Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're right but you must count on aspect ratios as they are used today belonging to only several certain screen sizes and formats that are available on the market. And in this case 16:10 has more viewable area than 16:9, of course if you cut-off width from 16:9 to make it 16:10 you make it smaller, but such a monitors are not in production, or they are pretty rare.No I'm just saying its a 10% cut either way.. Cut 10% height off any 16:10 and you have a 16:9 (that we have today).. cut 10% width off any 16:9 and you have a 16:10. There is no reason production wise that 16:10 has to have more pixels, other than the way things played out.
.. If it weren't for the cut being the way it is, less people would want 16:10.
So in order to question which actual aspect you prefer from as a pure aspect ratio, you have to cancel out the +/- 10% width or +/- 10% height and ask
"which aspect ratio do you prefer to have more pixels due to aspect limitation on similar resolution monitors?"
No I'm just saying its a 10% cut either way.. Cut 10% height off any 16:10 and you have a 16:9 (that we have today).. cut 10% width off any 16:9 and you have a 16:10. There is no reason production wise that 16:10 has to have more pixels, other than the way things played out.
.. If it weren't for the cut being the way it is, less people would want 16:10.
So in order to question which actual aspect you prefer from as a pure aspect ratio, you have to cancel out the +/- 10% width or +/- 10% height and ask
"which aspect ratio do you prefer to have more pixels due to aspect limitation on similar resolution monitors?"
It has been said here that 16:9 is used mostly for multimedia and basic stuff, for working and creativity 16:10 is preffered, and therefore eizo either as manufacturer of high end displays follows this direction.It's enough for me to take a look at Eizo's CG series monitor table (probably among the highest-end LCD's as far as color reproduction, etc.) and see that out of 10 monitors, only 1 has a 16:9 aspect ratio.
On LCD screen, higher resolution always means larger viewable area, because the grid of pixels has to be in same amount as a resolution, so if your screen has 1920x1200 resolution, it does have 1920 pixels on horizontal side and 1200 on vertical and no other way around. In large format screens they all have same HD resolution and same amount of pixels, just their dot-pitch and size of each of them is different but the amount of them is same.elvn, sorry still not getting it. So are you saying that people want 16:10 because it's 10% (yeah i know its more like 11%) height?
I think that that is the point, you could have any cut you chose, you are right, the could have a 16:7 cut. but that would be really wide, and not to useful to vertical scrolling. How about wide screens? like the one the previous page, with three screen together, what if that was one big screen, a 48x10 or something like that. Or the same but vertical? say three stacked vertically, so a 16:30?
I guess I don't see the argument here, can it be done, sure,but the reason people like 1920x1200 over a 1920x1080, is the extra pixels at the top and bottom, that is a fact for those who care about it. Those pixels, do translate into actual, physical dimensions, be it on a 23-24" screen or a 19" screen or a 30" screen. the 16:10 ratio, will equal more pixels, not for the sake of resolution, but for the sake of more workable space.
It has been said here that 16:9 is used mostly for multimedia and basic stuff, for working and creativity 16:10 is preffered, and therefore eizo either as manufacturer of high end displays follows this direction.
Well, not really any more.
Eizos high end monitor right now is actually even wider than 16:9. It has a resolution of 4096x2160.
2560x1600 monitors appears to be phaced out quicker than 1920x1200.
That is a 36" monitor of the DuraVision series (industrial / security applications) that costs $36,000. It is not even remotely aimed at home computing or multimedia use, and is very unlikely to be setting any kind of future trends for those markets.
I'd still want it, because I actually like the ratio. It's the closest to the golden ratio which is present in many places in nature, architecture, etc. which is a significant and specific number much like pi. Even our brain waves clock cycle operates according to it.
It is simply the only widescreen ratio that looks natural to me. But, it is a characteristic of humans to veer off into wrong directions (which is why we evolve as a species), and change for change's sake isn't invention.
Everyone had 1680x1050 monitors back then, not 1600x900.
1) 16:10 does not have higher resolution than 16:9.
Why are you comparing 1680x1050 with 1600x900? Most 1680x1050 monitors are 22". In similar size the 16:9 monitors have the resolution 1920x1080.
From what I remembered 16:10 does have a higher resolution than 16:9...
Hence 1920x1200 versus 1920x1080.
