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

[JoshGuru7]

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.

Why not just go with 3200x400 displays? That way you can put 6 firefox screens side-by-side and you wouldn't ever have to deal with black bars at the top or bottom of your screen.

Personally, I'd like to see them go back to 4:3. If you want more width, you pick up a second 4:3 monitor.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: JoshGuru7

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.

Why not just go with 3200x400 displays? That way you can put 6 firefox screens side-by-side and you wouldn't ever have to deal with black bars at the top or bottom of your screen.

Personally, I'd like to see them go back to 4:3. If you want more width, you pick up a second 4:3 monitor.

because I wanted one normal monitor that I could walk in a local store and buy and would easily fit on my somewhat small desk. it works for me and I will never go back to 16:10 because I have no need to for what I do on the pc.

 

[OCGuy]

I enjoy my Dell 16:9 1080p. Meh.

 

[fffblackmage]

i think 16:9 is fine... IF, and only if, the height is at least greater than 1000 pixels. something like 1440x900 just wouldn't work out as well for me. I'm using a 1280x1024 lcd monitor, and moving to 1440x900 would sound like a downgrade rather than upgrade to me. I wouldn't even spend the money getting a 1680x1050 (16:10) lcd.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: fffblackmage
i think 16:9 is fine... IF, and only if, the height is at least greater than 1000 pixels. something like 1440x900 just wouldn't work out as well for me. I'm using a 1280x1024 lcd monitor, and moving to 1440x900 would sound like a downgrade rather than upgrade to me. I wouldn't even spend the money getting a 1680x1050 (16:10) lcd.

1440x900 is 16:10. 1600x900 would be a 16:9 ratio and there are starting to be more of those. 1600x900 in a 22inch or so would be okay for people like my parents if they had to use a 16:9 screen. even I would go blind trying to look at 1080 on a smaller than 23inch screen.

 

[MarcVenice]

Yes 16:9 will be the new standard, because it's cheaper to produce. LCD's are made just like chips, out of 1 big 'wafer'. They can produce more 16:9 screens out of 1 'wafer', hence it will become the new standard.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: 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

discussion with you is pointless because you can't take basic reasoning, so this is my last post on this.

more stuff can fit in bigger box than in smaller box. in HL2 you can set FOV to whatever you want. Properly set up, the 16:10 will have as much on wide side and more height.

if you made these images yourself, they are pointless because you'd need an 16:10 monitor for that that can run both matching 16:10 and 16:9 resolutions, such as 1920x1200 and 1920x1080.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: 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

discussion with you is pointless because you can't take basic reasoning, so this is my last post on this.

more stuff can fit in bigger box than in smaller box. in HL2 you can set FOV to whatever you want. Properly set up, the 16:10 will have as much on wide side and more height.

if you made these images yourself, they are pointless because you'd need an 16:10 monitor for that that can run both matching 16:10 and 16:9 resolutions, such as 1920x1200 and 1920x1080.

whats with the attitude? with the proper fov for each aspect ratio then 16:9 does add more to the sides than 16:10 and loses nothing in any other area. thats the way properly implemented hor+ (horizontal plus) widescreen works.

since you want to argue even with my screenshots then look at this http://www.widescreengamingfor...(Aspect_ratio_support) . games that properly support hor+ (horizontal plus) widescreen such as Source engine games get wider with 16:9 than with 16:10 and lose nothing just like I have said.

 

[lopri]

The monitor in OP's link is 2048x1152 and has a DVI and a VGA input. So my guess is a single-link DVI can handle that resolution? I didn't know that.

 

[s44]

To answer the initial question: yes, it will, whether we like it or not. (I like it.) 4:3 will remain as the legacy format, though...

Honestly, if this allows us to get 20-30" non-TN panels at better prices, it's a good thing.

 

[ielmox]

Originally posted by: s44
Honestly, if this allows us to get 20-30" non-TN panels at better prices, it's a good thing.

As far as I can tell the 16:9 monitors today are mostly TN. Looks like they are trying to make a cheap and popular technology even cheaper and more popular. I'd consider a non-TN 16:9 monitor a waste, to be honest.

Originally posted by: toyota
since you want to argue even with my screenshots then look at this http://www.widescreengamingfor...(Aspect_ratio_support) . games that properly support hor+ (horizontal plus) widescreen such as Source engine games get wider with 16:9 than with 16:10 and lose nothing just like I have said.

You lose overall viewable area. When configured properly a game in 16:9 seems to be able to display a proportionately slightly wider field of view, but the overall picture is going to be smaller than the equivalent image on a 16:10 screen.

Assuming the same pixel pitch, take the resolutions used in the images you linked:

1280x800 = 1,024,000 screen area (by pixel)
1280 x 720 = 921,600

That is a difference in screen area of 102,400 pixels, or put it another way the above 16:10 panel has 10% more viewable area than the 16:9.

16:9 for multimedia might as well be 16:10, since there are multiple formats that movies use - you will still experience black bars in other words. And for work there is no argument that a taller widescreen is better. When it comes to PC gaming, personally I prefer big action and a big picture, so the extra 10% in size is pretty significant. The only real synergy here is with consoles that output in 16:9, but it's rather strange to be making computer monitors for devices that are best attached to TVs and played on a couch.

It seems to me the growing number of 16:9 panels has less to do with consumer preferences and more to do with squeezing down costs by offering a slightly inferior format at an attractive price point for the general consumer. My guess is that connoisseurs will continue shopping for better panels in 16:10 format.

 

[coreyb]

Better not be.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: s44
Honestly, if this allows us to get 20-30" non-TN panels at better prices, it's a good thing.

As far as I can tell the 16:9 monitors today are mostly TN. Looks like they are trying to make a cheap and popular technology even cheaper and more popular. I'd consider a non-TN 16:9 monitor a waste, to be honest.

Originally posted by: toyota
since you want to argue even with my screenshots then look at this http://www.widescreengamingfor...(Aspect_ratio_support) . games that properly support hor+ (horizontal plus) widescreen such as Source engine games get wider with 16:9 than with 16:10 and lose nothing just like I have said.

You lose overall viewable area. When configured properly a game in 16:9 seems to be able to display a proportionately slightly wider field of view, but the overall picture is going to be smaller than the equivalent image on a 16:10 screen.

Assuming the same pixel pitch, take the resolutions used in the images you linked:

1280x800 = 1,024,000 screen area (by pixel)
1280 x 720 = 921,600

That is a difference in screen area of 102,400 pixels, or put it another way the above 16:10 panel has 10% more viewable area than the 16:9.

16:9 for multimedia might as well be 16:10, since there are multiple formats that movies use - you will still experience black bars in other words. And for work there is no argument that a taller widescreen is better. When it comes to PC gaming, personally I prefer big action and a big picture, so the extra 10% in size is pretty significant. The only real synergy here is with consoles that output in 16:9, but it's rather strange to be making computer monitors for devices that are best attached to TVs and played on a couch.

It seems to me the growing number of 16:9 panels has less to do with consumer preferences and more to do with squeezing down costs by offering a slightly inferior format at an attractive price point for the general consumer. My guess is that connoisseurs will continue shopping for better panels in 16:10 format.

for GAMES its the aspect ratio not resolution that determines viewable area. resolution doesnt mean anything when it comes to viewable area. for example you dont see more with 1600x1200 than you with 1280x720. physically its slightly bigger but you are seeing more within the game with 16:9. the screenshots CLEARLY show that. its very simple: properly done widescreen adds MORE to the sides and doesnt lose anything.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: s44
Honestly, if this allows us to get 20-30" non-TN panels at better prices, it's a good thing.

As far as I can tell the 16:9 monitors today are mostly TN. Looks like they are trying to make a cheap and popular technology even cheaper and more popular. I'd consider a non-TN 16:9 monitor a waste, to be honest.

Originally posted by: toyota
since you want to argue even with my screenshots then look at this http://www.widescreengamingfor...(Aspect_ratio_support) . games that properly support hor+ (horizontal plus) widescreen such as Source engine games get wider with 16:9 than with 16:10 and lose nothing just like I have said.

You lose overall viewable area. When configured properly a game in 16:9 seems to be able to display a proportionately slightly wider field of view, but the overall picture is going to be smaller than the equivalent image on a 16:10 screen.

Assuming the same pixel pitch, take the resolutions used in the images you linked:

1280x800 = 1,024,000 screen area (by pixel)
1280 x 720 = 921,600

That is a difference in screen area of 102,400 pixels, or put it another way the above 16:10 panel has 10% more viewable area than the 16:9.

16:9 for multimedia might as well be 16:10, since there are multiple formats that movies use - you will still experience black bars in other words. And for work there is no argument that a taller widescreen is better. When it comes to PC gaming, personally I prefer big action and a big picture, so the extra 10% in size is pretty significant. The only real synergy here is with consoles that output in 16:9, but it's rather strange to be making computer monitors for devices that are best attached to TVs and played on a couch.

