Is 16:10 resolution slowly disappearing?

[Warp01]

I prefer it to 16:9 ... but on the other hand, I also want a future proof monitor.

2560x1600 (30") vs. 2560x1440 (27") ... Any advice?

:biggrin: Regards

 

[AnandThenMan]

Future proof? In electronics? Surely you jest.

2560x1600 is the way to go, more screen space when you're not gaming is very welcome.

 

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

buy 16:10
the extra screen space feels so good

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Didn't Samsung just release two 1920x1200 screens? I'll admit they are TN, but still...

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Future proof? In electronics? Surely you jest.

2560x1600 is the way to go, more screen space when you're not gaming is very welcome.

It also makes people have to stay on top of video cards to run games, which not everyone can afford to do.

 

[Wag]

I'm happy with my Dell u2711's 16:9 2560x1440 desktop.

 

[MrK6]

16:9 screens are cheaper to produce, so that's where you'll see most manufacturer's lean toward. As far as furture proofing goes, I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[blastingcap]

It also makes people have to stay on top of video cards to run games, which not everyone can afford to do.

Which is why I decided to go Eyefinity instead.

30" monitor = expensive and requires high end GPU(s) or else non-native resolution for gaming. Inflexible solution.

3x24" = slightly less expensive and can use a midrange GPU (1 screen for gaming, switching to 3 screens for productivity and lighter games like old Source games) or more expensive GPU(s) (3 screens for both productivity AND gaming). Flexible solution.

3x22" = more affordable version of 3x24" Eyefinity setup.

Of course, if you had even more funds to throw around, you could simply get 3x30" Eyefinity and get the best of both worlds.

 

[T2k]

They are not going anywhere, it's just you buy cheap consumer gear instead of buying prosumer gear - Dell's U2410 is an excellent example of prosumer gear, I think. It's pretty high-end among 24" LCDs and it is 19x12, of course, just like every single pro 23" and 24" out there.
Cheaper consumer monitors cost less than half so understandably they are trying to save money everywhere ancd 1080 vs 1200 makes a lot of difference when your profit margin is single-digit...

 

[StrangerGuy]

They are practically dead for laptop market. It's all 16:9 or a big FU there. IIRC, there are only 4 LCD panel manufacturers in the world, so if they decide not to produce 16:10 panels OPEC-style all of us are SOLed.

 

[blastingcap]

16:9 screens are cheaper to produce, so that's where you'll see most manufacturer's lean toward. As far as furture proofing goes, I wouldn't worry about it.

This. I don't like 16:9 that much, but for the sake of lower prices, I think it's fine that almost everything gets tooled for 16:9 and that 16:10 carries a price premium. 1080p panels are high-volume parts. I suspect 1920x1200 are far lower volume and that companies don't want to have to retool specifically for those panels. Better to just run everything through at 16:9 to capture economies of scale better.

 

[soccerballtux]

This. I don't like 16:9 that much, but for the sake of lower prices, I think it's fine that almost everything gets tooled for 16:9 and that 16:10 carries a price premium. 1080p panels are high-volume parts. I suspect 1920x1200 are far lower volume and that companies don't want to have to retool specifically for those panels. Better to just run everything through at 16:9 to capture economies of scale better.

They already had everything at 16:10.
They moved to 16:9 for higher profit margins. It's not a matter of "retooling".

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Future proof? In electronics? Surely you jest.

2560x1600 is the way to go, more screen space when you're not gaming is very welcome.

OTOH, a narrower FOV is generally not welcome while gaming. And IMO there's nothing really special about 16:10 for general web browsing/desktop use.

 

[Karl Agathon]

I have been looking for a decent one but they all seem to carry a hefty price tag.

 

[Winterpool]

Honestly, I expected 16:10 monitors to have disappeared by now. Thankfully, they still exist at the mid to high-end, especially amongst IPS displays (NEC, HP ZR24w, Dell U2410). I was considerably more surprised to see 2560x1600 revived with the Dell U3011 and HP ZR40W. After Apple abandoned 30-inch displays for the 16:9 27-inch, I figured 2560x1600 wasn't long for this world. 16:10 persists amongst more costly notebooks as well (eg the MacBook Pro, which is universally 16:10 from 1280x800 to 1920x1200).

To my mind, the more pixels, the better. Vertical is a more pressing concern in larger screens because human beings like to read vertically (take a look at your books, magazines, web pages... how many are wider than they are tall?), but most panels are wide. It's easier for eyes to scan down than to sweep left to right over a large expanse. That's one of the reasons why the iPad and other slate/tablets make for easier web-browsing and text-reading than similar resolution but horizontally oriented netbooks.

 

[NoQuarter]

To my mind, the more pixels, the better. Vertical is a more pressing concern in larger screens because human beings like to read vertically (take a look at your books, magazines, web pages... how many are wider than they are tall?), but most panels are wide. It's easier for eyes to scan down than to sweep left to right over a large expanse. That's one of the reasons why the iPad and other slate/tablets make for easier web-browsing and text-reading than similar resolution but horizontally oriented netbooks.

I think it's easier for your eyes to scan horizontally, that's text is side to side not up and down. The vertical expanse of text provides more breaks in your scanning so you don't lose your place, but the actually ease of scanning is side to side..

 

[Winterpool]

It might be partly to do with the 'carriage return' of human eyeballs. When you get to the end of a line of text, your eyes need to hit [Return] and restart all the way back at the left edge of the text. The wider the text, the more work for your eyeballs. Print text is often divided into columns to break up the horizontal lines, but you don't see this so much on the Web, even in AD 2010.

Vertical is smooth all the way down, unless you've got said columns...

That said, most most human text documents remain vertically oriented... and computer screens generally are not. Thus: more vertical pixels are appreciated.