Now if we are talking about same sized monitors then thats a different story.
Yes, instead of wasting my time by watching something that has nothing to do with me, only will feed me with violence and crap artificial emotions, I do support my interests and work on computer, earning money and gathering knowledge.I cant believe this is still a debate after at least 4 years. It really comes down to one question. Are you going to use your computer for anything other than watching movies? If you do it's really a no brainer.
Yes, instead of wasting my time by watching something that has nothing to do with me, only will feed me with violence and crap artificial emotions, I do support my interests and work on computer, earning money and gathering knowledge.
1920x1200 /= 16:10
1920x1080 /= 16:9
and not even if the size is similar that is true.
21-22" 16:10 usually are 1680x1050
21-22" 16:9 are 1920x1080
26-27" 16:10 are 1920x1200
27" 16:9 are 1920x1080 or 2560x1440
So really which has highest dpi has nothing to do with aspect ratio.
console ports seem to be bearing down on 16:9 based FOVs out of habit, limited dev time, or whatever. Even "PC" games seem to be following the same, abheit, and at least modifyable FOV (and in true console form, we have to edit text files outside of the program itself, instead of the option - normallly nonexistant - being in-game).
Whoever posted the 16:10 paper, thank you, it's good reading Sadly, unlike the iPhone 4, my phone is 16:9 so... lol*. Otherwise, I really hope another company actually utilizes the Retina display, and this is one are I feel Apple has done well in - instead of ever slimmer displays on their mobile devices, Apple has kept stuff bigger than 16:9
*edit: I only mention since I am reading it on my phone.
The thing is that if you want to discuss 24" 16:10 1920x1200 vs 23-24" 16:9 1920x1080 then do that and dont claim that you discuss 16:10 vs 16:9.
It is like me saying that 16:9 is far better than 16:10 because of that 27" 16:9 is 2560x1440 and 24" 16:10 is 1920x1200.
In those cases it has nothing to do with aspect ratio really but simply that a higher resolution is "better" than a lower resolution.
16:10 vs 16:9 isn't necessarily a valid discussion, even tho your usual reasoning has nothing to do with the true reality; 16:9 isn't commonly a preferred standard by anyone but panel manufacturers. Elvn tried to explain it much more logically but it flew over the head of some, if anything the argument should be 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080. At resolutions above that it's usually not even an argument because vertical work space ceases to be an issue.
That's unbelievable really.<shakes head>
Oh hai Hydros@10e
i have never visited the site you mention in my life which make your post very strange.
People have different budgets and also different needs. Some prefer two or three screens over one. Some others dont care about pixel density but simply want a big screen. Some others just want the highest dpi possible so whats the sweet spot is very different dependent on who we are talking about.Plus I even explained the context behind it, from a space and cost perspective 24" happens to be a sweet spot, and will remain so for years until we get relatively affordable displays with a 4K res. The argument is also relevant for laptops usually constrained by even lower res displays where s 16:9 ratio is widely viewed as a downgrade due to reduced workspace. Maybe my english just isn't very good, being a 2nd language and all...
You purposely choose to ignore this to keep pushing your agenda, which is fine, since you're usually panned within a few posts by people who are used to reading the same vitriol over and over.
You know, I was just thinking of what kind of desks an office would have to splurge for to accommodate two really wide (say 21 ) monitors, not that they would be good for anything other than viewing two movies at the same time. And it's just impracticable for any work environment.At resolutions above that it's usually not even an argument because vertical work space ceases to be an issue.
Again, the financial constraints put a limit what people are willing to buy. I still remember how shocked my friends where 4 years ago when they say my 24" screen and how much desk space it still takes up. And here I want a second monitor...Unfortunately most people can't afford or aren't ready to invest in 27"+ displays (or simply dint have the desk space), so we end up with the aspect ratio argument which largely revolves around 24" displays... Although it's also very relevant on laptops where unfortunately even 1200 or 1080 lines of vertical res are usually a luxury.
Honestly, at a certain point you're not even arguing personal preference but semantics (or how accurately the thread is titled). With larger displays the aspect ratio is rarely an issue so it rarely comes up, duh.
16:10
End of story, period.
Why isn't OLED banned yet? Lack of action is affecting the credibility of this site as a whole, in my opinion.