16:9 vs 16:10 24"

Roland0 · 15 Feb 2009 at 16:24

Hey,

I'm sure this has been discussed before but it couldn't find anything via a search.

I've noticed that a lot of the new monitors (I'm looking at getting a 24") have the same aspect ratio as TVs so they have a native res. of 1920 x 1080 (16:9) instead of 1920 x 1200 (16:10). Nice for Films I know, but whats that like for general desktop use, and writing documents etc? other than the loss of 180 pixels in height.

I personally use the old 16:10 res at work and have grown to like it! It seems like these newer 16:9 monitors are really good value (Yes i know they are slightly smaller) is there any major (or Minor!!) downsides to the new(er) 16:9 ratio ???

Thanks!

wuyanxu · 15 Feb 2009 at 16:33

less desktop work space, worse compatibility with older 4:3 games, no 1600x1200, no place for media player tool bars. even smaller 4:3 videos (Futurama/Simpsons)

Roland0 · 15 Feb 2009 at 16:57

wuyanxu,

I notice you have the samsung T240, one that i am very keen on getting. Thats is the one I have me heart set on! it just seems out of stock everywhere!

The T240HD is in stock, is the only difference the digital tuner, or is there other differences?

snowdog · 15 Feb 2009 at 17:01

wuyanxu said:
less desktop work space, worse compatibility with older 4:3 games, no 1600x1200, no place for media player tool bars. even smaller 4:3 videos (Futurama/Simpsons)

Erm yes, side bar.

On the other hand, 16:10 gives you black bars in games like assassins creed, Fear2, and mirror's edge. And you get more viewable area in 90% of all films with 16:9.

It's more of a question what you prefer more, desktop space+oldgames+some series or new games+films.

Roland0 · 15 Feb 2009 at 17:06

surely, even the brand new games designed at consoles (hence TVs) should still be able to run at 16:10? Or at least they could be made to? I find it hard to believe they would forcibly abandon 16:10!

wuyanxu · 15 Feb 2009 at 17:18

Stoned_SpaZZZ said:
wuyanxu,

I notice you have the samsung T240, one that i am very keen on getting. Thats is the one I have me heart set on! it just seems out of stock everywhere!

The T240HD is in stock, is the only difference the digital tuner, or is there other differences?

i think that's the only difference, although you will get a lot more connection options, i think there are 2 or 3 HDMIs.

i agree with snowdog, it's a matter of personal preference. i prefer larger TV series and better compatibility with some older games, while i don't mind the small black bars on Mirror's Edge.

mpj88 · 15 Feb 2009 at 17:27

i dont have any black bars in mirrors edge! I dont undertsand why you would? unless you;re not running at a 16:10 res?

philjohn · 15 Feb 2009 at 18:39

snowdog said:
It's more of a question what you prefer more, desktop space+oldgames+some series or new games+films.

films are irrelevant to the discussion IMHO as none are 16:9, so you get black bars regardless.

Energize · 15 Feb 2009 at 19:11

And you can simply stretch the film to 16:10 with next to no distortion which is what I do. Almost all films nowadays are 1.85:1 or 2.39:1, not 1.78:1.

snowdog said:
It's more of a question what you prefer more, desktop space+oldgames+some series or new games+films.

Except that virtually all new games support 16:10.

Since I use my computer for work like programming and video editing, I prefer the 16:10 ratio.

Roland0 · 15 Feb 2009 at 21:08

Looks like 16:10 is the winner!

snowdog · 16 Feb 2009 at 05:57

philjohn said:
films are irrelevant to the discussion IMHO as none are 16:9, so you get black bars regardless.

None? How come the DVD I have in my hands right now is 16:9 and has no Black bars then ? ( Stallingrad)
But they are wider than 16:9 which means a 16:10 screen will give you less viewable area in them.

Energize said:
And you can simply stretch the film to 16:10 with next to no distortion which is what I do.

Personally don't like stretching

Almost all films nowadays are 1.85:1 or 2.39:1, not 1.78:1.

Which means 16:9 utilize them more than 16:10.

Except that virtually all new games support 16:10.

Except the 3 I have mentioned before + The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, Condemned: Criminal Origins, Alone in the Dark, and probably more console ports in the future + a few others which are already out.
But in the games who support both properly with Hor+, you have a larger FoV in 16:9.

i dont have any black bars in mirrors edge!

Open your eyes. Because you do, unless you have set a 16:9 resolution and your monitor stretches it.
It's funny how a lot of people don't notice them, actually had a person with a 4:3 screen telling me he had no black bars in ME, I told him ORLY, he was sure of his case, went ingame, and then corrected himself... Personally I don't understand how you can miss it though.
Without hacks some older games like GTA San Andreas support 16:9 too and not 16:10.
Finally, in games that do support both 16:9 and 16:10 properly, using hor+, 16:9 gives you a larger FoV than 16:10.

