Blogs 16:10 vs 16:9 - the monitor aspect ratio conundrum

In my opinion, resolution, colors and screen size don't matter. I need my monitor to be fast as hell or I will just hate it regardless of its other qualities. That's only in the real world though, where we have to make compromises. In a perfect world, I'd take the fastest screen ever with the highest resolution available rather than size

 

yeah the over all problem is the world is prepearing for the 4k res launch. and Believe it or notit is still on 16:9. And then i dont think there is eny problems with pixels. But @ the moment i like 16:10 more. More content to see in every day. But for my self ill weit when 4k monitors come down to 30" and price aroun 2000-3000 USD then ill buy my self a new monitor .

 

16:10 4 lyfe.

 

I have a 2408 (fixed 2407) and a U2410. The U2410 is a good successor to the 2407/2407HC/2408.

My dual 1920x1200 screens say hi.

On the laptop side, my shitty-ass 1280x800 laptops have more vertical space than the new average resolution of 1366x768.

 

If you need the vertical resolution for work, why not take the 16:10 monitor, and put it in portrait mode?

 

Have you tried using a 24 or 27' monitor in portrait mode..?, you have to crane your neck upwards to see the top of the screen...gets old real quick, either that or sit about 3 or 4 feet away.

I have a nice old 5:4 Viewsonic 17' LCD permanently left in portrait mode for reading magazines, 17' is the perfect size for this mode, you can take in the whole page without having to constantly move your head up and down.

Although 27' monitors in portrait mode do make for amazing Virtual pinball displays..

 

I had a 16:10 Samsung 1680x1050 21.5" (I think). I've now got a 16:9 2560x1440 27". Although I've moved to 16:9 I've increased screen size and resolution significantly so (and considering 27" 16:10 isn't available to me) it's a pointless argument.

 

Dell U3011 at 2560x1600 16:10 here. Upgraded from a 24" 1080 16:9 screen and I would never want to go back, it's wonderful.

 

Just to toss my couple of cents here, I've used 16:9 and 16:10 displays and as much as I occasionally cringe at the black bars, I've found that I love my 16:10 displays so much more.

So much so in fact that I bought a trio of Dell U2412 monitors (used in portrait mode) for my gaming rig.

24" is the sweet spot for size, 16:10 is the sweet spot for ratio, 1920x1200 is the sweet spot for res for me.

 

This feels like a straw man argument.

The comparison being made is a 27" 1920 x 1080 display versus a 24" 1920 x 1200 display. Obviously, the 24" screen will win with it's higher pixel density. That has nothing to do with aspect ratio. If I were buying a 27" display, I would opt for a display that's 2560 x 1440. Aspect ratio wouldn't even be a consideration, and it would avoid a 30" monstrosity with an effectively similar aspect ratio spread across a larger area where one would effectively run into the same 'problem' when comparing image quality and pixel density.

At work, I have a 24" 16:10 IPS display. At home, I have a 23" 16:9 IPS display. Aside from the difference in physical size (which I counteract with by putting the appropriate distance between me and the display), there's hardly anything about the missing 120 horizontal lines that makes me think one is better than the other.

I have to be honest, my first reaction to the article title alone was, "Seriously, this is a thing that people are worried about? Are people that unadaptable that such a tiny difference bothers them?"

 

Just got a pair of U2412Ms at work and I have t say that they're hard to beat for the money.

Can you get more colour accurate screens? Can you get higher res screens? Can you get bigger screens? Can you get faster screens? Yes, yes, yes and yes. But for £200, a 1920×1200 24" IPS monitor is cracking value for money.

Colour is good, build quality is good and the price is good. I highly recommend these as a decent value for money monitor.

My 10bit 27" Hazro at home is much nicer though, even though it's 16:9. It's all about resolution, not aspect ratio.

Hell, I'd take a 16×5 aspect ratio if it had a nice high vertical resolution greater than 1080

 

Couldn't care less about aspect ratio, as I'd pick a dell u2711 over a 16:10 24" monitor anyday.

However, 4:3 (which I think the ipad uses) is much better than 16:9 on tablets.

 

16:10 is my preferred aspect ratio at 24"

I'm disappointed that Blizzard games look significantly worse in 16:10 - you really have to run them at 16:9

 

This argument irritates me somewhat. Yes, 16:9 screens with the same number of horizontal pixels feel smaller. This is because they are smaller. It's got nothing to do with the aspect ratio, it's just a smaller screen.

 

WOW, I am honestly really amazed by the sheer number of people on this forum who loves 16:10!

The way I see things, 16:10 is the way the games should be played. 16:9, you are cheating in seeing more to the left and right of you. And getting those overly wide monitor, are the biggest cheaters. So either you have 16:10, or a cheater (I am just kidding)

 

16:9 all the way. You'll get used to it.

 

Agree. Also considering a 16:10 and a 16:9 of the same physical height, the 16:9 is physically wider, which I enjoy. The only dimension monitors can really grow without becoming awkward to use it's length.

 

There are people who know what they are talking about, and then there are the people who support 16:9

 

24" 16:10 is the best. Bigger and you have to move your head too much to view the whole screen (at least with how I have my monitor setup)

 

... and this is why I'm using 4 : 3 display. Unfortunately they don't make new monitors with that display ratio anymore