It seems to me the growing number of 16:9 panels has less to do with consumer preferences and more to do with squeezing down costs by offering a slightly inferior format at an attractive price point for the general consumer. My guess is that connoisseurs will continue shopping for better panels in 16:10 format.

for GAMES its the aspect ratio not resolution that determines viewable area. resolution doesnt mean anything when it comes to viewable area. for example you dont see more with 1600x1200 than you with 1280x720. physically its slightly bigger but you are seeing more within the game with 16:9. the screenshots CLEARLY show that. its very simple: properly done widescreen adds MORE to the sides and doesnt lose anything.

LOL, you are like broken record. like I said, you can't understand the logic. Let me try again, if you don't get it, you are the winner.

Whatever you to do 16:9 to make it "see more", same can be applied to 16:10 to see as much, you can understand that. And there would be some black bars for the difference. Get that? 16:10 can show 16:9 image with additional black bars on top and bottom.
Now that black bars on 16:10 can add more content to the image. that can't be done to 16:9. do I need to draw it to you? just take any of your 16:9 screen shots and add more stuff to height until you get 16:10.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: s44
Honestly, if this allows us to get 20-30" non-TN panels at better prices, it's a good thing.

As far as I can tell the 16:9 monitors today are mostly TN. Looks like they are trying to make a cheap and popular technology even cheaper and more popular. I'd consider a non-TN 16:9 monitor a waste, to be honest.

Originally posted by: toyota
since you want to argue even with my screenshots then look at this http://www.widescreengamingfor...(Aspect_ratio_support) . games that properly support hor+ (horizontal plus) widescreen such as Source engine games get wider with 16:9 than with 16:10 and lose nothing just like I have said.

You lose overall viewable area. When configured properly a game in 16:9 seems to be able to display a proportionately slightly wider field of view, but the overall picture is going to be smaller than the equivalent image on a 16:10 screen.

Assuming the same pixel pitch, take the resolutions used in the images you linked:

1280x800 = 1,024,000 screen area (by pixel)
1280 x 720 = 921,600

That is a difference in screen area of 102,400 pixels, or put it another way the above 16:10 panel has 10% more viewable area than the 16:9.

16:9 for multimedia might as well be 16:10, since there are multiple formats that movies use - you will still experience black bars in other words. And for work there is no argument that a taller widescreen is better. When it comes to PC gaming, personally I prefer big action and a big picture, so the extra 10% in size is pretty significant. The only real synergy here is with consoles that output in 16:9, but it's rather strange to be making computer monitors for devices that are best attached to TVs and played on a couch.

It seems to me the growing number of 16:9 panels has less to do with consumer preferences and more to do with squeezing down costs by offering a slightly inferior format at an attractive price point for the general consumer. My guess is that connoisseurs will continue shopping for better panels in 16:10 format.

for GAMES its the aspect ratio not resolution that determines viewable area. resolution doesnt mean anything when it comes to viewable area. for example you dont see more with 1600x1200 than you with 1280x720. physically its slightly bigger but you are seeing more within the game with 16:9. the screenshots CLEARLY show that. its very simple: properly done widescreen adds MORE to the sides and doesnt lose anything.

LOL, you are like broken record. like I said, you can't understand the logic. Let me try again, if you don't get it, you are the winner.

Whatever you to do 16:9 to make it "see more", same can be applied to 16:10 to see as much, you can understand that. And there would be some black bars for the difference. Get that? 16:10 can show 16:9 image with additional black bars on top and bottom.
Now that black bars on 16:10 can add more content to the image. that can't be done to 16:9. do I need to draw it to you? just take any of your 16:9 screen shots and add more stuff to height until you get 16:10.

there are different types of implementation and you obviously dont understand properly done Hor+ widescreen gaming at all. why dont you go over to the widescreengamingforum.com site so they can teach you.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: s44
Honestly, if this allows us to get 20-30" non-TN panels at better prices, it's a good thing.

As far as I can tell the 16:9 monitors today are mostly TN. Looks like they are trying to make a cheap and popular technology even cheaper and more popular. I'd consider a non-TN 16:9 monitor a waste, to be honest.

Originally posted by: toyota
since you want to argue even with my screenshots then look at this http://www.widescreengamingfor...(Aspect_ratio_support) . games that properly support hor+ (horizontal plus) widescreen such as Source engine games get wider with 16:9 than with 16:10 and lose nothing just like I have said.

You lose overall viewable area. When configured properly a game in 16:9 seems to be able to display a proportionately slightly wider field of view, but the overall picture is going to be smaller than the equivalent image on a 16:10 screen.

Assuming the same pixel pitch, take the resolutions used in the images you linked:

1280x800 = 1,024,000 screen area (by pixel)
1280 x 720 = 921,600

That is a difference in screen area of 102,400 pixels, or put it another way the above 16:10 panel has 10% more viewable area than the 16:9.

16:9 for multimedia might as well be 16:10, since there are multiple formats that movies use - you will still experience black bars in other words. And for work there is no argument that a taller widescreen is better. When it comes to PC gaming, personally I prefer big action and a big picture, so the extra 10% in size is pretty significant. The only real synergy here is with consoles that output in 16:9, but it's rather strange to be making computer monitors for devices that are best attached to TVs and played on a couch.

It seems to me the growing number of 16:9 panels has less to do with consumer preferences and more to do with squeezing down costs by offering a slightly inferior format at an attractive price point for the general consumer. My guess is that connoisseurs will continue shopping for better panels in 16:10 format.

for GAMES its the aspect ratio not resolution that determines viewable area. resolution doesnt mean anything when it comes to viewable area. for example you dont see more with 1600x1200 than you with 1280x720. physically its slightly bigger but you are seeing more within the game with 16:9. the screenshots CLEARLY show that. its very simple: properly done widescreen adds MORE to the sides and doesnt lose anything.

LOL, you are like broken record. like I said, you can't understand the logic. Let me try again, if you don't get it, you are the winner.

Whatever you to do 16:9 to make it "see more", same can be applied to 16:10 to see as much, you can understand that. And there would be some black bars for the difference. Get that? 16:10 can show 16:9 image with additional black bars on top and bottom.
Now that black bars on 16:10 can add more content to the image. that can't be done to 16:9. do I need to draw it to you? just take any of your 16:9 screen shots and add more stuff to height until you get 16:10.

there are different types of implementation and you obviously dont understand properly done Hor+ widescreen gaming at all. why dont you go over to the widescreengamingforum.com site so they can teach you.

I just have tought you that you can't think with your own head and respond to facts with arguments. All you can do is point over and over again to same meaningless articles. You have no your own reasoning beside some BS about magic 16:9 with nothing substantional about it.

Next time buy small box when you move, becasue you can put more in it. Or perhaps become new Dr. Einstein with revolutionary thought that smaller area can fit more.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: s44
Honestly, if this allows us to get 20-30" non-TN panels at better prices, it's a good thing.

As far as I can tell the 16:9 monitors today are mostly TN. Looks like they are trying to make a cheap and popular technology even cheaper and more popular. I'd consider a non-TN 16:9 monitor a waste, to be honest.

Originally posted by: toyota
since you want to argue even with my screenshots then look at this http://www.widescreengamingfor...(Aspect_ratio_support) . games that properly support hor+ (horizontal plus) widescreen such as Source engine games get wider with 16:9 than with 16:10 and lose nothing just like I have said.

You lose overall viewable area. When configured properly a game in 16:9 seems to be able to display a proportionately slightly wider field of view, but the overall picture is going to be smaller than the equivalent image on a 16:10 screen.

Assuming the same pixel pitch, take the resolutions used in the images you linked:

1280x800 = 1,024,000 screen area (by pixel)
1280 x 720 = 921,600

That is a difference in screen area of 102,400 pixels, or put it another way the above 16:10 panel has 10% more viewable area than the 16:9.

16:9 for multimedia might as well be 16:10, since there are multiple formats that movies use - you will still experience black bars in other words. And for work there is no argument that a taller widescreen is better. When it comes to PC gaming, personally I prefer big action and a big picture, so the extra 10% in size is pretty significant. The only real synergy here is with consoles that output in 16:9, but it's rather strange to be making computer monitors for devices that are best attached to TVs and played on a couch.

It seems to me the growing number of 16:9 panels has less to do with consumer preferences and more to do with squeezing down costs by offering a slightly inferior format at an attractive price point for the general consumer. My guess is that connoisseurs will continue shopping for better panels in 16:10 format.

for GAMES its the aspect ratio not resolution that determines viewable area. resolution doesnt mean anything when it comes to viewable area. for example you dont see more with 1600x1200 than you with 1280x720. physically its slightly bigger but you are seeing more within the game with 16:9. the screenshots CLEARLY show that. its very simple: properly done widescreen adds MORE to the sides and doesnt lose anything.

LOL, you are like broken record. like I said, you can't understand the logic. Let me try again, if you don't get it, you are the winner.