The other points are valid. 16:10 gives more screenspace in windows, is generally more usable in windows/on the internet, and unless your monitor has 1:1 pixel mapping, it gives less distortion in older games than 16:9 without 1:1 mapping. However don't be mistaken, for films 16:9 is a superior format to 16:10 and in new pc games too ( due to having a larger FoV and no black bars in anamorphic games).

Greenlizard0 · 16 Feb 2009 at 10:37

I reiterate my point what I've said before, I just don't understand why there's not a choice.

I prefer my screen at 1600x1200. I don't mind widescreen, though it is getting annoying that everything is now running in it. Mirror's Edge is a fantastic game, I'm really enjoying it atm, but I just wish it'd give me the option.

Adrianr · 16 Feb 2009 at 12:05

snowdog said:
Open your eyes. Because you do, unless you have set a 16:9 resolution and your monitor stretches it.
It's funny how a lot of people don't notice them, actually had a person with a 4:3 screen telling me he had no black bars in ME, I told him ORLY, he was sure of his case, went ingame, and then corrected himself... Personally I don't understand how you can miss it though.

I genuinely didn't notice the FEAR demo had black bars when I was playing it. I just had to boot it up now to notice. Your examples prove how insignificant it is if anything!

I think 16:10 is a nice balance of workspace and media. I don't want to end up with these stupidly long planks of screens just because media took the widescreen thing to far.

snowdog · 16 Feb 2009 at 13:20

Greenlizard0 said:
I reiterate my point what I've said before, I just don't understand why there's not a choice.

I prefer my screen at 1600x1200. I don't mind widescreen, though it is getting annoying that everything is now running in it. Mirror's Edge is a fantastic game, I'm really enjoying it atm, but I just wish it'd give me the option.

It's the easiest way of programming proper widescreen implementation without stretching/image corruption. They're lazy, but that's expected form EA...

D D Danneh · 16 Feb 2009 at 15:01

I'd stick with 16:10. Yeah, you'll get black bars at the top and bottom during 16:9 films or games, but as long as you have a larger resolution (1920*1200 as opposed to 1920*1080), you won't lose anything, and you'll still have extra desktop space when you aren't in a 16:9 app. The black bars might be annoying, but I'd rather have them, than not have the extra desktop space.

What's all this about a larger field of view in 16:9? If the application is still the same width, the only difference is the black bars, which don't affect anything. You won't get a smaller image, you'll just have more extra space.

snowdog · 16 Feb 2009 at 15:45

D D Danneh said:
What's all this about a larger field of view in 16:9? If the application is still the same width, the only difference is the black bars, which don't affect anything. You won't get a smaller image, you'll just have more extra space.

No of course not, in any game that uses Hor+ widescreen method 16:9 will have a larger FoV than 16:10. See the comparisons on widescreengamignforum.

wuyanxu · 16 Feb 2009 at 17:32

snowdog said:
No of course not, in any game that uses Hor+ widescreen method 16:9 will have a larger FoV than 16:10. See the comparisons on widescreengamignforum.

that's the problem, some games such as Bioshock cuts vertically.

isn't it better to have a Jack of all trades, master of none? (well in this case, master of larger desktop work space)

Paul_cz · 16 Feb 2009 at 17:45

Didn't they patched it in Bioshock? Same with Far Cry 2.

D D Danneh · 16 Feb 2009 at 17:49

snowdog said:
No of course not, in any game that uses Hor+ widescreen method 16:9 will have a larger FoV than 16:10. See the comparisons on widescreengamignforum.

Those comparisons show 4:3 and 16:9, with the 16:9 screen being larger in both horizontal AND vertical resolution. Of course you're going to have a larger field of view if you hae more pixels horizontally. What I mean is, if the horizontal pixels are the same, you don't get any wider field of view by chopping off some of the vertical piels. You might get a slightly wider physical screen size, as the diagonal 24" will be at a lower angle, but that's irrelevant unless you have a monitor that's larger than your peripheral vision (which would have to be huge), in which case it would be better to have a thinner monitor - 16:10 wins.

steve258 · 16 Feb 2009 at 17:51

I got my 22" 16:9 because it does HD res while the conventional 16:10 22" screens are still 1680x1050, so it actually has larger disktop area to work with even though it's slightly smaller. Besides the HD res is perfect for my x360 whereas on my old 16:10 I had to set it at 1280x1024.

If you're looking at 24" though I'd just go for 16:10 for that little extra deskspace although I think you'll be happy with either format.