Is 16:10 the way forward?

[Jex =TE= 0]

A friend of mine and I were discussing monitors and came to the conclusion that the 16:9 format is in a way too small.

What we were after is more vertical height but not width. E.g. if I want more vertical height to my screen, the width increases but I think there is a point that the screen becomes to wide for you to see the edges - in other words you have to divert your eyes to the sides to see stuff.

The fix to the obove would be to move the screen further away but that kind of defeats the purpose.

So the 16:10 ratio give almost 200 more pixels in the vertial whilst not gaining in width. This to me sound more optimal for gaming and not too "letterbox". It also happens to be the size of 2x standard US letter pages side by side so presumably we'll see more of these in the future.

This size seems to fit better with what I want as a screen and I'm hoping that game devs will support it (arma does :)).

So what about people here - is this common knowledge to you? Do you think my opinion has merit or are you happy 16:9. I'd like to hear what people think to gauge this.

[-BBE- Soul Assassin 0]

I've been using 16:10 for a while now and I like it a lot. There are a lot of situations where extra height comes in handy, gaming included.

[Jockson 10]

I'm still on a 5:4 screen but I like 16:10 much better as I also believe 16:9 is way too wide which actually most of the time means it is too short vertically. Unfortunetaly, due to the fact that the manufacturers can market their screens "HD" and "1080p", the 16:9 format is going to replace the 16:10 in the near future so you got that part about the 16:10 being the future kind of the other way around ;)

All those new 23" screens and basically 24" 1920x1200 screens with 120 pixel rows cut off. Personally, I find the vertical space much more useful on a computer monitor and the vertical resolution of 1080 kind of sucks considering the 17" LCDs which became mainstream a long time a go had 1024, not to mention I use to use my CRT at 1200p almost 10 years ago.

For this very reason I'll soon be looking to upgrade to a 24" 16:10 screen as there is still a decent choice of quality 1920x1200 panels around.

[vasmkd 12]

Of all the res ratio's i would have to say 16:10 suits me best and i will never go back to 4:3 or any other format

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

16:10 is the sweet spot on a 30" @2560x1600

[An Fiach 10]

My opinion is that a modf will be in very soon because this thread should be in OT :bounce3:

[Grizzle 0]

+1 for 16:10

[11aTony 0]

I too have 22" 16:10 for over a year now and Im very happy with it most deff. Its best suited for everything. HD gaming is really something else. But the thing I like the most is that I can fill my screen with several of them windows. So copying, moving, etc. files is much easier and faster.

[no use for a name 0]

Even though I'm still using a 4:3 19" monitor, the first time I used a 16:9 sucked...it was waaay to narrow. I really hope 16:10 doesn't get phased out; cause I'd take a 4:3 or 5:4 over a 16:9 any day

[Jockson 10]

Even though I'm still using a 4:3 19" monitor, the first time I used a 16:9 sucked...it was waaay to narrow. I really hope 16:10 doesn't get phased out; cause I'd take a 4:3 or 5:4 over a 16:9 any day

To be honest, I'd take a large 4:3 over anything, even 16:10. The wider the aspect ratio is, the smaller the actual viewing area. Check out how much larger a hypothetical 24" 4:3 screen would be than a 24" 16:9: http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?0f004f8c495d3ec59f8961016637638b

My old 19" is STILL taller than a 24" 16:9: http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?5a9582635e498973360984d33caeaa6d

16:10 vs 16:9 on the same screen diagonal: http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?e899de0148d17bae3f84acb40e5b9d8a

Since 4:3 monitors are not being made anymore, 16:10 is the next best thing and I'm definitely getting one before it gets phased out by 16:9.

[WhoCares 0]

For me 16:10 seems to be the preferable ratio, especially if work with documents and the like. yet, when I bought my new PC, I went with a 16:9 for other reasons (e.g. price, non-glare,...). But I got me a slightly bigger one, 23" 2048x1152 and I am quite happy with it.

[Deadfast 43]

This size seems to fit better with what I want as a screen and I'm hoping that game devs will support it (arma does :)).

I have yet to see a game with widescreen support that doesn't acknowledge 16:10 aspect ratio.

I've had a 22" LCD with 1680x1050 (16:10) native for about 2 years now and I can't complain. Gives you great FOV for games and I can live with the little letterboxing movies give you.

[Helmut_AUT 0]

I hope 16:10 LCDs are here to stay, but the simple matter is that manufacturers can make more profit per unit sold (due to cheaper production costs) for 16:9, and so for example Dell is artificially inflating prices on their 16:10s in order to force everyone to swap.

The missing 120 pixels really hurt in productive apps and also in games. 1920x1200 was a logical upgrade from 1600:1200, but going down on vertical resolution is a downgrade.

[Jex =TE= 0]

I kind of thought I'd get these responses and can't think of any reason I'd want 16:9 over 16:10. I hope they don't get discontinued - I'm thinking maybe companies will be more likely to adopt them - esp. in the US where they fit their standard paper size?

[SFJackBauer 10]

To be honest, I'd take a large 4:3 over anything, even 16:10. The wider the aspect ratio is, the smaller the actual viewing area. Check out how much larger a hypothetical 24" 4:3 screen would be than a 24" 16:9: http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?0f004f8c495d3ec59f8961016637638b

My old 19" is STILL taller than a 24" 16:9: http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?5a9582635e498973360984d33caeaa6d

16:10 vs 16:9 on the same screen diagonal: http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?e899de0148d17bae3f84acb40e5b9d8a

Since 4:3 monitors are not being made anymore, 16:10 is the next best thing and I'm definitely getting one before it gets phased out by 16:9.

You are not taking in consideration resolution. To achieve a 1920 horizontal resolution on a 4:3 setup you would need 1440 pixels on vertical, meaning 460.000 pixels more to render. Since our FOV is wider on horizontal than vertical, and anyways more information needs to be available in horizontal rather than vertical (up = sky, below = your feet, but sides are your flanks ;)), then better to spend those pixels on the sides.

[Yoma 0]

I'm a big fan of 1680*1050 at the moment.

(Decent performance and good quality)

1920*1080 is like 15% more pixels to render for not that much quality increase.

I wouldn't dare to up the res more with my single GTX 285

Edited November 23, 2009 by Yoma

[Jockson 10]

You are not taking in consideration resolution. To achieve a 1920 horizontal resolution on a 4:3 setup you would need 1440 pixels on vertical, meaning 460.000 pixels more to render. Since our FOV is wider on horizontal than vertical, and anyways more information needs to be available in horizontal rather than vertical (up = sky, below = your feet, but sides are your flanks ;)), then better to spend those pixels on the sides.

Yeah, for first person shooters 16:10 would be more optimal, but there is a lot more to computing than games and movies so I would take that 1920x1440 4:3 thank you very much :D

16:9 is the future unfortunetaly. Most of the new models coming are 16:9 and so are many laptops. New iMacs are 16:9 too. Although the resolution on the 27" is nice, it is still way too wide for a computer monitor imo. 16:10 is/was a very good compromise for games/movies/browsing/work.

[odjob 0]

On a side by side comparison of the (16:10) 24" iMac and the (16:9) 27" iMac the panel seems to have near exact the same HEIGHT, but the 27" is wider.

So it seems a 27" is the logical step if upgrading from a (24") 16:10 to a bigger 16:9.

[reconteam 19]

Why do companies want to to go over to 16:9 format? What is wrong with 16:10. I don't want to move from my 1920x1200 monitor for a long time.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

I wouldn't dare to up the res more with my single GTX 285

With my Dell 30" if I go anything lower than native 2560x1600 the picture gets a slight blurred look (like PP effects).

My old 8800GTX handled that res nicely, and this GTX285 1gig I'm using handles it even better.

I do wish more games allowed changes to ratio.

[Helmut_AUT 0]

Why do companies want to to go over to 16:9 format? What is wrong with 16:10. I don't want to move from my 1920x1200 monitor for a long time.

They can cut more panels from the same raw waver, so more profit for them.

[Jockson 10]

They can cut more panels from the same raw waver, so more profit for them.

That, plus the fact that 16:9 screens appeal to console gamers who hate "those black bars" and they can market them as "Full HD" which most people automatically think it's better.

What bugs me is that soon if you're going to want anything with a decent vertical resolution, you'll need to go with a 27" or larger screen but then you'll end up with a huge ass horizontal resolution which means performance issues in games as anything outside the native resolution is too blurry.

[Jex =TE= 0]

I found this quote on Wiki...

According to manufacturer NEC: "The vision of humans naturally moves horizontally rather than vertically, and ergonomics experts have recommended a broad format for a long time. In a professional setting, the use of large screens better facilitates execution of the tasks on the screen and thus contributes to increased productivity."