Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by brumgrunt, 22 Oct 2012.
16:10 feels nicer
I am all for 16:10, Which is actually the closest AR to Golden Ratio. Apart from the black bar when watching 1080P movies, a computer screen should have always stick to 16:10. And i am glad Apple continue to do so with Macbook Pro. I could only hope they apply the 16:10 to the whole range from Mac to iPhone. Another Aspect Ratio ilike is 5:3.
I've used several aspect ratios and 16:10 is my faviourite, but it is entirely a matter of personal preference - some users much prefer 16:9. My current monitor is 4:3 and I love it.
Still rocking a Samsung 215 TW, I'm a 16:10 fan, I'd like to go bigger than 21" but the pickings have been slim since 16:9's have taken a foothold.
"even a 27in 16:9 monitor canâ€™t usurp a 24in 16:10 example sporting all those extra vertical pixels"
Um - not strictly true - look at the Dell Ultrasharp 27" - 2560 x 1440.
You pick the size of a display based, primarily, on how far away you'll be sitting from it . The bigger the monitor, the further away you can sit while still making out details. You shouldn't buy a 42" TV and sit 2 feet away and you also shouldn't buy a 20" monitor and then sit across the room from it. There are supposedly sweet spots for sizes and resolutions of displays. You work out where you'll be sitting in relation to your display and what resolution you'll be watching on it and then you can work out what size you want.
High res displays (2560x1600/1440 for example) tend to buck this trend as they are situationally unique enough to warrant changing your seating arrangement to meet their demands.
I started out on a 17" 4:3 CRT that I ran at 1280x960. Then I got my first laptop which has a 1280x800 (16:10) resolution. I found it acceptable. Sure, I'd just lost 160 lines, but it was offset by the fact that I could still have 2 A4 pages from a PDF side-by-side, if a bit on the blurry.
Since then, all other laptop I've used have been of the 1366x768 or 1920x1080 (16:9) ratio. On the lower resolution, I badly missed the 16:10 ratio. On the 1920x1080 panels, I can live because of the sheer resolution, but anything lower is just a royal pain to use for real work, so I swear by 16:10, much to the dismay of my wallet. This has reached a turning point as of now since I got the occasion to replace my desktop monitors with a pair of 24" Dells (a U2410 and a 2408WFP, second-hand - I was amazed at how cheap...), both of which have a glorious 1920x1200 pixels in the correct 16:10 ratio.
And then I have to poke around on a friends 1366x768 laptop for whatever reason... Combine low resolution, with shitty washed out colours, a pithy 200:1 contrast ratio and not even sRGB colourspace and you have a recipe for me wanting to go slap some laptop designers... Much the same applies to monitor manufacturers as well, although the Dell U2412M heralds cheap 16:10 IPS for everyone soon \o/
I have a 16:9 27" montior, and to be honest I have tried a 16:10 and couldn't really notice much of a difference.
I think people will just choose what they want and how much they want to spend.
During the summer my 22" 16:10 samsung monitor died, after looking around for a reasonably priced replacement monitor I was very disappointed in everything I'd seen, they were all 16:9 & felt a bit cramped despite being 1920x1080. So I ended up on ebay ordering new capacitors for my dead monitor in the hope I could try and get it running again.
my primary monitor is 32" Panny fullHD TV(almost zero input lag), secondary is Samsung 226cw 16:10(not so good for gaming even it was advertised as one)
well, although im very precise when it comes to my pc and its hardware, i upgrade every 5-7 years, which seen long but when i upgrade i buy only the top-top of the range stuff so as to last longer. works for me.
but when it comes to monitors or tv's (tv's have come a a nice point where the quality can be also impressive gaming wise), bigger the better, granted the image quality is decent. although colour might not pop as much as certain monitors and technically u just stretching the imaging to fit on a bigger screen, i dont car. like a real man thats still a boy. i would buy a 90inch monitor in my 5foot flat if i could, be uncomfortable but man oh man would i smile when playing games
i would look and say, yeah, ur aspect ratio delivers a true experience and sharper colour, i would reply with, yeah, but i got a monster which is bigger than urs :-D
what ever apple give me......
only joking. 16:10 for me.
@work I have a 4:3 (1600 x 1200) Monitor and I recently turned down a switch to a 22" 16:10 (1680 x 1050) because I regularly deal with massive spread sheets and love the vertical resolution.
@home I currently have exactly the screen I turned down for work which IMHO is a perfect compromise for gaming.
For X-mas, however, I am considering a 16:9 27" (2560 x 1440): It delivers additional 240 vertical pixels over a 16:10 @ 1920 x 1200 while not straining the GPU as much as 2560 x 1600 - I hope...
16:10 all the way. More versatility; better for gaming, better for coding, better for browsing, better for art, better for 3D design - Better for just about anything that isn't "omg HD movie content".
16:9 is for watching movies, and that's going to happen on a TV instead for most people. The shift to 16:9 in computer monitors is an anti-consumer move that they got away with because of the general consumer's ignorance about these things and the marketing fluff attached to terms like "HD Ready" and "Full HD"; which are largely meaningless in computer displays.
The real screen-type that needs to die in a fire, though; is 1366x768.
Trying to get a 15" laptop that doesn't have that horrendous, unusable, pathetic resolution is a pain.
If it wasn't for whitebooks I'd have torn my hair out when I was in the market for a laptop.
Another alternative would be a Macbook, to Apple's credit; since their attitude to screen resolution is a bit more grounded in reality than the average box-shifter; even if there's just a bit too much marketing fluff attached to the 'Retina' term as well.
16:10 is even more important for eyefinity/surround.
i use three 24" 1920x1200 screens, and i have three spares, so i'll be sticking with 16:10 for some time to come.
On a very simplistic way, a 2560x1400 is 3,7MP while a 1920x1200 is 2,3MP. Thats 60% more pixels for the GPU to push.
16:10, and a pox on anyone who tries to tell me otherwise.
Several people have, in the past, told me "It's no different, 1920x1200 is too clunky" only to find me trying to punch them in the mouth.
I use 1920x1080 on my laptop, and thanks to works cheapness, the 24" it plugs into. It's ludicrous how different the two resolutions are, and when I get home (to a real display), I feel much better.
I tried to explain this to some friends the other night, but we wound up talking about why the trucker of the group shat in a fridge..
I'm a die-hard 24" 16:10 fan. When I go to LAN-parties, people think I have a 27" screen anyway, as it is so much bigger than their 24" 24:9 screens.
One thing I would mention is that the wider screen of a 16:9 shows more of the game than 16:10. A useful excuse for when I'm getting my arse handed to me in Counter Strike.
I can't believe BT has published an article comparing screen sizes & aspect ratios without covering the difference in resolution options the sizes have. You've come to the conclusion that a 1200px 24" screen is better than a 1080p 27" without once mentioning that the vast majority of 27" monitors that are used (certainly by BT readers) are 2560x1440 and NOT 1920x1080.
Yes we all know that when looking at two monitors (Say two 24" screens) then a 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200 but to then focus on screen size / aspect ratio alone without covering resolution is plane bonkers. It's a forehead slapping omission really and makes me wonder if the author was even aware that higher than 1080p resolution screens were so widely used.
My primary screen is a 16:9 27" my secondary is a 16:10 24". I've got much more working room on the 27" than the 24" and the result is a shaper image to boot.
How can I have a sharper image and more working room on the 27" even though the aspect ratio is 16:9?
BECAUSE IT HAS MORE PIXELS!
Edit: Actually my 24" is not 16:10 it's 10:16 with a vertical height on 1920px and my 15" laptop trumps the 27" when it comes to working space if I crank it up to 2880x1800px
Separate names with a comma.