Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by brumgrunt, 22 Oct 2012.
I don't really care.
What? I'm serious!
I still far prefer 16:10 despite having 2 16:9 monitors now.
Even with 1440p I still think the U2711 looks too thin.
Sadly couldn't afford a U3011
Ridiculous article. Of course 1920x1200 in a 24" screen is going to look better than 1920x1080 in a 27" - that is why you buy a 2560x1440 instead at that size. Perhaps you should go use one if these and then come back with an opinion?
The other issue is cost - 16:10 screens are becoming increasingly more expensive, and although they have more pixels is that worth the mark up? A Dell 30" costs hundreds more than a Dell 27", which would pay for a large SSD, new CPU or even a whole budget machine.
Not so. I pick a large screen to get more information on it. Simple as that, the more I can see at the same time, the more efficient I'll be.
I thought that a 16:10 screen always showed more of a game than 16:9. I always percieved it as:
16:10 = 16: 0.5 + 9 + 0.5.
For example, if you go from gaming at 1280x720 (16:9) to 1280x800 (16:10), you gain an additional 5% of information above and below the 720p resolution.
When you compare 2560x1440 to 1280x800, the 1440p is showing as much of the game as 720p but with twice as much detail. However, the 1280x800 image would be showing the extra 5% on top and below meaning you see more of the game.
Alas, it works the other way round. The 16:9 shows everything that the 16:10 does, plus a bit more round the sides. Remember the Bioshock furore? There was such an uproar, they changed it, but it's still the default on other games.
Dell ultra 27inch 2560x 1440 is still the best screen money can buy in todays market, And is what most people on this forum are using as there 27inch screens. And shock it is 16:9 ratio. to get a monitor with aspect ratio at the 2560 res area the cost is insane.Dell 30inch ultrasharp is the only monitor that im aware off and it costs around a £1000
As for games most games are console ports and are hard coded for 16:9 ratio even if its stretched to fit the area of your screen.
Very few recent releases even give you an option to change the aspect ratio.
I've never done across many (too many?) years of purchasing / upgrades.
I choose my screens primarily these factors in this order.
A) How much working space I can get (Resolution)
B) Screen size
I sit at a distance from my screens where my finger tips could just reach (I have short girly arms). I do that with small monitors I do that with larger hi-res screens.
I choose bigger screens to get more pixels and get more on screen at any one time.
16:10 every time. I use computers far more than just films and games and if I lost 10% of my vertical pixels I'd be unimpressed!
Mainly because only pros and hardcore enthusiasts care at this point.
As for the Dell U2711 vs U3011 comparison, its a big difference in terms of panel tech: the U3011 has a native 10bit panel while the U2711 makes do with an 8bit + afrc panel. That alone is a big difference in cost. If you want expensive try the Nec PA30 for price.
This is much the same reason why Dell still sells the U2410 alongside the U2412M and the U2711 alongside the U2713HM. In both cases the older models have 8-bit + AFRC for 10bit colour while the newer models have 6-bit + AFRC for 8bit colour and consequently are much cheaper.
As tftcentral sums it up:
there's no conundrum... 16:10 wins!
Depends what you mean by 'showed more'. The majority of games lock the horizontal FOV, so a wider aspect (16:9) will display a wider field of vision round the edges, I think the article author has also got this mixed up. With the squarer 16:10 aspect the edges will be clipped by comparison however the picture will be zoomed in so there is probably a greater level of detail too. As you can see you could confusingly describe both as showing more when it comes to games. There was some forum handbags over this last year that made my head hurt so I tested it out and showed it with screen caps from BFBC2:
For 2D applications 16:10 is going to be more useful, for games its complicated.
Very happy with my Dell 2412M. Well worth paying the extra instead of getting the 2312HM. I did have an old 4:3 so the 16:9 ratio looked just wrong to me.
Shame I couldn't push to the 2410 but I reckon the extra quality would have been wasted on me.
I'm using a 16:9 right now and regret it
Word documents and web pages are just so much less pleasurable.
Never really fancied 16:9.
16:10 for me too - i have a 2407 A04 which is a good few years old. I don't know what I would replace it with if it broke due to the switch to 16:9.
16:10 is better for games IF it was developed with those res in mind and not a shitty console port. Initial release of Bioshock is a prime example.
The amount of spies I have caught on TF2 thinking I couldn't see them decloak above me is hilarious.
Of course, it's not a requirement that you play at the monitor's native resolution - you can let the monitor upscale if necessary for the game to run smoothly. Or you can dial back on antialiasing, which gets less required the higher your DPI.
Love 16:10. That is all.
Went through all of this myself a few months ago...16:10/16:9/1920x1080/2560 etc. Ended up with a Asus VG 27" 1920x1080. Pixel density IS poorer than my previous 24" 16:10 but I will never give up my 120Hz!!!!
I'm using a 16:9 ratio and i bet i have more vertical space than most 16:10 users.
I know that can't be true for games and other things but i prefer anyway the wider aspect.
Field of human vision is wider than taller afterall.
edit: apparently imageshack doesn't provide thumbnails anymore. it the image is too large i'll resize it.
Separate names with a comma.