Why are monitor designers all idiots.
- Thread starter BigglesPiP
- Start date
16:9
16:10
I agree, you get less pixels for your money
surely people can put up with two tiny black bars bearing in mind its going to look exactly the same on a 16:9 screen.
I have to be honest I really dont see the point of arguing that 16:10 is nearer the golden ratio than 16:9. AFAIK 16:9 has been out for nearly 3 decades as one of the very popular cinematic aspect ratios whereas 16:10 is probably more like a decade at most (I think its only used in computer monitors).
Considering HD is either 720i/p or 1080i/p it makes sense to move over to the standard especially since the differences between a TV and computer monitor are so reduced nowadays, hell it probably is a way to cut costs for panel manufacturers so Im all for it.
Now when you argue the fact that 16:10 was introduced so it could fit 2 pages of A4 text with the start menu or a film with the controls that does seem more useful. Considering a lot of us watch films with auto-hide controls I doubt it really matters that much and I dont think the difference in 100% to (at a guess) 89% for 2 A4 pages is going to be dramatically detrimental to productivity...
Perhaps outside the HD formats monitors can remain 16:10, but within them 16:9 just seems a more concerted effort for the future...
ps3ud0
Considering HD is either 720i/p or 1080i/p it makes sense to move over to the standard especially since the differences between a TV and computer monitor are so reduced nowadays, hell it probably is a way to cut costs for panel manufacturers so Im all for it.
Now when you argue the fact that 16:10 was introduced so it could fit 2 pages of A4 text with the start menu or a film with the controls that does seem more useful. Considering a lot of us watch films with auto-hide controls I doubt it really matters that much and I dont think the difference in 100% to (at a guess) 89% for 2 A4 pages is going to be dramatically detrimental to productivity...
Perhaps outside the HD formats monitors can remain 16:10, but within them 16:9 just seems a more concerted effort for the future...
ps3ud0
Last edited:
16:10 IS the golden ratio, if you want 16:9 then that's easily done either via onscreen 1;1 mapping or through display driver adjusting which both ATI and nVidia support. Gaming on 16:10 is far better than on 16:9 too, you get more gaming at 1920x1200 than 1920x1080 ;p
The wait is probably over for you then and the answer is the Hazro HZ24Wi
you just have to wait for my pics and OCUK to stock them!
I just want a H-ips 24" 1920 x 1200, 5ms, NO inputlag (and I mean NO input lag) and I am willing to pay about 600£
The wait is probably over for you then and the answer is the Hazro HZ24Wi
you just have to wait for my pics and OCUK to stock them!
It most certainly has not! It was decided on about 20 years ago as a "compromise" between the two most popular cinema aspect ratios - look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)#16:9_standard
First of all, not all of us watch media content on our desktops - we have HDTV's for that. Secondly: yes, reduce their costs and thus increase their margins - you and I will see no reduction in price.
You obviously don't use your monitor for real work then, the increased vertical resolution on a 24" monitor is very welcome when coding (the more you can get on the screen, the easier it is to see the "big picture").
Hopefully the 16:9 market will be confined to TN panels so that people who don't know any better can be happy with no black bars, and people who use their computers for more than just a glorified media centre can be happy too!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
WTF is "REAL WORK" ?
The 16:9 move is happening end of story (has nothing to do with panel type), post a petition to #10 if you ain't happy.
The 16:9 move is happening end of story (has nothing to do with panel type), post a petition to #10 if you ain't happy.
Doh! As a cinematic standard it was devised in 1984, so yeah I guess nearer 20 than 30 years ago - but my point was that its significantly more established than 16:10 is.
EDIT: Also if you have to use Wiki, find a statement that hasnt been raised for a citation to be needed - as good as it is, its never 100% correct at the best of times...
Well Im moving to a 32" HDTV for PC usage - seems a lot more popular topic since any resolution over 1920x1200/1080 is prohibitively expensive when considering decent gaming. Considering the inputs these PC monitors have nowadays is there really any technical difference between them and HDTVs other than the perceived market?
Yeah sorry I just use MS Paint all day
...Lets put this in perspective - Im using a 2407WFP which has a vertical screen size of 32cm - that works out to be 3.2cm for the 120 pixels Ill lose out if I went for a 1920x1080.
Opening up Word (100% using normal layout with 3 toolbar rows) that works out to be 6 lines out 50 lost (12% loss). Reducing the zoom to around 94% meant that I could represent those same 50 lines in the same space 44 lines originally took at 100% without any real discernible difference in readability...
To me, whatever you doing, thats not a massive impact and sure wont stop you seeing the 'big picture'...
P.S. If my maths is wrong Im sorry
ps3ud0
Last edited:
WTF is "REAL WORK" ?
The 16:9 move is happening end of story (has nothing to do with panel type), post a petition to #10 if you ain't happy.
I'm certain it is happening in certain segments, but to try and postulate that it's a fait accompli across the entire monitor industry is a bit of a stretch.
Once again, it's not a cinematic standard, it's a compromise between the two most used cinematic standards so that they can both be displayed somewhat acceptably on a television screen.
With coding that would indeed make a big difference, having an entire subroutine on the monitor at once increaseas producitvity as you aren't scrolling up and down all the time.
It's not really a problem though, as I said, people who want to use their computer as a media centre will go 16:9, people who want to use their computer primarily for work will continue to pay more and get 16:10.
What I really don't get is why people aren't mad that the move to 16:9 is purely to increase the manufacturers bottom lines.
So you are saying that in your experience, significant more subroutines (for arguments sake) would fit into a 50line/1200pixel screen than a 44line/1080pixel screen without the need for scrolling?
