Will 16:9 resolution be the new standard for LCD monitors?

[cbn]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...StoreType=&srchInDesc=

I just noticed these are coming out in 2048x1152 resolution (this is basically the 16:9 equivalent of 1920x1200)

Those are pretty good price for LCDs with ~2% more pixels than a 1920x1200 monitor.

Now if only we could also get the 16:9 equivalent of 2560x1600 (hopefully for a good price)

 

[novasatori]

I think 16:9 is a no brainer, especially as the lines between tv and monitor are blurring pretty much it makes sense

 

[n7]

I think we should just skip to 2.4:1 & have absolutely no height on displays anymore...the less height, the better.

How's 1920x800 sound?

Or maybe some nice 1536x640 action. :roll:

As far as i am concerned, the only time time that PC monitor widescreen is ideal is for huge displays, 1600p or higher.

We had 2048x1536 & 1920x1440 back in the CRT days.

Look at what's better today...nothing at all except 2560x1600.

 

[exar333]

Movie resolution <> useful desktop resolution for work.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
Movie resolution <> useful desktop resolution for work.

Being able to display 2 pages side by side isn't useful?

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: n7

Look at what's better today...nothing at all except 2560x1600.

Yeah but if 2698x1518 (which is the 16:9 equivalent of 2560x1600) or better yet a higher 16:9 resolution could be made cheaper than why not?

LOL, maybe we could see 3200x1800 with smaller pixels?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Just learning

Originally posted by: n7

Look at what's better today...nothing at all except 2560x1600.

Yeah but if 2698x1518 (which is the 16:9 equivalent of 2560x1600) or better yet a higher 16:9 resolution could be made cheaper than why not?

LOL, maybe we could see 3200x1800 with smaller pixels?

I'd love to see that. Think about a current 24" monitor at 3840x2400. Keep all of the fonts and icons the same physical size, just have them made up of more pixels. You could get some nice, smooth fonts and images.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: novasatori
I think 16:9 is a no brainer, especially as the lines between tv and monitor are blurring pretty much it makes sense

Hey my computer monitor is still looking quite crisp and clear and sharp!! :frown:

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: n7
I think we should just skip to 2.4:1 & have absolutely no height on displays anymore...the less height, the better.

How's 1920x800 sound?

Or maybe some nice 1536x640 action. :roll:

As far as i am concerned, the only time time that PC monitor widescreen is ideal is for huge displays, 1600p or higher.

We had 2048x1536 & 1920x1440 back in the CRT days.

Look at what's better today...nothing at all except 2560x1600.

yeah I don't get it either.
It gets bad when you factor in a laptop screen at 1280x768 with Ubuntu (gnome taskbar at top/bottom), Firefox, and tabs going. You're effectively browsing with 600 pixels height.

In Windows I drag the taskbar to the side, makes more sense that way with widescreen. Ubuntu (well, it's gnome's fault) doesn't work well with the taskbar on the left. The buttons turn into boxes and change size all the time.

 

[MrK6]

16:9 is too cramped for my tastes, I'd never get one. I don't know if 16:9 will replace 16:10, but if there's a market people will buy them.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
Movie resolution <> useful desktop resolution for work.

Being able to display 2 pages side by side isn't useful?

A 16:10 monitor can do this too, and it will show more of the vertical page compared to a 16:9.

My original comment, if you didn't quite pick up on it, was stating that movie resolution preferences (16:9) does not neccessarily equate to a useful resolution for work-related items, such as viewing documents and having adequete desktop space.

I prefer a 16:10 display myself for computing, and a 16:9 TV for watching movies and/or blu-rays.

 

[nOOky]

I have 2 16x9 monitors. I should have gone 16x10 on at least of one of them. The watching movies on your computer monitor with no vertical black boxes scenario is a farce, just like on a 1080p t.v. Everything is going towards 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 so a 16x9 t.v. or computer monitor you still have black bars across the top and bottom, and you need a 60" monitor just to make the image viewable from 10 feet away. It's really irritating that movies are filmed in that format, I mean 10 years from now will my television or computer monitor be 10 feet wide and 2 feet tall?
Sorry for the rant hehe.

 

[Mem]

What would you prefer for gaming 16:10 or 16:9?..It'll be interesting to see what you prefer.


I do feel 16:9 will become the norm like I have already stated in a different thread ,however not anytime soon.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: nOOky
I have 2 16x9 monitors. I should have gone 16x10 on at least of one of them. The watching movies on your computer monitor with no vertical black boxes scenario is a farce, just like on a 1080p t.v. Everything is going towards 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 so a 16x9 t.v. or computer monitor you still have black bars across the top and bottom, and you need a 60" monitor just to make the image viewable from 10 feet away. It's really irritating that movies are filmed in that format, I mean 10 years from now will my television or computer monitor be 10 feet wide and 2 feet tall?
Sorry for the rant hehe.

2.4:1 wouldn't be a bad idea as long as the vertical pixel height was sufficient.

In fact, 2880x1200 resolution sounds pretty good. Esseentially that is almost two 1600x1200 monitors stuck together without the bezels of the separate monitors in the middle.

 

[Stoneburner]

16:10 is perfect for computer screens. Simple as that. I don't know why you'd want to lose real estate to avoid "the bars!" 16:10 provides just the right balance for games, doc work, and movies.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
16:10 is perfect for computer screens. Simple as that. I don't know why you'd want to lose real estate to avoid "the bars!" 16:10 provides just the right balance for games, doc work, and movies.

it does, but for least 1000 vertical pixels. 1280x800 sucks, 1680x1050 is bit better.

 

[cbn]

Actually come to think of it why not 24:9? This would be even better than 16:9.