Whatever you to do 16:9 to make it "see more", same can be applied to 16:10 to see as much, you can understand that. And there would be some black bars for the difference. Get that? 16:10 can show 16:9 image with additional black bars on top and bottom.
Now that black bars on 16:10 can add more content to the image. that can't be done to 16:9. do I need to draw it to you? just take any of your 16:9 screen shots and add more stuff to height until you get 16:10.

there are different types of implementation and you obviously dont understand properly done Hor+ widescreen gaming at all. why dont you go over to the widescreengamingforum.com site so they can teach you.

I just have tought you that you can't think with your own head and respond to facts with arguments. All you can do is point over and over again to same meaningless articles. You have no your own reasoning beside some BS about magic 16:9 with nothing substantional about it.

Next time buy small box when you move, becasue you can put more in it. Or perhaps become new Dr. Einstein with revolutionary thought that smaller area can fit more.

maybe one day you will pull your head out of your ass and read up on widescreen gaming. until then I will enjoy my wider view while you act like a dumbfuck.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: s44
Honestly, if this allows us to get 20-30" non-TN panels at better prices, it's a good thing.

As far as I can tell the 16:9 monitors today are mostly TN. Looks like they are trying to make a cheap and popular technology even cheaper and more popular. I'd consider a non-TN 16:9 monitor a waste, to be honest.

Originally posted by: toyota
since you want to argue even with my screenshots then look at this http://www.widescreengamingfor...(Aspect_ratio_support) . games that properly support hor+ (horizontal plus) widescreen such as Source engine games get wider with 16:9 than with 16:10 and lose nothing just like I have said.

You lose overall viewable area. When configured properly a game in 16:9 seems to be able to display a proportionately slightly wider field of view, but the overall picture is going to be smaller than the equivalent image on a 16:10 screen.

Assuming the same pixel pitch, take the resolutions used in the images you linked:

1280x800 = 1,024,000 screen area (by pixel)
1280 x 720 = 921,600

That is a difference in screen area of 102,400 pixels, or put it another way the above 16:10 panel has 10% more viewable area than the 16:9.

16:9 for multimedia might as well be 16:10, since there are multiple formats that movies use - you will still experience black bars in other words. And for work there is no argument that a taller widescreen is better. When it comes to PC gaming, personally I prefer big action and a big picture, so the extra 10% in size is pretty significant. The only real synergy here is with consoles that output in 16:9, but it's rather strange to be making computer monitors for devices that are best attached to TVs and played on a couch.

It seems to me the growing number of 16:9 panels has less to do with consumer preferences and more to do with squeezing down costs by offering a slightly inferior format at an attractive price point for the general consumer. My guess is that connoisseurs will continue shopping for better panels in 16:10 format.

for GAMES its the aspect ratio not resolution that determines viewable area. resolution doesnt mean anything when it comes to viewable area. for example you dont see more with 1600x1200 than you with 1280x720. physically its slightly bigger but you are seeing more within the game with 16:9. the screenshots CLEARLY show that. its very simple: properly done widescreen adds MORE to the sides and doesnt lose anything.

LOL, you are like broken record. like I said, you can't understand the logic. Let me try again, if you don't get it, you are the winner.

Whatever you to do 16:9 to make it "see more", same can be applied to 16:10 to see as much, you can understand that. And there would be some black bars for the difference. Get that? 16:10 can show 16:9 image with additional black bars on top and bottom.
Now that black bars on 16:10 can add more content to the image. that can't be done to 16:9. do I need to draw it to you? just take any of your 16:9 screen shots and add more stuff to height until you get 16:10.

there are different types of implementation and you obviously dont understand properly done Hor+ widescreen gaming at all. why dont you go over to the widescreengamingforum.com site so they can teach you.

I just have tought you that you can't think with your own head and respond to facts with arguments. All you can do is point over and over again to same meaningless articles. You have no your own reasoning beside some BS about magic 16:9 with nothing substantional about it.

Next time buy small box when you move, becasue you can put more in it. Or perhaps become new Dr. Einstein with revolutionary thought that smaller area can fit more.

maybe one day you will pull your head out of your ass and read up on widescreen gaming. until then I will enjoy my wider view while you act like a dumbfuck.

Hi Mr. Einstein 2, how's theory of new age relativity: bigger is actually smaller and smaller is actually bigger coming along?

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: s44
Honestly, if this allows us to get 20-30" non-TN panels at better prices, it's a good thing.

As far as I can tell the 16:9 monitors today are mostly TN. Looks like they are trying to make a cheap and popular technology even cheaper and more popular. I'd consider a non-TN 16:9 monitor a waste, to be honest.

