DisplaySearch: Transition to 16:9 displays is 'unstoppable'

helmutcheese

helmutcheese

helmutcheese

Permabanned
Joined
19 Jun 2007
Posts
10,717
Location
InURmama
Remember my post here : http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17888616

Well thank God its becoming the standard over Illegitimate Ratios like 5:4:and 16:10 are.

QUOTED :


" Many of us may find ourselves using PC and notebook monitors with 16:9 aspect ratios within a few years, if DisplaySearch has its facts straight. According to DigiTimes, the market research firm predicts that 16:9 panels will account for 90% of notebook displays and 67% of desktop monitors by 2010, adding that the transition is "unstoppable."

Wide-screen displays in most of today's notebooks and monitors have 16:10 aspect ratios, leading to resolutions like 1280x800 and 1920x1200. With 16:9 panels, those resolutions would turn into 1280x720 and 1920x1080—that is, you'd get 9/10ths of the vertical pixels but (in theory) all of the horizontal pixels.

Users may not be thrilled about getting smaller panels, but DigiTimes says panel makers are "bent" on promoting the 16:9 aspect ratio. One manufacturer told the site it can make 20% more 15.6", 16:9 panels than 15.4", 16:10 ones using the same 5G substrate. As a result, DisplaySearch predicts that panel manufacturers will soon start phasing out 16:10 panels and push 16:9 panels in their stead. "Panel makers did it for square panels, and they know how to do it again. "



http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/15046
 
Last edited:
I for one hope this isn't true, or that instead of losing pixels we gain them with higher density (e.g. 2130x1200).

Losing that much vertical resolution would be killer for me with coding - more lines on screen = more productive.

Just another way to increase their margins, meaning joe consumer and his friends lose out.
 
Who cares, if you did not have these weird 5:4 and 16:10's then you would not know any better (don't know what dumb thinktank came up with them).

16:9 is an official Ratio, its old as the hills and all Movies support it so 1:1 with no black bars or scaling is needed.

You probably see Monitor sizes going up a notch, ie you like 24" get 26". ;)
 
philjohn said:
I for one hope this isn't true, or that instead of losing pixels we gain them with higher density (e.g. 2130x1200).

Losing that much vertical resolution would be killer for me with coding - more lines on screen = more productive.

Just another way to increase their margins, meaning joe consumer and his friends lose out.
Click to expand...
I agree, I would miss the extra vertical space for coding. I hate not being able to get enough code on screen. Also I don't use my PC for movies, I have a TV for that.
 
Yup, I personally think there should be 2 standards, one for HDTV and one for monitors. It makes sense, movie viewing and general computer use are two very different "use cases".

With films you tend to be looking at the centre of the screen most of the time, that's where the cinematographer "frames" most of the action. Films are in widescreen because humans possess a large horizontal peripheral vision - filling that helps to "immerse" the audience more.

Using a computer your eyes are moving round a lot more, mostly top to bottom when reading documents/web pages etc. A shorter screen = more scrolling which is not only tedious but presents a usability problem.
 
Why are you so aggressive about it, helmut? Can't you grasp that a computer's primary use is not necessarily games and movies?

For people who use desktop applications, the more resolution at a given screen size, the better.

Who cares, if you did not have these weird 5:4 and 16:10's then you would not know any better (don't know what dumb thinktank came up with them).
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense. "I could use more vertical space" is hardly an abstract concept!
 
Last edited:
wush said:
Why are you so aggressive about it, helmut? Can't you grasp that a computer's primary use is not necessarily games and movies?

For people who use desktop applications, the more resolution at a given screen size, the better.

Utter nonsense. "I could use more vertical space" is hardly an abstract concept!
Click to expand...

Don't like my posting don't read or reply simple. :) (I actually used a smillie, so I don't think you know the meaning of aggressive).

Your Thumbs down and "utter nonsense" comment is more aggressive IMO.

Some peeps are never happy, I personally do not watch movies on a Monitor.

I really don't think it would matter if you did not have weird Ratios in the 1st place, you last quote ain't even worth arguing over, cause if that's the case why did they not give you more Lines in both X and Y ?.

They are Widescreen to start with no due to Multimedia mainly, if not a massive 4:3 or 5:4 (another weird Ratio) would be more space to work on.

You ain't happy go and mail the body who deal with this all, I only report the news.

I'm glad to see the back of 16:10 is nearing end of its time. ;)
 
Last edited:
helmutcheese said:
Don't like my posting don't read or reply simple.
Click to expand...
This is a forum. On one side of the discussion there are valid usability points, the other, vague parallels with TVs and a dislike of "illegitimate" numbers..

It costs money to make higher resolution panels. If the horizontal resolution is already plenty, why bother raising the cost by increasing it further?

Ever use a typical 1366x768 display for day to day PC use? Plenty horizontal space, but it's a woeful experience due to the cramped vertical.
 
Looks like Wush is getting points for his posting abilities :rolleyes:.

Personally, I'd prefer if HDTV and computer monitor standards were kept separate. I find 1080 vertical res to be a bit restricting having gotten used to 1200, vertical res can make a lot of difference, especially for me and the use of CAD programs.
 
Last edited:
kylew said:
Personally, I'd prefer if HDTV and computer monitor standards were kept separate. I find 1080 vertical res to be a bit restricting having gotten used to 1200, vertical res can make a lot of difference, especially for me and the use of CAD programs.
Click to expand...

I'd like that too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WUXGA

A nice little page on why we have 1920x1200. Will be a real shame to see it die out just because people want to watch films on their monitors :(
 
In a lot of ways it makes far more sense to have a common ratio for the screens as acheive greater econmoies of scale which should mean lower prices.

For people that need more real estate there will be bigger monitors available. There are already quite a few 30" monitors out there with 2560 x 1600 res.

Possibly able to mkae easier transition to larger, 40,42" if could use same panel size as a HDTV. I believe Japan is already looking past 1080p for TV.

Whilst at a given width there will be less depth, it should enable higher resolutions to be reached more easily through economies of scale.
 
mdjmcnally said:
In a lot of ways it makes far more sense to have a common ratio for the screens as acheive greater econmoies of scale which should mean lower prices.
Click to expand...

This won't lead to lower prices, it will lead to higher margins for the manufacturers...period, plus I don't want a hunking great 30" on my desk, the 24" is more than big enough (i can easily move my eyes around the screen without moving my head).
 
Quoth the wikipedia article:

The 16:10 aspect ratio (as opposed to the 16:9 used in widescreen televisions) was chosen because this aspect ratio is appropriate for displaying two full pages of text side by side.[1] It also allows viewing of 16:9 video on a computer with player controls visible. The 16:10 screen (and display device profile) also comes very close to what is considered an aesthetically pleasing, golden rectangle.
Click to expand...

Ignore the bit about the video playback, but the part about text and the golden rectangle is very pertinent, we humans seem to have a built-in like for the ratio for some reason.
 
benjo plz. said:
I'm confused

a. how is 16:10 "illegitimate"?
Click to expand...
It's not :) This is about getting more panels from a substrate, therefore making more money for the panel makers, it's not about user demand. Honestly the number of people who use their PC for movies/TV (where a 16:9 ratio is beneficial) must be tiny compared to the number that use it for web browsing or applications (where the extra vertical resolution of 16:10 is beneficial).

Anyway, if it's inevitable then so be it, we'll have to get used to it.
 
we like the ratio of 1 to 1.6 because it is the golden mean, everything is better in 1 to 1.6 ratio.
It is also how the Xel'naga set up codes/technology to be used in Starcraft so it must be good.
 
I really hope they don't do this to Computer monitors.

As mentioned above for computer use 16:10 is FAR more useful than 16:9, if people want a TV then buy a 16:9 TV. We shouldn't be forced to buy 16:9 computer monitors just because it saves the panel manufacturers money and they can convince the standrad consumer that it will be better.

IMO 16:10 is prehaps even a bit wide, I think I would most like 3:2, nice match to my DSLR.... but thats just me ;)

A 16:10 monitor can easily display 16:9 with a couple of simple black borders, you can't go the otherway...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom