Well well well, after years of fighting to stay with 16:10, I finally had to buy a monitor at 16:9.
If you do stuff you value, I can testify now that your getting screwed by whomever has been pushing 16:9 as standard.
Is this some kind of psyop?
Is it better for movies and gaming? No. A wider FoV is awesome in most AAA games.
This [16 x 9 vs 16 x 10] is something I don't understand, even for productivity uses. Is a 1920 x 1200 monitor better than a 2560 x 1440 one for more visible screen estate? The pixel and DPI counts are the important values.Well really, you shouldn't have a wider FOV because you are 16:9, you should have more top/bottom visible and same sides with 16:10.
Why should a 2560x1440 see more screen space than someone using 2560x1600?
21:9 (3440x1440) should have wider view than the other two but less top/bottom than a 16:10 user, but exact same top/bottom as 16:9.
Well really, you shouldn't have a wider FOV because you are 16:9, you should have more top/bottom visible and same sides with 16:10.
Why should a 2560x1440 see more screen space than someone using 2560x1600?
21:9 (3440x1440) should have wider view than the other two but less top/bottom than a 16:10 user, but exact same top/bottom as 16:9.
This [16 x 9 vs 16 x 10] is something I don't understand, even for productivity uses. Is a 1920 x 1200 monitor better than a 2560 x 1440 one for more visible screen estate? The pixel and DPI counts are the important values.
well, yeah, the monitor with significantly higher DPI for a given size is going to have more pixels, but that's eliding the question. with similar DPIs, the more square monitor is going to offer not just more screen area in square inches, but also more pixels. a 27" 2560x1600 screen has more pixels than a 27" 2560x1440 screen. and is bigger.This [16 x 9 vs 16 x 10] is something I don't understand, even for productivity uses. Is a 1920 x 1200 monitor better than a 2560 x 1440 one for more visible screen estate? The pixel and DPI counts are the important values.
What I mean is that the # of vertical pixels is what counts. Whether its a 16x10 or 16x9 is not important. A lower rez 16x10 holds less info than a higher rez 16x9 assuming the PPI are usable in both cases without scaling.so many notebooks have ginormous bezels along the bottom of the screen, i have to imagine you could put a 16:10 screen in without much effort. then you'd have more screen and (at a similar DPI) more pixels!
well, yeah, the monitor with significantly higher DPI for a given size is going to have more pixels, but that's eliding the question. with similar DPIs, the more square monitor is going to offer not just more screen area in square inches, but also more pixels. a 27" 2560x1600 screen has more pixels than a 27" 2560x1440 screen. and is bigger.
Again, that's eliding the argument because those will be vastly different DPI if the diagonal is same/similar. At similar DPI you will get more vertical space with a 16:10 screen than a 16:9.What I mean is that the # of vertical pixels is what counts. Whether its a 16x10 or 16x9 is not important. A lower rez 16x10 holds less info than a higher rez 16x9 assuming the PPI are usable in both cases without scaling.
I'm wondering if the preference issue is simply a subconscious esthetic one based on the golden ratio.
Obsolete argument since 1440p. When it was 1200p vs 1080p, yes, definitely 16:10. I guess the 16:10 preference was solely due to vertical height of 1200p. But 1440p gets you even more. Unless you go 1600p which is no longer practical and probably no longer manufactured.Well well well, after years of fighting to stay with 16:10, I finally had to buy a monitor at 16:9.
If you do stuff you value, I can testify now that your getting screwed by whomever has been pushing 16:9 as standard.
Is this some kind of psyop?
I'm pretty sure you are just conditioned to prefer 16:10. If you increased the size of your monitor in the process of the change, there is no downside. You just have usable side bars. If you play RTS's and other games, you lose visible areas with 16:10 (rather than giving you more on the top of bottom, they usually take away from the sides).
It's different, but it is something that is easy to adapt to. It's not worth thinking about it. You've been assimilated, now you just need to get used to it.
This is exactly what I am saying. The vertical pixels determine the # of text lines and spreadsheet cells visible assuming normal, usable for most people, PPI values.Obsolete argument since 1440p. When it was 1200p vs 1080p, yes, definitely 16:10. I guess the 16:10 preference was solely due to vertical height of 1200p. But 1440p gets you even more. Unless you go 1600p which is no longer practical and probably no longer manufactured.
Probably the most forgettable aspect ratio that ever existed. If for gaming/movies, you will either have to accept missing periphery or put up with black bars above and below a smaller image. Sorry, cant help but feel the need for a massive face-palm at the mention of that aberration of an aspect ratio.Far as I'm concerned, if it ain't 5:4, I ain't interested.
I'd like ta have a 35" 5:4 monitor with Freesync. Don't think that's ever going to happen, though. Seems like 5:4's are relegated to the budget bins.