Originally posted by: toyota
since you want to argue even with my screenshots then look at this http://www.widescreengamingfor...(Aspect_ratio_support) . games that properly support hor+ (horizontal plus) widescreen such as Source engine games get wider with 16:9 than with 16:10 and lose nothing just like I have said.

You lose overall viewable area. When configured properly a game in 16:9 seems to be able to display a proportionately slightly wider field of view, but the overall picture is going to be smaller than the equivalent image on a 16:10 screen.

Assuming the same pixel pitch, take the resolutions used in the images you linked:

1280x800 = 1,024,000 screen area (by pixel)
1280 x 720 = 921,600

That is a difference in screen area of 102,400 pixels, or put it another way the above 16:10 panel has 10% more viewable area than the 16:9.

16:9 for multimedia might as well be 16:10, since there are multiple formats that movies use - you will still experience black bars in other words. And for work there is no argument that a taller widescreen is better. When it comes to PC gaming, personally I prefer big action and a big picture, so the extra 10% in size is pretty significant. The only real synergy here is with consoles that output in 16:9, but it's rather strange to be making computer monitors for devices that are best attached to TVs and played on a couch.

It seems to me the growing number of 16:9 panels has less to do with consumer preferences and more to do with squeezing down costs by offering a slightly inferior format at an attractive price point for the general consumer. My guess is that connoisseurs will continue shopping for better panels in 16:10 format.

for GAMES its the aspect ratio not resolution that determines viewable area. resolution doesnt mean anything when it comes to viewable area. for example you dont see more with 1600x1200 than you with 1280x720. physically its slightly bigger but you are seeing more within the game with 16:9. the screenshots CLEARLY show that. its very simple: properly done widescreen adds MORE to the sides and doesnt lose anything.

LOL, you are like broken record. like I said, you can't understand the logic. Let me try again, if you don't get it, you are the winner.

Whatever you to do 16:9 to make it "see more", same can be applied to 16:10 to see as much, you can understand that. And there would be some black bars for the difference. Get that? 16:10 can show 16:9 image with additional black bars on top and bottom.
Now that black bars on 16:10 can add more content to the image. that can't be done to 16:9. do I need to draw it to you? just take any of your 16:9 screen shots and add more stuff to height until you get 16:10.

there are different types of implementation and you obviously dont understand properly done Hor+ widescreen gaming at all. why dont you go over to the widescreengamingforum.com site so they can teach you.

I just have tought you that you can't think with your own head and respond to facts with arguments. All you can do is point over and over again to same meaningless articles. You have no your own reasoning beside some BS about magic 16:9 with nothing substantional about it.

Next time buy small box when you move, becasue you can put more in it. Or perhaps become new Dr. Einstein with revolutionary thought that smaller area can fit more.

maybe one day you will pull your head out of your ass and read up on widescreen gaming. until then I will enjoy my wider view while you act like a dumbfuck.

Hi Mr. Einstein 2, how's theory of new age relativity: bigger is actually smaller and smaller is actually bigger coming along?

gb2widescreengamingforum.com

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: s44
Honestly, if this allows us to get 20-30" non-TN panels at better prices, it's a good thing.

As far as I can tell the 16:9 monitors today are mostly TN. Looks like they are trying to make a cheap and popular technology even cheaper and more popular. I'd consider a non-TN 16:9 monitor a waste, to be honest.

Originally posted by: toyota
since you want to argue even with my screenshots then look at this http://www.widescreengamingfor...(Aspect_ratio_support) . games that properly support hor+ (horizontal plus) widescreen such as Source engine games get wider with 16:9 than with 16:10 and lose nothing just like I have said.

You lose overall viewable area. When configured properly a game in 16:9 seems to be able to display a proportionately slightly wider field of view, but the overall picture is going to be smaller than the equivalent image on a 16:10 screen.

Assuming the same pixel pitch, take the resolutions used in the images you linked:

1280x800 = 1,024,000 screen area (by pixel)
1280 x 720 = 921,600

That is a difference in screen area of 102,400 pixels, or put it another way the above 16:10 panel has 10% more viewable area than the 16:9.

16:9 for multimedia might as well be 16:10, since there are multiple formats that movies use - you will still experience black bars in other words. And for work there is no argument that a taller widescreen is better. When it comes to PC gaming, personally I prefer big action and a big picture, so the extra 10% in size is pretty significant. The only real synergy here is with consoles that output in 16:9, but it's rather strange to be making computer monitors for devices that are best attached to TVs and played on a couch.

