What's Up With 1440x900???

[Asparagus]

How did this (16:10, that is) ever become a standard for widescreen monitors if 16:9 is the standard for movies???

 

[Zebo]

I thought 2.55:1 is more standard for movies these days. Used to be 1.85:1 but also 2.35:1.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I thought 2.55:1 is more standard for movies these days. Used to be 1.85:1 but also 2.35:1.

It varies. 2.55:1 is VERY VERY wide; that's mostly for IMAX. 2.35:1 is fairly common, but with DVDs and HDTVs being so popular, 16:9 is also frequently used.

I have no fricking clue about the 16:10 computer monitor resolutions, though. I have yet to find any rational explanation for it, since LCD HDTVs are all 16:9.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Movies are all over the board, a lot of them are a lot wider than 16:9 - which is the format for HDTV not necessarily for movies. The only reason I can think of (and believe) for why they went with 16:10 over 16:9 for computer monitors was that the manufacturers wanted an excuse to keep the markets separate - heaven forbid you buy only one monitor (for TV/video and computer) and be done with it.

 

[Auric]

This schtuff comes up so frequently I'm gettin' a deja vu vibe. But tally ho...

16:10 was ostensibly to allow movie controls 'n' crap to fit as well. Of course 1.78:1 (16:9) is already narrower than the most common film standards of 1.85 and 2.39 (and older 2.35) but 'tis a compromise with preceding ones (1.33 and 1.66).

Better to axe why 1.78 was pulled out of some brainiac's arse when the existing common 1.85 is so tantalizingly close and would have precluded most of the friggin' composition compromises and subsequent cropping that dim bulbs seem to clamor for so as to fill their precious little so-called wide screen displays <- sarky

It must have seemed a good idea in the late 1980's /early 1990's when such "wide" TV's were truly transitional without much complimentary content. Now, of course, there is a plethora of such video content but it's largely disposable, versus a 100 year film library -half of which is wider and those worth seeing are worth seeing unaltered on the largest screen possible.

So, for PC displays, narrower is better and be glad for 1.6:1 and lower ratios and leave serious movie watching to at least 40" and up TV's (particularly to make up for the narrow format).

 

[Zebo]

All of them are wider than 1.78:1 aka 16:9. DVD's today use anamorphic and cut off stuff you're normally supposed to see fitting it to the 16:9 screen unless you buy wide screen edition then you'll still have the black bars top and bottom.

 

[VIAN]

I'll tell you why they did it. It's really simple.

If they made 16:9 monitors, then HDTVs wouldn't be worth buying. Rather than buying a good quality 24" LCD for 1400 bucks, you'd be able to get an even better monitor for half the price.

 

[BernardP]

My own theories:

--------------------------------------------

Standard TV: 4:3
Widescreen TV: 4x4=16, 3x3=9, hence 16:9

It might just be the way a standards committee arrived at the 16:9 compromise

--------------------------------------------

Standard 19-inch computer monitor: 5:4
Wide computer monitor: 16:10

The 16:10 proportion is related to the 5:4 proportion: 16:10 is in fact 8:5, so two 5:4 panels on top of each other have a 8:5 proportion. From this, I deduce that the 16:10 ratio was chosen for reasons of manufacturing efficiency on existing equipment.

--------------------------------------------

Humbly submitted for consideration...

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: Zebo
All of them are wider than 1.78:1 aka 16:9. DVD's today use anamorphic and cut off stuff you're normally supposed to see fitting it to the 16:9 screen unless you buy wide screen edition then you'll still have the black bars top and bottom.

Ackshilly, anamorphic DVD does not denote nor is responsible for cropping but rather is a method to achieve a higher resolution versus letterboxed for the same original aspect ratio. On the film side anamorphic is an optical method to do likewise -utilize more of the film frame for greater detail and then restore the aspect ratio during projection.

Sadly, it seems this technique is on the wane in large part due to aforementioned dim-bulb demand for narrow content to fill home displays -ergo the resurgence of cheaper, lower quality but frame-flexible spherical lens shooting where the full-frame can be exposed and then cropped to fit whatever: theatrical, "wide' or "standard" TV's, which obviously limits artistic composition of the shot in the first place and can significantly alter the point-of-view and dramatic impact &c. in the second.

 

[SonicIce]

I think they just wanted a middle of the road ratio to satisfy both types of content 16:9 (and wider) and 4:3 stuff.

 

[TheRyuu]

Yea.
WS monitors choose 16:10 (I gather) because they wanted it to be not as wide as 16:9 but winder then 4:3.

I think it was a good choice.

 

[JPB]

I am running a 16:10 WS...see sig. Its great too.

 

[gamepad]

I always wondered why this crap was made the standard. 360 doesn't have support for 16:10, yet it does for 4:3 monitors... My freaking monitor doesn't even work with BF2 (screw you EA)... [/rant]