Originally posted by: Tostada
16:9 and 16:10 might be pretty close, but they're certainly not the same. If you're going to use something as an HDTV, you want 16:9 because that's the aspect of HD broadcasts. It seems pretty irrelevant you bringing up TV which was shot in 4:3. That's not exactly the type of source people are getting a widescreen HDTV for.
They're not the same, but I never said they were. I said they were basically the same, because in our example, 1920x1200 is _better_ than 1920x1080 in terms of pure resolution.
I also whole-heartedly disagree with your "how do people use their HDTV" rant. 4:3 does _not_ mean low resolution. It is only an aspect ratio. And, dare I say it, I think many people with HDTVs (myself among them) enjoy watching upscaled DVDs - DVDs which are sometimes in 4:3. And, if we don't see some 4:3 HD formats in the near future, I'll be quite surprised.
As far as movies go, most of them are still going to be letterboxed on a 16:9 screen, but DVDs are made for 16:9, and a decent number of them are actually 16:9 full-frame, even though the source was 1.85:1.
Most. Not all. That's what I'm trying to point out here - trying to get rid of 120 pixels of black bar when viewing 16:9 aspect material is silly when 2.35:1 is as common as it is. Just accept that you will sometimes be seeing black pixels because of non-native aspect, and be done with it.
The bottom line is that 16:9 is standard and many things expect it (like HD broadcasts and widescreen DVDs), whereas 16:10 is a goofy widescreen PC aspect and it is not the native aspect for anything.
Let me try: The bottom line is, 16:10 is an excellent compromise between 4:3 and 16:9. From that perspective, it's hardly goofy - it's an excellent screen resolution. Whining because Dell is forcing 120 _more_ pixels on you is bizarre, and complaining about black bars shows us exactly how much of an AV guy you really are.
-Erwos