Why are monitor designers all idiots.

BigglesPiP

BigglesPiP

BigglesPiP

Soldato
Joined
8 Mar 2006
Posts
13,300
Location
Near Winchester
It's new monitor time for me and the hunt is just ******* me off.

Who said 16:10 is a "golden" ratio? It just isn't, 16:9 is.

I'm looking for one of these with the hard glass face, 1680x1050 or something like that, reasonable response, brightness and contrast. about £150.

Willing to comprimise on some of those.

Anything good out there? Right now it's just an ocean of annoyance and bad website designs.
 
What are the arguments for 16:10 vs 16:9? can someone fill me in. is 16:9 generally favoured? why?
 
Tetsu said:
What are the arguments for 16:10 vs 16:9? can someone fill me in. is 16:9 generally favoured? why?
Click to expand...

The benefit of 16:9 is that's it's the aspect ratio of TV's, with 16:10 you always have black bars as no video/films is done at that resolution. I imagine dropping 16:10 would be advantageous for manufacturers as they could stop producing a lot of separate parts.
 
Tetsu said:
What are the arguments for 16:10 vs 16:9? can someone fill me in. is 16:9 generally favoured? why?
Click to expand...

16:10 is closest to the golden ratio which humans seem to have an affinity for. On a 24" monitor it also allows you to have 2 A4 pages side by side in a DTP/word processing package. 16:10 is favoured by people who use the computer/monitor combo to actually do work.

16:9 tends to be favoured by people who use their computers as media players/gaming rigs as for some reason they cannot abide tiny black bars at the top and bottom (which is absurd as any high-def movies are not 16:9 anyway, so you get the black bars regardless). It's also favoured by the panel manufacturers as it allows them to increase their margins whilst not passing on any savings to the consumer (in some cases charging more for the misnomer of it being "Full HD" despite the fact that 1920x1200 is BETTER than Full HD resolution wise).

Personally I have an HDTV for media/gaming and a 16:10 Hazro for my day job where the extra resolution is very much required.
 
BigglesPiP said:
It's new monitor time for me and the hunt is just ******* me off.

Who said 16:10 is a "golden" ratio? It just isn't, 16:9 is.

I'm looking for one of these with the hard glass face, 1680x1050 or something like that, reasonable response, brightness and contrast. about £150.

Willing to comprimise on some of those.

Anything good out there? Right now it's just an ocean of annoyance and bad website designs.
Click to expand...


I feel your pain. Not regarding aspect ratio 16:10 vs. 16:9 but regarding quality. Why are all manufactures obsessed with TN panels.

I have been through samsung 226bw, 3 x HP w2207, NEC 20wgx2, NEC wgx2pro and now OCUK Value 24" and lost about 150£ in the process.

I just want a H-ips 24" 1920 x 1200, 5ms, NO inputlag (and I mean NO input lag :rolleyes:) and I am willing to pay about 600£ :D
 
Last edited:
nightrhyme said:
I just want a H-ips 24" 1920 x 1200, 5ms, NO inputlag (and I mean NO input lag :rolleyes:) and I am willing to pay about 600£ :D
Click to expand...

Well, a group of us could get together and design one. The actual components aren't particularly expensive (IPS panels are cheaper than PVA in bulk due to supply and demand, PVA's being used in most LCD TV's) and if we only accepted native input resolution to avoid a scaler chip we should have almost no lag (we may have to disable any overdrive in the panel itself).

On second thoughts, that sounds like altogether far too much work! :D
 
BigglesPiP said:
Who said 16:10 is a "golden" ratio? It just isn't, 16:9 is.
Click to expand...

Sorry, forgot to post the maths refuting this comment.

Golden ratio = 1.61803399

16:9 = 1.77777777 (recuring)

16:10 = 1.6

As you can see, 16:10 is much, much closer to the golden ratio than 16:9 (getting the golden ratio exactly is impossible with such large pixels, you're looking into the millions of pixels across range until you can nail the golden ratio exactly).
 
I don't think the golden ratio is that important.

As you (and many others have said), what is best for watching TV or films (assuming that all films will be shot in HDTV/16:9 eventually) isn't best for doing work: content creation, photo-editing, coding etc. As a working space, 16:9 just doesn't cut it, and watching films is that last thing that I would use my lovely new 24" monitor for.

That said, ratios aren't that important for doing work; it's all about pixels = a 1920x1200 panel being more useful than a 1920x1080 panel. I like the extra width on my 24" monitor, but having those 1200 vertical pixels is the thing (and these monitors are now cheaper than or priced similar to 1600x1200 ones = no contest).

If someone made/gave me a 3:2 monitor with a resolution of 2400x1600 pixels, the lack of proportional width versus a 2560x1600 monitor wouldn't bother me much; you can't have yoo much desktop/workspace.
 
philjohn said:
Sorry, forgot to post the maths refuting this comment.

Golden ratio = 1.61803399

16:9 = 1.77777777 (recuring)

16:10 = 1.6

As you can see, 16:10 is much, much closer to the golden ratio than 16:9 (getting the golden ratio exactly is impossible with such large pixels, you're looking into the millions of pixels across range until you can nail the golden ratio exactly).
Click to expand...

So it's as aesthetically pleasing as the great pyramids, doesn't mean it's useful.

Tempted by the Asus LS201 a bit now, there are some at uni, quite like working with them.
 
BigglesPiP said:
So it's as aesthetically pleasing as the great pyramids, doesn't mean it's useful.

Tempted by the Asus LS201 a bit now, there are some at uni, quite like working with them.
Click to expand...

Did you not read my other post? It's very useful, as it allows you to cram 2 A4 pages side by side PLUS have a menu bar at the top of your DTP/word processing package.

And I flippin well want something I look at for umpteen hours a day to be aesthetically pleasing.
 
The main reason I quite like the idea of 16:9 is that I'll be able to run a ps3 or xbox 360 through the monitor without it going all wonky. Next monitor for me is likely to be a 24" 16:9.
 
Hxc said:
The main reason I quite like the idea of 16:9 is that I'll be able to run a ps3 or xbox 360 through the monitor without it going all wonky. Next monitor for me is likely to be a 24" 16:9.
Click to expand...

It only goes all wonky if the monitor is crap and doesn't offer 1:1 pixel mapping like any decent ones out there do.
 
dell have a 16:9 monitor i saw it on extreme forums
Dell has quietly slipped out the S2409W. The 24-inch screen is Dell's first to switch from a normal 16:10 ratio to a wider 16:9. Although this sacrifices resolution, dropping from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080, the resolution matches the 1080p output of Blu-ray movies and most other HD formats and results in a larger overall picture for those and most other widescreen videos. An HDMI input gives the S2409W a direct video input for movie players and game consoles.

DVI and VGA are equally available for computer input on the display, which is listed with a 1,000:1 contrast ratio and a 5ms average pixel response time. It isn't given the same color accuracy as displays like the 2709W but still reproduces 85 percent of the NTSC color range. Dell claims the S2409W ships within one to two business days and gives it a $379 price.
Click to expand...
dells2409w-lg.jpg

Dell S2409W 5ms 24"WS AU Optronics TN Film (M240HW01 V0)
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/
 
Last edited:
I'm a lot less bothered about 16:10 vs 16:9 than I was about 17" and 19" TFTs being 5:4 instead of 4:3. Why on earth there wasn't just a 1280x960 resolution I'll never understand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom