1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by brumgrunt, 22 Oct 2012.

  1. LordPyrinc

    LordPyrinc Legomaniac

    Joined:
    7 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    596
    Likes Received:
    5
    Since I primarily do gaming at home, I really haven't cared too much about the loss of going from 16x10 to 16x9. My last two monitors have been a Samsung LCD 23" and just recently a Samsung LED 27", both of the Synchmaster family and running at 1920x1080. I find that I care more about color quality, response rate, and contrast ratio more than the loss of total number of pixels. No doubt that there are 16x10s with just as good image quality, but after 4 years of running 16x9 I really don't notice the difference (mainly because I don't switch back and forth between the two aspects on a daily basis).

    All that being said, in a perfect world, all other specs equal, 16x10 is a better ratio.
     
  2. Er-El

    Er-El Member

    Joined:
    31 May 2008
    Posts:
    482
    Likes Received:
    10
    Fixed. ;)
     
  3. DBA

    DBA I do my modding with a spoon

    Joined:
    18 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    132
    Likes Received:
    5
    I think most people misunderstand the situation here. It is not whether it is better to have 2560x1440 vs. 1920x1200, that we can all agree on, but it's more about the physical size of the screen.
    In that matter 16:10 wins, no doubt, and the reason is pretty simple.
    Every time you have a 16:9 screen that is high enough in size, it will be too wide to use without having to move your head too much. I know you can then move it further away, but then it would decrease in height (according to your position) and not be high enough. 16:10 is therefore the better aspect ratio, since it delivers the better height according to how wide it is.

    The only reason why 16:9 is so widely in use, is purely because of marketing and price.
     
  4. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,478
    Likes Received:
    176
    Too bloomin late once we've all downloaded it.

    Use the image hosting here on BT, but personally I don't think you needed the image to add to the point being made.
     
  5. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,478
    Likes Received:
    176
    It all depends on what you're doing. For several hours a day I work in Xcode (OSX software development) and work in a three column view (EG Project + .h + .m).

    I'm don't need to be trying to read something on the left and simultaneously read something on the right. I need the maximum number of windows / panes open at the same time which is why I run three monitors and therefore work with a 'virtual' aspect ratio of 48:9 most of the time.

    It aint about the aspect ratio, it aint about not turning your head.

    It's about seeing what you need to see so you're not having to swap windows / tabs around every few seconds.
     
  6. jimmyjj

    jimmyjj Member

    Joined:
    20 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    663
    Likes Received:
    15
    16:10 all the way baby.
     
  7. SuicideNeil

    SuicideNeil New Member

    Joined:
    17 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    5,983
    Likes Received:
    345
    I used to have a couple 19" 1440x900 16:10 screens, now I have a couple 23" 1920x1080 16:9 screens. I would have liked to get a couple new 16:10 screens in a larger size, but alas, the only real option for IPS screens was Dell, and those were just too damn expensive for my taste.

    As it happens, I don't really notice the lack of vertical height on my screens, there's so much extra real estate in general that it suits me just fine for my needs.
     
  8. Yslen

    Yslen Lord of the Twenty-Seventh Circle

    Joined:
    3 Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    48
    Sorry, I just prefer 16:9. So long as it's big enough, its just better to have more width.

    Being able to put two documents side by side, or have a document open and still enough width for a browser, or a video in one corner and a web browser open... all of these things need as much width as possible and they're things I do every day.

    Personally I'd love that LG EA93, loads of space for everything.

    If you guys really want more height and less width maybe try a 9:16 display? :p
     
  9. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    709
    1920x1200 vs 1920x1080....}--> Width is the same. 16:10 does all that :)
    2560 x 1600 vs 2560 x 1440}/

    Plus you have more room to place windows. So you only lose with 16:9 (except price, but higher demand, higher production, lower price).
     
  10. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,478
    Likes Received:
    176
    Now this is just getting silly!

    How does a 29" 2560x1080 screen have 'loads of space' compared to a 27" 2560x1440 screen?

    The 27" has 33% more pixels, so you get exactly the same detail in width but an extra 33% of space in height.

    I'd love a 21:9 monitor as a toy but not as a working tool, they simply don't have the pixel count.

    Hear my words. Someone will come out with an 'affordable' 4K screen before too long and when that happens I think we'll never see a premium 16:10 screen again seeing as UHD is specced to require a minimum of 16:9.
     
