Monitors going from 16:10 to 16:9

[Budwise]

I dont know about everyone else, but all I can say is "What is the point?". Why would we want to go from more pixels to less? Anyone have some insight on why the industry is shifting this direction?

I wouldnt trade my 1900X1200 for 1080 ever...

[ILikeCosmosS]

because the 16:9 is the standard for movies games etc. thats what i think is the reason we are moving in that path

[ExodusC]

From what I understand, manufacturers can produce significantly more panels if they are cut into 16:9 aspect ratios rather than 16:10.

Not only that, but 16:9 is considered cinema display (not true cinema display, which is 2.39:1) while 16:10... Well, 16:10 is just there.

[Tonucci]

Yep, more and more 16/9 monitors are becoming avaliable in the market. I like it a lil wider :)

We may even start to see more great quality (high end TV grade) quality panels in the market becoz of this.

Just got an 18.5" 16/9 " 1360x768 res, with a very decent digital TN panel. Pleased so far.

[lowfat]

Gaming in 16:9 > 16:10 in my opinion. Not as good for browsing the web though as your page is considerably shorter.

[NaMcO]

I hate 16:9. Wide is ok but 16:9 is the next step towards turning our screens into a line :down:

[Tonucci]

I hate 16:9. Wide is ok but 16:9 is the next step towards turning our screens into a line :down:

huh ? Almost every widescreen TV is 16:9 man. Not that wide.... Its just the pc market folowing the standard ratio.

[NaMcO]

Yeah, i know, i got one in my living room but it looks ok on a huge screen, not on a 24" monitor. I'll have to adapt someday, sigh :shrug:

[3Z3VH]

It would be a lot tougher to change the motion picture and broadcast television industries to use 16x10 than to have the computer industry use 16x9. Computers are used to having a variable resolution, so 16x9 is just another resolution to support. With TV and movies they would open up the old wounds of letterboxing or anamorphic widescreen all over again just to support 16x10.

Just be thankful they aren't making 2.35:1 the standard (or 2.59:1 for that matter) !

With digital display inputs for both TVs and Monitors now becoming androgynous, it was inevitable that they would settle on an aspect ratio that both could work in so a TV could be used as a monitor, and a monitor could be used as a TV interchangably. 16x9 is simply the best compromise for everyone.

[Tonucci]

Yeah, i know, i got one in my living room but it looks ok on a huge screen, not on a 24" monitor. I'll have to adapt someday, sigh :shrug:

Think on the bright side, at least your FPS will raise a lil from goin from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 :rofl:

[Tonucci]

It would be a lot tougher to change the motion picture and broadcast television industries to use 16x10 than to have the computer industry use 16x9. Computers are used to having a variable resolution, so 16x9 is just another resolution to support. With TV and movies they would open up the old wounds of letterboxing or anamorphic widescreen all over again just to support 16x10.

Just be thankful they aren't making 2.35:1 the standard (or 2.59:1 for that matter) !

With digital display inputs for both TVs and Monitors now becoming androgynous, it was inevitable that they would settle on an aspect ratio that both could work in so a TV could be used as a monitor, and a monitor could be used as a TV interchangably. 16x9 is simply the best compromise for everyone.

Fully agree, specially with the bolded part. I even expect an panel quality increase to the PC guys because of this :up:

[xytrius]

Well, I kind of like the 16:10 for work – you can have two full pages of Word on the same screen without scrolling, two apps tiled and you could work on them at the same time (without scrolling etc) . Hopefully they’ll keep 16:10, I was even thinking that 2560 x 1600 (16:10) would eventually be affordable…

[Tonucci]

Well, I kind of like the 16:10 for work – you can have two full pages of Word on the same screen without scrolling, two apps tiled and you could work on them at the same time (without scrolling etc) . Hopefully they’ll keep 16:10, I was even thinking that 2560 x 1600 (16:10) would eventually be affordable…

I think they will eventually cut the 2560 x 1600 so it can be 16:9

[3Z3VH]

Well, I kind of like the 16:10 for work – you can have two full pages of Word on the same screen without scrolling, two apps tiled and you could work on them at the same time (without scrolling etc) . Hopefully they’ll keep 16:10, I was even thinking that 2560 x 1600 (16:10) would eventually be affordable…

In a work computer environment, why not just use two monitors and rotate those screens 90deg and have two 1080x1920 screens that you will absolutely NEVER have to scroll vertically ?