Im sorry but I just cant see that being enough of a difference to realistically say thats a particular and immediate advantage. If thats the case why move from 4:3 screens or not use portrait view to maximise the vertical screen size if its all important in your line of work? Surely the person who decided to move to 16:10 from 4:3 must have thought the reduced vertical screen size (on comparable screens) would be acceptable?!?
I primarily use my PC for work and gaming and I really cant see a real issue in the format movement - then again I dont do 'real work' it seems
ps3ud0
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 16
In the end, losing any amount of pixels is a downgrade; it's hard to see why someone with a 16:10 monitor would swap one for a 16:9 monitor to be honest. You don't gain anything.
I used to have a 21" CRT that ran at 1600x1200. I was only interested in replacing it with a 1600x1200 20" TFT/LCD because I didn't want to lose any vertical pixels, so a 1680x1050 held no interest for me. I kept the CRT until TFT/LCD became more affordable, but by the time that happened, budget 24" panels were costing less than or the same as the few 1600x1200 panels that are still available, so I bought one of those. The extra width is great, but I notice the extra vertical space much more, especially as I've been using a laptop with a 1400x900 screen for a while.
I used to have a 21" CRT that ran at 1600x1200. I was only interested in replacing it with a 1600x1200 20" TFT/LCD because I didn't want to lose any vertical pixels, so a 1680x1050 held no interest for me. I kept the CRT until TFT/LCD became more affordable, but by the time that happened, budget 24" panels were costing less than or the same as the few 1600x1200 panels that are still available, so I bought one of those. The extra width is great, but I notice the extra vertical space much more, especially as I've been using a laptop with a 1400x900 screen for a while.
Not more subroutines, but more OF a subroutine. Even a couple of extra lines make all the difference. With the font that I use I can fit 9-10 extra lines of code in those 120 lost pixels.
Because 1200 seems to be the sweet spot for me.
I primarily use my PC for work and gaming and I really cant see a real issue in the format movement - then again I dont do 'real work' it seems
I don't doubt you do real work on your PC, but just because you wont miss it doesn't mean that a large number of people wont.
But hey, if you want to pay the same for less, have at it.
Really - I think you pretty much said the opposite :/
But just because you will miss it doesn't mean that a large number of people will. No doubt it will just past the large majority by without issue...
Thats pretty much what seems to be happening (I cant see panel manufacturers forcing us not to, considering the cost-savings and if it was a large majority it affected Im sure that decision may have turned out differently) and happen-ed/ing when 4:3 was phased out in preference to 16:10...
Still dont get why some people think that the loss of those 120pixels will mean we wont feel the saving benefit - its too early to tell, though I doubt it would be anything significant...
Im personally moving to a larger screen as its a lot nicer to work with especially at these high resolutions. Considering I work with spreadsheet/databases with tens of thousands of rows such a loss of vertical size is really insignificant. At work we still use 4:3 monitors since 16:10 didnt give us any real benefit without extra layout...
ps3ud0
Last edited:
Im in agreement that any unnecessary loss of pixels such as 16:10 to 16:9 is absolutely pointless, however moving from a 4:3 to 16:10 I could completely understand as its much more natural to look at, and means two documents can be looked at side by side, which is ace when programming or doing any work that requires referencing something else.
You cannot be serious? If the saving is passed on I will be extremely surprised...that's not the way most for-profit businesses operates - heck if I was running the panel fabs I certainly wouldn't pass the saving on! Add in the fact that these people are already operating on razor thin margins as it is, this is a way to plump up the bottom line and still meet a demand from certain market segments.
No, they will tout these as somehow being "better" because they are "full hd" (notwithstanding that 16:10 24" monitors are Full HD +) and charge the same or more for them.
I honestly don't see 16:10 being supplanted completely by 16:9 monitors, I'm sure there is a healthy market for both of them, so it'll become horses for courses.
Last edited:
Perhaps Im being naive, but if a panel fab switches to solely making 16:9 panels at standard sizes for both HDTVs and PC monitors then thats quite a cost saving than having to make different aspect ratio panels. In the short-term as you said it will be marketed as an advantage, but that streamlining would translate to a saving to the consumer in the long-term since theyll be able to produce panels significantly cheaper, maintain/increase their profit margin and still market them at a cheaper price.
I just relate it to what happens in the CPU market when you move to a smaller process..
As I said before Im not really that bothered and Im not actively moving between 16:10 and 16:9 because of the change in aspect ratio. If I could get a 32"+ 1920x1200 panel Id be more interested than a 16:9 one...
ps3ud0
I just relate it to what happens in the CPU market when you move to a smaller process..
As I said before Im not really that bothered and Im not actively moving between 16:10 and 16:9 because of the change in aspect ratio. If I could get a 32"+ 1920x1200 panel Id be more interested than a 16:9 one...
ps3ud0
I havent payed for a dvd in years, downloaded 7 films last week and most of them are around 640x272 resolution, so Id get back bars with 16:9 anyway
Ive never seen anoyone use portate mode for more than 1mins to show someone, when you goto wide screen you think of it as gaining width and keeping the same height, 16:10 to 16:9 is just losing height.
Monitors arent tying to be televisions, they're better at what they were designed for.
Ive never seen anoyone use portate mode for more than 1mins to show someone, when you goto wide screen you think of it as gaining width and keeping the same height, 16:10 to 16:9 is just losing height.
Monitors arent tying to be televisions, they're better at what they were designed for.
Last edited:
True, the other reason for me not using it in portrait mode is that cleartype doesn't work and I've found that my eyes don't get as strained with it turned on.