16X10 vs 16X9 why?

[blakehew]

Why is it that computer monitors come in the 16X10 aspect ratio instead of 16X9? Did the computer industry just want to be different? Why didnt they just go with the HDTV ratio of 16X9 for wide screen monitors? This has always bugged me, i dont know why but it has.

 

[jpeyton]

More resolution is better for computers.

 

[blakehew]

why does the aspect ratio effect resolution. if you want more resolution just make a 16x9 monitor with 2240X1260 res instead of a 16:10 with 1920X1200 res

 

[jpeyton]

But for PC use, having more vertical resolution in relation to horizontal resolution is ideal. Think scrolling web pages and documents.

 

[postmortemIA]

it is compromise between movies and everything else.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
it is compromise between movies and everything else.

That is true, but I'd heard that the real origin of it was that LCD makers thought we'd all want to have menu bars (volume etc) up while watching our 16:9 movies so they built in the space for it. Unfortunately for them they didn't do any market research or they'd know that everyone hates even having black bars.

I like my 1280x800 screen, it's good for DVDs and it gives me lots of desktop space (as opposed to 4:3 or 5:4) without making the laptop itself really large, although every once in a while (with word docs especially) I do wish it was taller. 16:9 is better than 16:10 in theory, but I'd really rather have a slightly taller screen since I do a lot more than movies on my laptop, and the thin black bars really don't bother me. If the bars do bother you, you can set it to stretch the image a bit, you probably won't notice the distortion.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
it is compromise between movies and everything else.

That is true, but I'd heard that the real origin of it was that LCD makers thought we'd all want to have menu bars (volume etc) up while watching our 16:9 movies so they built in the space for it. Unfortunately for them they didn't do any market research or they'd know that everyone hates even having black bars.

I like my 1280x800 screen, it's good for DVDs and it gives me lots of desktop space (as opposed to 4:3 or 5:4) without making the laptop itself really large, although every once in a while (with word docs especially) I do wish it was taller. 16:9 is better than 16:10 in theory, but I'd really rather have a slightly taller screen since I do a lot more than movies on my laptop, and the thin black bars really don't bother me. If the bars do bother you, you can set it to stretch the image a bit, you probably won't notice the distortion.

In PowerDVD you can get rid of black bars by simply selecting Pan & Scan. IT is just going to extend to cover vertical bars, with some insignificant loss on the side.

 

[Steve]

It's easier for computer panel makers to cut 16x10. 1280x800, 1920x1200, 2560x1600 vs. 1280x720, 1920x1080 and 2560x1440.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: sm8000
It's easier for computer panel makers to cut 16x10. 1280x800, 1920x1200, 2560x1600 vs. 1280x720, 1920x1080 and 2560x1440.

Ya, there's also the shared resolutions with 4:3 and 5:4 aspects when you use 16:10.

Like 1920x1200 can also do 1600x1200 with vertical bars; 2560x1600 can do 2x 1600x1200 on the same panel in portrait mode.

The bars when using 16:9 vs. 16:10 aren't bad at all and a much better solution than stretching to fill. 16:9 inputs look amazing and depending on how well the panel blocks the backlight, the bars are virtually unnoticeable.

 

[blakehew]

Interesting comments. Just wondering about the comment that 16X10 panels are easier to cut than 16X9? So what do the LCD TV manufacturers do? Is there more waste when the produce 16X9 tvs vs 16X10 computer monitors?

 

[mshan]

Slightly off topic, but what was the logic behind 1366 x768 hdtv resolution?

And what happened to true 720p hdtvs?

 

[blakehew]

From what i understand there is no real advantage to having a exact pixel to pixel mapping for video so that being said a higher resolution of 1366X768 is better simply because it gives you more resolution than 1280X720.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by: blakehew
Interesting comments. Just wondering about the comment that 16X10 panels are easier to cut than 16X9? So what do the LCD TV manufacturers do? Is there more waste when the produce 16X9 tvs vs 16X10 computer monitors?

I'm only repeating what I've read, I can't remember more deeper reasons than that. Perhaps the excess is hidden under the frame's edges.

 

[guaiwu]

Ok, this is an old thread... but the 16x10 1920x1200 monitors predate the 16x9 standard TV monitor which became the standard when HDTV was released.

 

[UsandThem]

Ok, this is an old thread... but the 16x10 1920x1200 monitors predate the 16x9 standard TV monitor which became the standard when HDTV was released.

Register to answer a 9 year old thread? Thanks?

 

[Blue_Max]

Heh... nice necro. That aside, I actually miss the 16x10 format... better web viewing/work, etc. Even good for gaming. *shrug* Well, it's gone... no sense lamenting it for long.

 

[bigboxes]

My wife is still using my old 16x10 NEC. I still think it was a better monitor than my current LG. Sigh.

 

[Xhaner5]

Why is it that computer monitors come in the 16X10 aspect ratio instead of 16X9? Did the computer industry just want to be different? Why didnt they just go with the HDTV ratio of 16X9 for wide screen monitors? This has always bugged me, i dont know why but it has.

Because it's more suited for desktop multi-purpose environments and development.

16:9 is a TV standard, it has infected and taken over the definitive computer wide standard of 16:10 which is also technically closer to the golden ratio.

The 16:9 ratio is primarly the movie-shash-black-bars-nonsense-type ratio which I despise and I do not endorse. There are several reasons 16:10 went down, the majority of that was contributed by mass consumer whine about the imaginary black bars.

A 16:10 Monitor is larger in resolution than 16:9 which means there's some lefover unused space, a total non-issue, but the dumb consumers kept whining that this is a problem and that are some black bars sre "showing up". A solution for these people would be to sell an optional bezel shortener for the up and bottom, it would kinda make it feel like the monitor is 16:10, because it's all an illusion in their mind, they don't have the capability to simply ignore the nonexistent "black bars", and the problem would be solved.


EDIT: What the heck with this thread, come on.

 

[Blue_Max]

Y'know, I think we can thank the 16:9 monitor format for lowering the price of monitors bigtime! Matching TV technology was a smart, smart move.

 

[Headfoot]

What is it that motivates people to spend the time to register an account on a website, so they can post an answer that is no longer relevant to a thread that's nearly a decade old?

 

[bigboxes]

What is it that motivates people to spend the time to register an account on a website, so they can post an answer that is no longer relevant to a thread that's nearly a decade old?

Necrophilia

 

[Makaveli]

Necrophilia

lol this!!

Create a new thread dude!!

 

[Despoiler]

16x10 can fit two 8.5x11 sheets of paper side by side. It's productivity focused. 16x9 is HDTV standard aspect ratio so entertainment focused.

 

[alcoholbob]

Computer monitors come in both aspect ratios. But 16x10 is an older standard than 16x9 that has persisted for office productivity reasons.

 

[wg_davis]

Why is it that computer monitors come in the 16X10 aspect ratio instead of 16X9? Did the computer industry just want to be different? Why didnt they just go with the HDTV ratio of 16X9 for wide screen monitors? This has always bugged me, i dont know why but it has.

What bugs me is the 16x9 aspect ratio, and now the movies and DVD/Blu-Ray/
Streaming are even more 16x9.. Wider is not necessarily not better.. I like 16x10 or
5x3.. I wish that would become the standard, I know that this is falling on deaf ears..
Thx. 73, W.G.