Why 16:10?

[VIAN]

Why that aspect ratio when 16:9 is HDTV? I just find it weird that they would pick out a new unusual ratio.

 

[n7]

So do i.

But manfacturers are weird, ya know...

 

[amol]

question isn't why, it's why NOT? 😛

actually, i'd rather have a 1920x1080P LCD monitor than a 1920x1200 monitor ...

wouldn't care for those 60 pixel lines on the top and bottom

 

[ZimZum]

4:3 is inadequate for viewing movies and video filmed in widescreen.

Since Movie studios use more than a dozen different aspect ratios when filming motion pictures. 16:9 is the average of the most common aspect ratios used in films.

 

[rootaxs]

Computer LCD's (not TV's) have 16:10 in the premise that most users will watch the video and have that extra space for some desktop apps (like the player module, taskbar and whatnot).

It's not a very good argument seeing as you can hide them, but does make sense. If they made it 16:9 then you'd have your apps on top of the video itself.

At least this is the reasoning behind Apple's implementation of their Cinema screens.

 

[VIAN]

that's a bit weird.

Now here's another question: Why not call it 8:5 instead of 16:10?

 

[CrispyFried]

oops, double post

 

[CrispyFried]

Cuz most peeps cant do math 🙂

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: VIAN
that's a bit weird.

Now here's another question: Why not call it 8:5 instead of 16:10?

because 16 is bigger than 8 and 10 is bigger than 5

 

[Cheesetogo]

Originally posted by: VIAN
that's a bit weird.

Now here's another question: Why not call it 8:5 instead of 16:10?

Because it makes it easier for people to compare it to 16:9

 

[JonnyBlaze]

 

[Zebo]

Cause TV stations is mandated by congress to be that soon I forget date. ...give people a half assed solution and they'll be happy while 2.55:1 film fanatics not so much. But it's better than little black lines top and bottom than HUGE ones on a 4:3 set.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Cause TV stations is mandated by congress to be that soon I forget date. ...give people a half assed solution and they'll be happy while 2.55:1 film fanatics not so much. But it's better than little black lines top and bottom than HUGE ones on a 4:3 set.

1) TV is mandated to be going digital soon (I think it's 2006 now, but I'm not 100% sure), not necessarily HD or widescreen.

2) This is a computer monitor, not a television. Why would they care about the formatting of TV programs?

3) I can't think of any content that is 16:10, but lots of movies and all HDTV are 16:9. Perhaps, as suggested above, they wanted a little extra vertical space so that you could have a 16:9 video and a task/menu bar on screen? That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

[kylebisme]

I see lots of widescreen TV that is 16:10, at least that is what I gather as I loose a little bit more than just the black bars when zooming it on my 16:9 screen.

 

[Emultra]

Cuz that way you get to see more ****. 😉