  11. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    709
    Nope. When we will have 4K, our desktop will be set to a much higher DPI for smoother text, icons, etc. And there will be 4K 16:10 :)
     
  12. blackworx

    blackworx Cable Wrangler

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2008
    Posts:
    77
    Likes Received:
    2
    Lol I'm still rocking 4:3 on my main monitor. 1600x1200 Formac baby, and it's a beautiful piece of kit - very minimalist in design with no controls except a tiny bit of brightness adjustment. It's not the fastest out there but the IQ is outstanding for a product of its age and price, and I do a lot of photo work so it's basically perfect for me.

    My 2nd screen is a big, fast, 16:9, 27" Iiyama which I use mainly for watching movies and whenever I need a 2nd desktop (usually when working on web pages) but I think I've used it for games like 2 or 3 times. The Formac isn't as quick and ghosts a lot more but I still prefer it for gaming. Also the IQ on the Iiyama isn't even in the same league as the - almost 10yo - Formac.
     
  13. Pricester

    Pricester New Member

    Joined:
    25 Aug 2002
    Posts:
    120
    Likes Received:
    1
    As a software developer, the only thing I care about in my monitor is resolution. I buy the highest resolution and the smallest area possible - mainly, because I don't like to sit too far away from the screen.

    Until about a month ago, that was a 1600x1200 20.1" Viewsonic, which sadly died after 7 years. Now I have a Samsung 1920x1200 24" model, which is actually far too big for me - I have to move my head to view stuff at the sides of the screen.

    Nothing frustrates me more than the useless shops (PC World etc.) who insist on advertising monitors by screen size, and ignore resolution (a year back, you could barely find the resolution of a monitor at PC World!)... and people with 1600x1200 laptops make me cry with envy!
     
  14. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,478
    Likes Received:
    176
    I'm sure the default settings will be like that but if we're still using operating systems like we are today you'll be able to change the settings to give us more working room if we choose.

    Just like I can on my retina where I can choose the resolution to suit my working conditions, and I bump up the resolution to give me more room when I'm working away from my desk and don't have my 27 + 24 screens.

    [​IMG]

    See how using a high PPI screen gives you the option to choose how much real-estate you want to work with, and you can even go with a higher resolution than the native (2880x1800) and let the scaling algorithms handle everything.

    Because you can't see the individual pixels these scaling modes work surprisingly well and shouldn't be thought of as similar to using a traditional screen at less than native resolution. 1920x1200 on a 15" is very nice and very usable.
     
    Last edited: 23 Oct 2012
  15. Meaty Pete

    Meaty Pete King of the Potato People

    Joined:
    8 Apr 2010
    Posts:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hate to nitpick (blatent lie) but shouldn't 16:10 be called 8:5?
     
  16. Shirty

    Shirty Time travelling rogue Super Moderator

    Joined:
    18 Apr 1982
    Posts:
    12,149
    Likes Received:
    1,432
    Or 2:1.25 :lol:
     
  17. Yslen

    Yslen Lord of the Twenty-Seventh Circle

    Joined:
    3 Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    48
    It doesn't, but I was comparing it to a 1920x1080 screen. Unless it's stupidly expensive (no pricing I can find yet) it's a perfectly legitimate comparison, given that you have to spend over 500 GBP for a 27''.

    Like I said, everyone keeps confusing the issue of size and aspect ratio, and creating an argument they'll always win but which is totally invalid because of the price difference. You can very nearly get TWO 16:9 23'' IPS monitors for the price of one 16:10 24'' IPS monitor.
     
  18. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    4:3 and 5:4 Master Race. :D
     
  19. atlas

    atlas New Member

    Joined:
    9 Jun 2011
    Posts:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Got a 27inch 16:10 (Samsung T260) and while I love it, I am looking for a 2560 res replacement but unfortunately not much to be found that is 16:10 :(
     
  20. sear

    sear New Member

    Joined:
    2 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    183
    Likes Received:
    9
    Minor nitpick time -

    16:9 in most 3D games is actually wider than 16:10. The reason for this is because most games that implement widescreen properly fix the vertical aspect ratio at a set rate and expand the screen along the horizontal. Since 16:9 is wider than 16:10, this means you see more in most games with decent widescreen support, making it a superior choice for gaming (unless you have a surround setup, where the extra monitors provide your peripheral vision instead of the extra space on the sides).

    The only exception are 2D games which feature fixed pixel-scaled graphics. If you play a lot of older games that support higher resolutions, field of view is tied to the number of pixels on screen, and because a 16:10 screen has more pixels than a similar 16:9 screen, you will see more on 16:10. This is not really a concern for modern games, of course.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page