It seems to me the growing number of 16:9 panels has less to do with consumer preferences and more to do with squeezing down costs by offering a slightly inferior format at an attractive price point for the general consumer. My guess is that connoisseurs will continue shopping for better panels in 16:10 format.

for GAMES its the aspect ratio not resolution that determines viewable area. resolution doesnt mean anything when it comes to viewable area. for example you dont see more with 1600x1200 than you with 1280x720. physically its slightly bigger but you are seeing more within the game with 16:9. the screenshots CLEARLY show that. its very simple: properly done widescreen adds MORE to the sides and doesnt lose anything.

LOL, you are like broken record. like I said, you can't understand the logic. Let me try again, if you don't get it, you are the winner.

Whatever you to do 16:9 to make it "see more", same can be applied to 16:10 to see as much, you can understand that. And there would be some black bars for the difference. Get that? 16:10 can show 16:9 image with additional black bars on top and bottom.
Now that black bars on 16:10 can add more content to the image. that can't be done to 16:9. do I need to draw it to you? just take any of your 16:9 screen shots and add more stuff to height until you get 16:10.

there are different types of implementation and you obviously dont understand properly done Hor+ widescreen gaming at all. why dont you go over to the widescreengamingforum.com site so they can teach you.

I just have tought you that you can't think with your own head and respond to facts with arguments. All you can do is point over and over again to same meaningless articles. You have no your own reasoning beside some BS about magic 16:9 with nothing substantional about it.

Next time buy small box when you move, becasue you can put more in it. Or perhaps become new Dr. Einstein with revolutionary thought that smaller area can fit more.

maybe one day you will pull your head out of your ass and read up on widescreen gaming. until then I will enjoy my wider view while you act like a dumbfuck.

Hi Mr. Einstein 2, how's theory of new age relativity: bigger is actually smaller and smaller is actually bigger coming along?

gb2widescreengamingforum.com

dont waste your time with that idiot. he doesnt understand what aspect ratio means for correctly implemented widescreen gaming. he keeps looking at the resolution and thinks that the bigger it is the more you will see in a game. lol. maybe one day he will figure it out on his own.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: s44
Honestly, if this allows us to get 20-30" non-TN panels at better prices, it's a good thing.

As far as I can tell the 16:9 monitors today are mostly TN. Looks like they are trying to make a cheap and popular technology even cheaper and more popular. I'd consider a non-TN 16:9 monitor a waste, to be honest.

Originally posted by: toyota
since you want to argue even with my screenshots then look at this http://www.widescreengamingfor...(Aspect_ratio_support) . games that properly support hor+ (horizontal plus) widescreen such as Source engine games get wider with 16:9 than with 16:10 and lose nothing just like I have said.

You lose overall viewable area. When configured properly a game in 16:9 seems to be able to display a proportionately slightly wider field of view, but the overall picture is going to be smaller than the equivalent image on a 16:10 screen.

Assuming the same pixel pitch, take the resolutions used in the images you linked:

1280x800 = 1,024,000 screen area (by pixel)
1280 x 720 = 921,600

That is a difference in screen area of 102,400 pixels, or put it another way the above 16:10 panel has 10% more viewable area than the 16:9.

16:9 for multimedia might as well be 16:10, since there are multiple formats that movies use - you will still experience black bars in other words. And for work there is no argument that a taller widescreen is better. When it comes to PC gaming, personally I prefer big action and a big picture, so the extra 10% in size is pretty significant. The only real synergy here is with consoles that output in 16:9, but it's rather strange to be making computer monitors for devices that are best attached to TVs and played on a couch.

It seems to me the growing number of 16:9 panels has less to do with consumer preferences and more to do with squeezing down costs by offering a slightly inferior format at an attractive price point for the general consumer. My guess is that connoisseurs will continue shopping for better panels in 16:10 format.

for GAMES its the aspect ratio not resolution that determines viewable area. resolution doesnt mean anything when it comes to viewable area. for example you dont see more with 1600x1200 than you with 1280x720. physically its slightly bigger but you are seeing more within the game with 16:9. the screenshots CLEARLY show that. its very simple: properly done widescreen adds MORE to the sides and doesnt lose anything.

LOL, you are like broken record. like I said, you can't understand the logic. Let me try again, if you don't get it, you are the winner.

Whatever you to do 16:9 to make it "see more", same can be applied to 16:10 to see as much, you can understand that. And there would be some black bars for the difference. Get that? 16:10 can show 16:9 image with additional black bars on top and bottom.
Now that black bars on 16:10 can add more content to the image. that can't be done to 16:9. do I need to draw it to you? just take any of your 16:9 screen shots and add more stuff to height until you get 16:10.

there are different types of implementation and you obviously dont understand properly done Hor+ widescreen gaming at all. why dont you go over to the widescreengamingforum.com site so they can teach you.

