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Big 16:9 for games/media smaller 5:4 for reading junk ftw (I used to use 32 inch and 17 inch).

 

[amdhunter]

Originally posted by: Just learning
Just wondering if 2048 x 1152 resolution would be available in most PC games as an option. (It is a 16:9 resolution that offers slightly more pixels than 1920x1200)

I have a Dell 2309 (and have fallen in absolute love with it despite being a TN panel) and so far only Portal seems to see the updated resolution. Only other game I have installed is Call of Duty 5, which runs at a max of 1920x1080...which looks nice and sharp, but I wish I had that native res. I think most D3D games should see the new resolution though.

 

[JoshGuru7]

16:10 hands down for a PC monitor if you're going to be doing PC related stuff on it. Why give up the extra vertical space? You can always watch movies at 16:9 with black bars...

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I prefer 4:3, but sadly those monitors seem to be going the way of the dodo, which is too bad because 4:3 is a great ratio for everything except DVD movies, which isn't what you really buy a PC and monitor for in the first place.

 

[coreyb]

Why would you opt for less pixels on your monitor?