16X10 vs 16X9 why?

[Ichinisan]

My 1920x1200 PC displays are soooo much more comfortable to use than 1920x1080.

 

[mnewsham]

Necro

 

[Despoiler]

16x10 is for productivity. It's designed to fit two 8.5x11 digital sheets of paper side by side. 16x9 is a geometric compromise between all of the aspect ratios that had existed up to that point.

 

[CakeMonster]

I'm still on two 2560x1600 monitors (16:10), because it fits both my work, video, and gaming needs. I'd like to bring up the menu/taskbar without it obscuring the video that's playing. I like the room for more vertical content. And depending on the game, I like the increased vertical angle too.

I'm mainly frustrated that there's no choice whatsoever anymore when it comes to 16:10 monitors. There's no doubt its dying. I just want the option, but what is happening is that 16:9 monitors are getting all the new stuff and 16:10 is not getting any new models.

 

[potato masher]

Or theres ultrawides now too.. they all work fine, even 4:3. Whatever floats your boat. Games and movies is whats stretching the "inudstry standard" out to more rectangular. For work the squarer ones are better imo.

Same here still on 2560x1600.

 

[ElFenix]

I'm still on two 2560x1600 monitors (16:10), because it fits both my work, video, and gaming needs. I'd like to bring up the menu/taskbar without it obscuring the video that's playing. I like the room for more vertical content. And depending on the game, I like the increased vertical angle too.

I'm mainly frustrated that there's no choice whatsoever anymore when it comes to 16:10 monitors. There's no doubt its dying. I just want the option, but what is happening is that 16:9 monitors are getting all the new stuff and 16:10 is not getting any new models.

i'd like 3:2 for productivity. if they can do it for the surface pro they can do it for a 30" screen.

 

[Mantrid-Drone]

It is interesting that the screen formats which people, who care about such matters, actually like are all historically popular too. By which I mean they've been supported in the photographic/film world for decades or even in some cases for over a century.

3:2 is the same as full frame 35mm negative/slide (36x24mm) and most modern digital cameras too. A 16x10 monitor is much closer to this than 16x9.

4:3 is half-frame 35mm (24x18mm) which is also near enough the same ratio as the quarter, half and full-plate formats which date back to the 19th century. 12"x16" photographic paper was also the preferred (maximum) size for printing from 35mm film which are/were routinely printed full frame on this size or cropped to the paper's 4:3 ratio.

It is also the aspect ratio of the popular still medium format size: 645 (60x45mm) and less popular but still supported by professional equipment 68 (80x60mm).

The modern 35mm (Super35) movie shooting film aspect ratio too is near enough 4:3 (24.89x18.66mm ) too although that is framed and cropped to WS/panoramic formats for the final print.

5:4/10:8 (the format of the Dell monitor I'm currently using) are pretty much the standard aspect ratios for large format still photography and have been for over a century. Consequently 8"x10" and 16"x20" photographic printing papers were and still are industry standards too.

It is also the near enough the ratio of the other popular, non-square medium format size: 67 (68x56mm).

My point is that these are long established picture format ratios and that has not been accidental. They were and still are considered aesthetically pleasing formats.

The question is how on earth did the awkward 16:9 become a WS standard? I've read the wiki pages and it is a complex mix of reasons but it seems 16:9 is basically a compromise format which most manufacturers and content providers decided to support.

We're not going to change that now.

 

[potato masher]

Marketing...

 

[C1]

And away we go ..... weeeee ................ !!!!!

16:10 vs 16:9 No Doubt About It
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/16-10-vs-16-9-no-doubt-about-it.2485312/

 

[Fallen Kell]

Necro

Not only is this a necro, it is a necro by a first time poster, of a necro by another first time poster....

 

[Mantrid-Drone]

Its still a subject of interest and always will be. Bumping an old thread which is still relevant is not a crime; I actually dislike having to wade through dozens of new threads on the same subject.

If necro posting is frowned upon then why keep the old threads? Relevancy is the answer and if the subject is still worth discussing then better to have it all in one place IMHO.

 

[potato masher]

I don't think 9 out of 10 consumers would really care other than the marketing which makes one choice feel more desirable than another. Kind of like how everybody's tire sidewalls are rubberband thickness on their cars now. Started out as something special on high end super cars and now you can't get a new car without em. Even if you wanted to. I remember when 50 series tires were considered low profile. Actually I still do consider them as such.. for pot holed city roads give me some phat 75 series tires..

I just watched a movie on my monitor last night, had the black bars on the top and bottom, not a big deal at all.

 

[C1]

A guess why this topic seems to go round & round is because it depends on factors unique to the individual, so it boils down pretty much to personal preference. Some of such factors include what one is used to as well as what one does mostly.

For me personally, 16:10 is preferred as I do so many different things/type projects (including movie viewing).

As such, there are other factors which, although not used often, are nice options to have such as portrait mode capability, built-in screen grid dispaly capabilities, various video mode types such as standard, adobe, user, scene, theater, etc.

For general across-the-board video work (eg, document viewing, photo & graphics jobs, making brochures & newsletters, making specialty audio/videos, light gaming, movie viewing, etc.) my monitor suits me outstanding and it would be hardship to give up. Fact is I should have two side by side.

One thing though that is hard to see how it is not PITA with 16:9 is when attempting to view webpages which employ a fixed banner heading below which content scrolls. It is perhaps not common, but when it happens then extra vertical real estate is greatly appreciated (at least by me).

 

[Mantrid-Drone]

I like my Dell 24" 16:10 format too for similar reasons - extra area is always helpful and I can not think of any downside. Some full screen content may display with top/bottom borders but I've never found that any sort of problem.

As mentioned by someone here earlier having the ability to display two A4 docs full size, side by side with more usable space all around than you'd get with 24" 16:9 is an advantage.

 

[mopardude87]

I adored my Dell U2412M for gaming,hated it for movies with the black bars. 16x10 gaming did feel a a bit more immersive in the 20-24'' range. Anything above that for me has to be 1440p or 4k. Is 1600p priced practical now adays? It's prob become very niche in the sea of 39-43" 4k t.vs you could buy for $300 or less.

 

[CakeMonster]

1600p has a bit of a price premium, especially considering that it doesn't have >60hz, or *sync. Look up the Dell models (IPS).

Still worth it for me for the reasons listed earlier in the thread. Its a shame that its going away and that it doesn't get improvements anymore.

 

[fire400]

16x10, also does have some advantages if the display is tilted vertical (UP AND DOWN). If the PPI is mapped proportionally well, the display will look better up and down, versus side to side for some 16x10 native monitors.

 

[Avalon]

Still rocking my Dell Ultrasharp U2412m with 1920x1200 resolution. Great display, but dated for gaming purposes nowadays. Going to relegate it to my backup screen soon.