With 24:9 I could have dual 20" LCDs (1600x1200) as one 3200x1200 monitor.

Just wondering though if there would be problems in 3D with something like a FPS shooter when pushing the limits of horizontal pixel length? I don't know what the name for it would be but wouldn't there be some sort of "wrap around" effect occuring at the edges of the screen (from a first person perspective)

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
16:10 is perfect for computer screens. Simple as that.

thats not true


16:11 is perfect

 

[Alyx]

I do a lot of graphics editing and the wide screen is crap for it. A portrait picture is just to small to see any detail and if I rotate the monitor vertical the view angle isn't wide enough so I get in consistent color. Totally useless for work.

 

[ielmox]

16:9 is a pretty crappy cheap format and quite useless unless you're gaming on a console or want to watch movies without the black bars - and even then not all movies come in 16:9 aspect ratio (far from it!) so you will still see black bars even on a 16:9 screen (it's either that or picture distortion).

I have found that most people who buy a monitor don't even know what AR they are getting. As far as they are concerned there are two ARs: standard (old and horrible) and widescreen (shiny and new). When they hear there are actually two widescreen panel formats they become very confused. When I explain to them the difference between the two, they inevitably want the one that will give them more screen area, particularly if the screen will be used for work of any kind. Big surprise there.

The industry shift to 16:9 is nothing but a way for manufacturers to make cheap panels - shorter panels are easier and less expensive to produce, and will obviously suffer correspondingly less from defects since there are fewer pixels that can fail.

Dell makes some gorgeous and very cheap 16:9 panels now, I was really struck by them when I walked past one of their showrooms. Had they been 16:10 I would have snapped them up, but instead I ended up going with a much more expensive Ultrasharp 2709W.

 

[toyota]

I have a Dell 24inch 16:9 monitor and I really like the aspect ratio. I think of it as more of an upgrade from 1680x1050 then a downgrade from 1920x1200. I think its great for gaming since thanks(or no thanks) to consoles most games from here on out will be developed around the 16:9 ratio. I can understand why some people dont like it though for most it wont be a problem. 16:10 will likely start to fade in 3-4 years and you will have to pay out the butt like you do with a 4:3 monitor now.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: toyota
I have a Dell 24inch 16:9 monitor and I really like the aspect ratio. I think of it as more of an upgrade from 1680x1050 then a downgrade from 1920x1200. I think its great for gaming since thanks(or no thanks) to consoles most games from here on out will be developed around the 16:9 ratio. I can understand why some people dont like it though for most it wont be a problem. 16:10 will likely start to fade in 3-4 years and you will have to pay out the butt like you do with a 4:3 monitor now.

16:10 can run stuff at higher resolution and can downscale without picture loss to 16x9 (cantered timings)

it is just that LCD makers want to only make 16:9 because it is cheaper to them.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota
I have a Dell 24inch 16:9 monitor and I really like the aspect ratio. I think of it as more of an upgrade from 1680x1050 then a downgrade from 1920x1200. I think its great for gaming since thanks(or no thanks) to consoles most games from here on out will be developed around the 16:9 ratio. I can understand why some people dont like it though for most it wont be a problem. 16:10 will likely start to fade in 3-4 years and you will have to pay out the butt like you do with a 4:3 monitor now.

16:10 can run stuff at higher resolution and can downscale without picture loss to 16x9 (cantered timings)

it is just that LCD makers want to only make 16:9 because it is cheaper to them.

but 16:9 is still slightly wider and thats what I was looking for. also like I said games are now developed around the 16:9 ratio so for a gaming monitor its great.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota
I have a Dell 24inch 16:9 monitor and I really like the aspect ratio. I think of it as more of an upgrade from 1680x1050 then a downgrade from 1920x1200. I think its great for gaming since thanks(or no thanks) to consoles most games from here on out will be developed around the 16:9 ratio. I can understand why some people dont like it though for most it wont be a problem. 16:10 will likely start to fade in 3-4 years and you will have to pay out the butt like you do with a 4:3 monitor now.

16:10 can run stuff at higher resolution and can downscale without picture loss to 16x9 (cantered timings)

it is just that LCD makers want to only make 16:9 because it is cheaper to them.

but 16:9 is still slightly wider and thats what I was looking for. also like I said games are now developed around the 16:9 ratio so for a gaming monitor its great.

16:9 is not wider, it is shorter.
is 1080 wider or shorter than 1200?

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota
I have a Dell 24inch 16:9 monitor and I really like the aspect ratio. I think of it as more of an upgrade from 1680x1050 then a downgrade from 1920x1200. I think its great for gaming since thanks(or no thanks) to consoles most games from here on out will be developed around the 16:9 ratio. I can understand why some people dont like it though for most it wont be a problem. 16:10 will likely start to fade in 3-4 years and you will have to pay out the butt like you do with a 4:3 monitor now.

16:10 can run stuff at higher resolution and can downscale without picture loss to 16x9 (cantered timings)

it is just that LCD makers want to only make 16:9 because it is cheaper to them.

but 16:9 is still slightly wider and thats what I was looking for. also like I said games are now developed around the 16:9 ratio so for a gaming monitor its great.

16:9 is not wider, it is shorter.
is 1080 wider or shorter than 1200?

NO. its the aspect ratio that matters in games not the resolution so 16:9 IS wider than 16:10. with the proper field of view they all have the same height its just the widescreen gets wider. take a screenshot because you obviously are mistaken when it comes to games.

well here you go. the 16:9 has the same info top to bottom but adds more to the sides.

16:10 http://img7.imageshack.us/img7...l22009041500131427.png

16:9 http://img22.imageshack.us/img...l22009041500134738.png