Gah I hate 16:9

Pate

Pate

Pate

Permabanned
Joined
23 Jun 2009
Posts
4,742
Got my new monitor. It's great, really really like it, but I can't stand the squashed look (1920x1080) compared to my older monitor (1920x1200).

Anyone else feel the same way? Do you get used to it?

¬_¬
 
Yeah, the 16:10 monitors seemed to be reserved for "Professional" monitors now. I'm upgrading from a 22" 1680*1050 soon, and going to 1080P gives me hardly any extra vertical space.
 
16:9 is fine. You'll get used to it.

I went from 16:9 without any problems, give it time or just invest in a bigger 16:9 monitor.
 
kenmare said:
Got my new monitor. It's great, really really like it, but I can't stand the squashed look (1920x1080) compared to my older monitor (1920x1200).

Anyone else feel the same way? Do you get used to it?

¬_¬
Click to expand...


No I got 16:10 (24") samsung. I use a 19" 4:3 at work so it feels huge. A friend of mine went from 1680 : 1050 to 1920 : 1080 and hated it, went back to the 1680 size
 
2x1080's at work, 2x1200's at home.

Home monitors feel much bigger and better.
 
You will do at the start but you do get use it. Once you do you will never want to go back.

It also depends what your doing as well as most games and websites look fine on 1920x1080
 
Nah, I love my 1080p monitor, it's excellent for movies, since they are in 1080p they fill the whole screen.

It seemed a bit odd at first but I'm use to it, I'm going to buy another one soon for an ATI Eyefinity setup.
 
Amen, brother. Such a shame 16:10 is being phased out. I prefer it, especially for gaming.
I never use anti aliasing as I prefer the sharper image you get without it and it can introduce performance and lag issues in some games. At 1200 I don't notice the jaggies but at 1080, they stick out like a sore thumb. You wouldn't think 120 lines would make that much difference to that or the amount of screen real estate you get on the desktop and programs but you certainly miss it.
I'm getting used to it, hoping to get a bigger monitor when a decent one comes out because that makes it less noticeable.
The 16:10 ratio is much more visually appealing too - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rectangle
 
16:9 is horrible on the desktop and even worse on laptops.

If you have to go up a monitor size to compensate for the aspect ratio then that just suggests that there is a problem with 16:9.

I’ve never understood the better for movies argument. It’s rare to get film that’s actually 16:9 so you end up with black bars top and bottom anyway.
 
I've recently upgraded from a 1680x1050 monitor to a 16:9 1080p Dell and love it. I use my PC mainly for games and films so everything runs natively with better FOV.

I can completely understand the argument for professional use as I've also got a 1200p monitor for use when working with Logic on my mbp. In this instance the need for more real estate is definitely ideal, but not essential.

bremen1874 said:
16:9 is horrible on the desktop and even worse on laptops.

If you have to go up a monitor size to compensate for the aspect ratio then that just suggests that there is a problem with 16:9.

I’ve never understood the better for movies argument. It’s rare to get film that’s actually 16:9 so you end up with black bars top and bottom anyway.
Click to expand...

I can't understand how you can simple write 16:9 off for desktop use. By extension you've also just said that Apple have gotten the entirety of their desktop line-up completely wrong.

To me, it's simply a matter of personal preference.
 
This is definitely not a case of the consumer dictating change, it is being forced upon us. Clippa got it spot on, 16:10 just feels right because it is nearly exactly the golden ratio making it the most aesthetically pleasing, not too narrow not too wide.
 
Rec said:
This is definitely not a case of the consumer dictating change, it is being forced upon us. Clippa got it spot on, 16:10 just feels right because it is nearly exactly the golden ratio making it the most aesthetically pleasing, not too narrow not too wide.
Click to expand...

I'd completely agree with this. 16:9 screens are just cheaper to make due to the commonality with television screens.

The audience on these forums is heavily skewed towards gaming where 16:9 may make sense, mainly due to nasty console transfers. In industry I haven’t found anyone who would prefer a 16:9 screen. They either don’t care, or would have 16:10 given the choice.
 
clippa said:
If a port is bad enough that it doesn't have a 16:10 option, then you can almost guarantee that the fov will be the same as the console version.
Click to expand...

Starcraft 2 FOV: http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6251839/index.html

Better field of view at 16:9, nothing really to write home about, but it's definitely there.

I've tested this myself on CSS between my two monitors and it's the same. As I said it's not a massive difference, but a hardcore fps gamer might want this slight extra.

I prefer my 16:10 though for mixing/arranging in audio apps and web browsing, but my new 16:9 for gaming and the odd film.
 
16:9 isn't the problem really, it's the poor 1920x1080 resolution 98% of all the screens currently on sale come with. As another guy pointed out the 27" screens with their mega 2550x1440 res look awesome and they're 16:9 but don't hurt for verticle resolution.

In the 1920x market however 1920x1200 monitors are the way forward for sure. 16:9 1080p monitors are horrible. I use them at work and really hate the rubbish verticle res. I've had that same vertical res for 6-7 years now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom