anyone think a 4k version of 16:10 will come out

anyone think a 4k version of 16:10 will come out. I dispize(sp)? 16:9 and would be awesome to have a 3840:2400

 

Yes, absolutely. I hold on to hope, compa. Tis why I refuse to give up my R2 cause I like the extra screen space. Times that by 4 and you get mucha mucha extra screen space!

PS: it's "despise".

 

thanks....my brain lacks any ability on the linguistic side. I hope you and i are right in hoping. I honestly can't understand anyone that wants wider than a 16:10. Every person i have met and showed them the difference in 16:9 vs 16:10 is blown away on how horrible 16:9 is :/ Imagine perfect scaling from 4k to 1920x1200 mmmmmm. I am a firm believer that windows daily productivity is best at 1920x1200. Any more is awkward and any less is cramped. Imagine pushing a button and going from 1920x1200 to 4k instantly when you actually need it mmmmmmm

 

Eventually, yes. But it will be quite some time before it does. And when it does, they will be few and far between.

The reason is because 16:10 aspect ratio is only going to be used for desktop PCs. Meanwhile, all of the 4K panels that come out are going to be intended for HDTVs, because of the difficulty in manufacturing an LCD panel with 4K resolution small enough to fit in a 24" LCD panel. So we need to wait for two things to happen:

1) For manufacturing processes to become mature enough to create a 24" 3840x2400 LCD panel; and
2) For a monitor manufacturer to take that LCD panel and put it into a monitor.

 

why make a 24 inch? I would love a 27 or 30 or maybe larger 16:10 version. I find a u2412m just barely usable.

Plus i wonder if they'll make a plasma version ^^ plasma is a million times better due to refresh rate and has near 0 ghosting

 

Barely usable for what? 24 inches is pretty damn big.

 

27 and 30 are nicer for working on a monitor from a further distance...plus it covers more of your view. It allows better posture and viewing distance for the eyes. Especially if you don't have near perfect reading sight and especially if you dont have good distance viewing.

 

Unlikely, since it would serve no useful purpose. You'd get all the height you need with script to tiny to read. Nevertheless, gimmicks do entice consumerism, so anything's possible.

One more thing, there's nothing sacred about 16:10. Its just one of a dozen aspect ratios that have come and gone for one reason or another. Get used to it.

 

useless? please 16:10 is the most productive layout in computers. I can fit a 30 in 16:10 screen in the same space as a 27 in 16:9 and have far more vertical pixels and get far more work done. You are talking out of your butt

 

Only because that's what you first knew. If it had been round, you'd say the same thing about round displays. Think about a book or periodical are they all the same? You pick it up and read. You size and shape are pretty irrelevant and few every give it a second thought. I go from 16:10 to 16:9 all day every day and never give it a thought.

Personally, I don't miss a thing. And find it strange that so many of you do. Still, I might get a 30" monitor, but that's just for variety, not because I miss it any more than I miss 4:3 TV sets. I don't.

In any event, if there is so much of a desire, I'm sure some enterprising manufacturer will produce them, if there's a profit and you're willing to pay the higher cost. If it would make you happy, I certainly would have no objections.

 

hardly i first knew 4:3 and i loved it. I hated 16:9 after 4:3. I loved my 1600x1200 LCD and CRT screen. But when i say 1080p i hated the loss of vertical pixels. Than someone showed me 16:10 1920x1200. It was like 4:3 and 16:9 has a baby and it was the most beautiful baby ever. It had the productivity of the vertical pixels of a 1600x1200 but also has the sexy with of a 1920x1080 where you could fit two files side by side. It wasn't too wide like a 2560x1600/1440 where you get lost in the massive wall of info. Anything longer than 1920 i find way to wide. Try looking at wikipedia and read on it from a 2560x1600 vs a 1920x1200. It is much easier to use a 1920x1200 to do regular windows stuff and web browsing. But if you need to do excel higher the res the better, which is why i would love to see a 4k version of 1920x1200. It would be epic and worth nearly any premium

plus as i said a large reason why 16:9 and wider are a waste is in multi screen setups. I can fit 3 30 in 2560x1600 in the same space as a 27 in 2560x1440...that is an epic waste of space.

Plus windows blows at using multiply windows in a single screen. There are 0 short cuts. Have multiple windows allow full screen and window use without any hassle. I'll take 3 screens over the stupidity of a 21:9....granted i can see why a niche market like photoshoppers and the like would like them but that is about it.

 

What I'm more interested in is if the Chromebook Pixel's 3:2 resolution will ever catch on.

 

i am unsure about that....i could see that as a niche market for photographers. I know my camera is 3:2 but i don't know if that is the common ratio for photography