what's with all the 16:9 monitors now a days?

[konakona]

I still don't understand why people make a big deal about 120 more vertical pixels! 24" 1920x1200 monitors now cost $350 or so while their 1920x1080 parts cost around $225! 16:9 is better for the eyes! If you really need higher resolution, the 2560x1440 monitors should be out soon and cost way less than the 2560x1600 parts which appear to be on their way out. Of course I have no interest in such high resolutions, im happy with my 32" 1360x768

I am using 1600x1200 at the moment, but back when I had my 1920x1200 and 1920x1080, I did not note a huge difference. If there is enough difference in $$$ with the same type of panels being offered, than I am all for the cheaper one

One thing I am slightly concerned about is how many of wallpapers are already made in 1920x1200 and would have to be modified/cropped/fit differently to look good on the 1080.

 

[DuffmanOhYeah]

Seriously...16x9 monitors....fuel injected cars...women voting.....WTF is going on in the world???

 

[isp]

2560x1600 in portrait is perfect for web browsing! I have a sinking feeling I'd really miss that extra horizontal space...

 

[Zoomer]

I refuse to buy 16:9 monitors. Can't fathom what the extra width would be useful for. Besides, for the same size, most 16:10 offers a larger surface area than a 16:9 would have.

 

[bryanW1995]

how is having 80 extra rows of pixels (up and down) that much better for gaming? If anything, 16:9 is better for gaming as it will have a wider FOV, while the few more pixels in 1920x1200 could possibly better for regular work productivity (although again, the difference in pixels here really is pretty negligible)




Except most 1920x1200 monitors will be advertised as being "full HD" because they can display 1080p without scaling...




haven't really heard of any 22" monitors being 1920x1200...that being said I'm going to assume you're running 1680x1050, of which if your wife is running 16:9 she'll need to be on screen 1600x900 or less, otherwise 1920x1080 is obviously larger than 1680x1050 in every way and not at all like the situation we have with 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080 where the width resolution is the same

16:9 on a 22" monitor is 1920x1080. there are tons of those out these days.

 

[HannibalX]

For widescreen I prefer 16:10. I understand most HD video is shot in 16:9 (720 or 1080) but I don't care, I want the extra space.

 

[Dadofamunky]

For my money, 16:9 is good for one thing: movies. For anything else I do, it's almost useless. The extra 120 vertical pixels makes a huge difference for a lot of things.

 

[coreyb]

I fail to see how 16:9 is better for movies. My monitor plays blu-rays just fine without any black bars.

 

[konakona]

I fail to see how 16:9 is better for movies. My monitor plays blu-rays just fine without any black bars.

doesn't that mean your aspect ratio is getting skewed? I don't mind the black bars, but stretched image is ewww.

 

[isp]

Not particularly fond of products trying to be all things to all people. I'm about maximizing screen real estate for my PC. When I want to "properly" watch a movie in the correct ratio it certainly won't be on a desktop LCD.

 

[Akino]

...

 

[edplayer]

For my money, 16:9 is good for one thing: movies. For anything else I do, it's almost useless.

I wonder how people are able to use the internet with 16:9, or game or anything. One time, this dude I know plugged in a 16:9 monitor in his computer and it blew up. Now he is homeless, all because of 16:9

 

[coreyb]

The whole move to 16:9 sucks for all us enthusiasts/gamers. I hope my current 24" lasts a real long time as I'll never replace my monitor with one that has less pixels on it. Also, how many people even watch blu-rays regularly on their tiny lcd monitors anyways?

also, yes a blu-ray is stretched to play on my monitor...but I don't see how that is "ewww" as you cannot notice it at all. Still looks damn good.

 

[crisium]

The whole move to 16:9 sucks for all us enthusiasts/gamers.

This is incorrect. First person shooters are now optimized for 16:9. Gamers will want that extra horizontal viewing space. It's not much over 16:10, but it is real. I'd guess more and more others genres are optimized for 16:9 as well. Obviously anything old 4:3 stretched will look even worse in 16:9 than 16:10, but ah well.

 

[nOOky]

All my monitors are 16 x 9 1080p now, but I'd rather have 1920 x 1200. Even in 24" it isn't tall enough for me.
Don't get me started on movies, I simply hate the fact that since 99% of people now have 16 x 9 monitors, most movies are filmed in 2:35 to 1 or 2:4 to 1 etc. Fokrs. I hate black bars, it robs 25% of the screen and is just totally worthless.

 

[coreyb]

This is incorrect. First person shooters are now optimized for 16:9. Gamers will want that extra horizontal viewing space. It's not much over 16:10, but it is real. I'd guess more and more others genres are optimized for 16:9 as well. Obviously anything old 4:3 stretched will look even worse in 16:9 than 16:10, but ah well.

the fact remains that your 1080p picture will have less pixels (less picture quality) then a 1200p monitor.

 

[Cheex]

I'm definitely a fan of the 1920x1200. I don't care much for the 1920x1080.
I'm just glad I got my 24" 16:10 monitor for $190.

 

[edplayer]

the fact remains that your 1080p picture will have less pixels (less picture quality) then a 1200p monitor.

the 1080p monitor will have less pixels than a 1200 res monitor but that has nothing to do with picture quality.

 

[crisium]

Vertically it will have "less picture quality" because it will be the same vertical viewing space but in 1080 pixels intead of 1200, this is true. But horizontally you could actually say it will have "more picture quality" because you will see more of the game spread out over the same 1920 pixels, making it a bit sharper. Hell if I know which is more significant, but the point is the quality is gonna have a negligible difference. But the viewing angle difference is real. For FPS, 16:9 rules. I've played CoD 4 in both 16:9 and 16:10 and notice a difference. When you see someone barely on the side of the screen and then pick them off in 16:9, you would have completely missed them in 16:10. Gamers will value this aspect ratio.

For general desktop usage I like 16:10 better though, more vertical is appreciated especially for the internet. But just saying gamers have no need to fear 16:9.

 

[amenx]

I was about to upgrade from a 22" 1680x1050 monitor to a 24" 1920x1080, but saw one at a friends place and quickly dismissed the idea. FFS it looked no bigger than my 22" screen! It was wider, but the nearly same vertical aspect, so images on the screen are about the same size. You just get a wider periphery. I dont watch TV or HD movies on my monitor at all. So it may have been the most pointless upgrade I would have made. I went for a 1920x1200 unit (T260HD) and am thankful I did so.