Why are widescreen LCDs 16:10 instead of 16:9?

[mshan]

Anyone know why widescreen computer LCDs are 16:10 aspect ratio, instead of 16:9?

Also, why don't they make these widescreen computer LCDs in 720 or 1080 vertical resolutions?

 

[SonicIce]

who knows :Q

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: mshan
Anyone know why widescreen computer LCDs are 16:10 aspect ratio, instead of 16:9?

Also, why don't they make these widescreen computer LCDs in 720 or 1080 vertical resolutions?

So we can buy them as it is now and be like "OMGWTFM8, I got this really rad and new junk for a hella good deal," and when new things come out, whcih should have been standard a while ago, people go buy them and then say, ""OMGWTFM8, I got this really rad and new junk for....another...hella good deal!"

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: mshan
Anyone know why widescreen computer LCDs are 16:10 aspect ratio, instead of 16:9?

Frankly, I'm not sure. 1920x1200 might make sense from a manufacturing perspective, since they were already making 1600x1200 monitors, and 1080p is 1920 pixels wide. But 1680x1050? WTF?!

Also, why don't they make these widescreen computer LCDs in 720 or 1080 vertical resolutions?

They could, but 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 panels were pretty widespread already. Hell, most 720p HDTVs aren't actually 1280x720 (they're usually 1366x768 panels). 1080p can fit natively in a 1920x1200 screen with small black bars on the top and bottom, so there is little sense in retooling everything for 1920x1080 instead.

 

[xtknight]

Probably to provide a good compromise between watching movies and whatever favored 4:3.

 

[batmanuel]

I've run into a few PCs hooked up to LCD TVs in my local stores and 720p just is too low a resolution for desktop work. 1080p is better, but the 16:9 aspect ratio works a lot better from a distance. Up close, like you'll sit when working at your PC, 16:10 seems to fill fill your field of view better without being so wide that you start to miss information on the edges.

 

[SonicIce]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Probably to provide a good compromise between watching movies and whatever favored 4:3.

:thumbsup: this is probably right


but whats the deal with 1280x1024 .
and 4:3 CRT's that recommend it

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
:thumbsup: this is probably right

but whats the deal with 1280x1024 .
and 4:3 CRT's that recommend it

Marketing people got ahold of the manuals and changed it all to 1024! 5:4 LCDs use it likely because of LCD glass size.

 

[BernardP]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Marketing people got ahold of the manuals and changed it all to 1024! 5:4 LCDs use it likely because of LCD glass size.

Let's do a little bit of math here...

---if the 5:4 (1280x1024) size is economical from the glass size perspective, it is because manufaturers have to cut large panes of glass into smaller size and want to have no loss.

--- if we imagine a large glass panel, we can see that the 16:10 proportion is a practical multiple of the 5:4 proportion: 2x5=10 and 4x4=16.

---it is probably fair to conclude that the 16:10 proportion is also a no-loss way to cut a large glass pane.

The question is, why not start with correctly-proportionned glass panes? After all, there is a logical relationship between 4:3 and 16:9

4x4=16 and 3x3=9

Only someone working for a glass manufacturer could provide a definitive answer, but I would guess there are some legacy equipment and standards under all this.

We have seen worse... Everybody knows, of course, why the standard railway gauge is four feet, eight and a half inches...No?

It is because of the horse's ass :light:

 

[Jiggz]

It's just a matter of correcting the ratio. For some unknown reasons, 16:9 just doesn't sum up. This is a quote from another reviewer.

"Predictably, total confusion still reigns where picture format is concerned. The 16:9 standard says that LCD TVs should have 1280 x 720 or 1366 x 768 resolution. But if you've been in the computer game for any length of time, you know that, first of all, the numbers 720 and 1366 don't really sound right, and second, manufacturers just don't give a damn about standards. As a result, the monitors we tested rarely have the right format. Often you find 1280 x 768, which actually corresponds roughly to a 16:10 aspect ratio. Larger panels offer a 1920 x 1200 picture, which also works out to a 16:10 format.

But what are the consequences for the user? If you have content in 16:9 format and you want to project it onto a 16:10 display, your image won't be able to fill the whole screen. You'll see two black bands above and below the picture. They are relatively thin compared to what you see on 4:3 screens, but they're just as useless. You can choose to distort your picture, or else zoom in a little to fill up the entire space, but those aren't very satisfactory workarounds."

 

[SonicIce]

Originally posted by: BernardP
It is because of the horse's ass :light:

lol cool article.

maybe somethimg similar is going on with these monitor ratios

 

[L00PY]

I'm quite happy with 16:10. The additional MCE display information fits perfectly into that space and doesn't block any of the viewing area. Also, with DVDs odds are that the aspect ratio isn't 16:9 but rather 1.85 or 2.35 or something else, so you've got black bars regardless.