I just have tought you that you can't think with your own head and respond to facts with arguments. All you can do is point over and over again to same meaningless articles. You have no your own reasoning beside some BS about magic 16:9 with nothing substantional about it.

Next time buy small box when you move, becasue you can put more in it. Or perhaps become new Dr. Einstein with revolutionary thought that smaller area can fit more.

maybe one day you will pull your head out of your ass and read up on widescreen gaming. until then I will enjoy my wider view while you act like a dumbfuck.

Hi Mr. Einstein 2, how's theory of new age relativity: bigger is actually smaller and smaller is actually bigger coming along?

gb2widescreengamingforum.com

dont waste your time with that idiot. he doesnt understand what aspect ratio means for correctly implemented widescreen gaming. he keeps looking at the resolution and thinks that the bigger it is the more you will see in a game. lol. maybe one day he will figure it out on his own.

keep zooming out to see more, perhaps you should reduce everything to a single pixel and then see the whole world from your mighty screen... Mr. Einstein2, where less is more and more is less; 9 is bigger than 10 also!

 

[cbn]

It is not the aspect ratio that determines viewable area, it is the total number of pixels (ie, surface area)

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: s44
Honestly, if this allows us to get 20-30" non-TN panels at better prices, it's a good thing.

As far as I can tell the 16:9 monitors today are mostly TN. Looks like they are trying to make a cheap and popular technology even cheaper and more popular. I'd consider a non-TN 16:9 monitor a waste, to be honest.

Originally posted by: toyota
since you want to argue even with my screenshots then look at this http://www.widescreengamingfor...(Aspect_ratio_support) . games that properly support hor+ (horizontal plus) widescreen such as Source engine games get wider with 16:9 than with 16:10 and lose nothing just like I have said.

You lose overall viewable area. When configured properly a game in 16:9 seems to be able to display a proportionately slightly wider field of view, but the overall picture is going to be smaller than the equivalent image on a 16:10 screen.

Assuming the same pixel pitch, take the resolutions used in the images you linked:

1280x800 = 1,024,000 screen area (by pixel)
1280 x 720 = 921,600

That is a difference in screen area of 102,400 pixels, or put it another way the above 16:10 panel has 10% more viewable area than the 16:9.

16:9 for multimedia might as well be 16:10, since there are multiple formats that movies use - you will still experience black bars in other words. And for work there is no argument that a taller widescreen is better. When it comes to PC gaming, personally I prefer big action and a big picture, so the extra 10% in size is pretty significant. The only real synergy here is with consoles that output in 16:9, but it's rather strange to be making computer monitors for devices that are best attached to TVs and played on a couch.

It seems to me the growing number of 16:9 panels has less to do with consumer preferences and more to do with squeezing down costs by offering a slightly inferior format at an attractive price point for the general consumer. My guess is that connoisseurs will continue shopping for better panels in 16:10 format.

for GAMES its the aspect ratio not resolution that determines viewable area. resolution doesnt mean anything when it comes to viewable area. for example you dont see more with 1600x1200 than you with 1280x720. physically its slightly bigger but you are seeing more within the game with 16:9. the screenshots CLEARLY show that. its very simple: properly done widescreen adds MORE to the sides and doesnt lose anything.

Whatever you to do 16:9 to make it "see more", same can be applied to 16:10 to see as much, you can understand that. And there would be some black bars for the difference. Get that? 16:10 can show 16:9 image with additional black bars on top and bottom.
Now that black bars on 16:10 can add more content to the image. that can't be done to 16:9. do I need to draw it to you? just take any of your 16:9 screen shots and add more stuff to height until you get 16:10.

You are comparing a 16:10 monitor with more total pixels to a 16:9 monitor with less total pixels so this really isn't an argument of aspect ratio.

Instead of comparing something like a 16:9 1920x1080 resolution to a 16:10 1920x1200 resolution why don't you use 16:9 2048x1152 resolution instead?

 

[zebrax2]

16:9 does project a larger FOV but on the other hand you could actually see more details in the 16:10 monitor since i has more area.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: zebrax2
16:9 does project a larger FOV but on the other hand you could actually see more details in the 16:10 monitor since i has more area.

Not always.

What about comparing 2048x1152 16:9 to 1920x1200 16:10?

In this case the 16:9 is just very slightly ahead of the 16:10 in pixel surface area.