At home, I have my 1920x1200 Dell 24" monitor running in portrait mode for all of my web page viewing and office work, while my 52" 1920x1080 LCD is for gaming. In computers, you can always have the best of both worlds ;)

[GAR]

16"9 sucks, i purchased a couple of 1920x1080 screens and ended up going back to 1680x1050, 16:10 is much better for computing and gaming. All new LCD's are garbage IMO, most not all actually.

[lowfat]

I think they will eventually cut the 2560 x 1600 so it can be 16:9

I am looking forward to this day :)

[Den Leiw]

I just hope that the companies will keep producing 16:10 panels

[Tulatin]

The only real issue I can forsee with 16:9 panels is that effectively speaking, the lower resolution screens won't be at 14x9 or 16x10... They'll run at 1280x720 which is painfully low.

[3Z3VH]

Moving forward, I see most monitors either being 1080p, or a higher computer-only resolution. I doubt you will see many panels being made that are lower than 1080p in the not-too-distant future (be they TVs or Monitors).

[xytrius]

I think they will eventually cut the 2560 x 1600 so it can be 16:9

I think you are right, I guess there is a there is finally a move towards standardization, I guess what I wanted to say was 16:9 is fine at resolutions greater than 1080p, at 1080p it seems (to me) to be a drag (bad pun) :). It has been so long ago that I have almost forgotten how universal 4:3 was and it is only recently that we have this plethora of aspect ratios. Still, I see about a third more 16:10 than 16:9 at newegg, so standardization might take a while.


In a work computer environment, why not just use two monitors and rotate those screens 90deg and have two 1080x1920 screens that you will absolutely NEVER have to scroll vertically ?

At home, I have my 1920x1200 Dell 24" monitor running in portrait mode for all of my web page viewing and office work, while my 52" 1920x1080 LCD is for gaming. In computers, you can always have the best of both worlds ;)

Yes, cannot agree more - with computers you can have the best of many worlds! :) But there are other constraints like budget, space, layout in many small businesses that may prevent a multi-monitor layout. Anyways, you made me envious - a 24" and a 52" for a setup! That's great!


Moving forward, I see most monitors either being 1080p, or a higher computer-only resolution. I doubt you will see many panels being made that are lower than 1080p in the not-too-distant future (be they TVs or Monitors).
I agree, with leading retailers you can already see that HD monitors outnumber SD. Me - I am looking forward to the day when something like 2560 x 1600 or greater res becomes more affordable. I would love to upscale a 1080 blue ray movie to something even higher and no more distance rules for viewing movies - this is the consolation I give my broke ass for not getting a blu ray! :)

[StickyRICE]

Ok, this is probably OT from the original post, but in the last few years we had 720i then 720p to 1080i and p so why did the resolution stop at 1080 as of late. I thought they would keep the resolution wars going by going to 1600p or something of that nature by now.

[Arkangyl]

1080p panels are cheaper to make than 1200p panels, look at the prices:

22" 1680x1050 @ $150+
23" 1920x1080 @ $190+ (17% more pixels than 22", 20% price increase)
24" 1920x1200 @ $260+ (11% more pixels than 23", 44% price increase)

pretty big price jump for 120 more vertical pixels IMO.

Just got my 23" 1080p Acer in today (from that $180 & free ship newegg deal), I'll check it out when I get home & compare it to my 24" Dell 2407FPW and report back

edit: prev poster: Desktops do have 1600p (30" LCD), it's stopped with TV because the boost from 720p to 1080p isn't nearly as big as SD -> 720p AND cable companies are struggling to output 720p channels en masse, let alone 100+ stations of 1080p.

once everyone is on fiber optics a-la FiOS, we'll see 1080p everywhere and then we'll get some more progress.

[ecat]

Super HD (http://hdtvorg.co.uk/news/articles/2008112601.htm) ?

Personally I morn the 10% loss of pixels going to 1080. The only possible good that can come from this standardisation on 16:9 is the cost savings and hopefully the accelerated price reductions on the technology that supersedes LCD.

[Skakruk]

I prefer 16:10 display in the 24" category, because it means that I can still 1:1 pixel map 1600x1200 for games that don't support widescreen. You can't have too many pixels, but you can have too few. 16:9 is stupid for PC use - it should stay in the TV domain.

[ILikeCosmosS]

i really dont see the issue between the 16:10 16:9 someone want to shed light on this?

i currently use a 1074x768 moniter its small i know its a old computer i need an upgrade

[STEvil]

I dont care what it is as long as it has 1600 vertical pixels...