Is 16:9 Better or Worse than 16:10?

I don’t see much discussion about the pros and cons of the new 16X9 displays. Personally, I would rather have the extra height of the old 16X10 displays than the extra width of the new 16X9 ones. I don’t watch movies on my laptop and don’t see many other advantages. The extra weight of the new format is not so great either. Other opinions are welcome.

 

I say 16x9 is worse. You lose a lot of vertical space with 16x9, and when you're typing or working on something can become annoying. You feel squished in the window.

-The switch to 16x10 was good, I prefer it over 4x3, but the 16x9 change sucks.

 

There are actually atleast 2 threads where this is discussed pretty much what the good and the bad sides are.

Try searching!

 

Worse. 16:10 is perfect for multitasking (i.e. you can fit two word documents in one screen and view everything) and the FoV is almost perfect for gaming. The only reason why they're pushing 16:9 to PCs and notebooks is because 16:9 is cheaper to manufacture and they can make more profit over 16:10 by advertising how 16:9 PC/Laptop screens scale perfectly to HDTV and movies, when it actually doesn't in some cases.

 

Just out of interest, why are they cheaper to manufacture? Less pixels per diagonal inch of screen or what? <- (A guess, I haven't done the maths)

 

Pretty much. Mostly for LCDs and Plasma televisions, it's on an area basis; 16:9 has less area than 16:10 or 4:3 screens of the same horizontal length. This doesn't really apply to DLPs though seeing that they're basically projectors.

 

Smaller screens so smaller notebooks, if you want more screen area get one with higher area

The stupid thing about comparing 4:3 to 16:9 for example is that people usualy think you can compare 16:9 to 4:3, 15" on each of those isn't the same as we all know, so you can't say you get less when getting a 16:9 because you should have in mind that it's smaller ofcourse as it's wider. So if you want something as big as a 15" 4:3 you would wanna look at a 17" 16:9 screen or something to have the same area to work with
And it's also said 16:9 cost less, well they don't charge you more for 16:9, so i see nothing wrong with 16:9 as the notebooks becomes smaller because of the smaller screen.

So please people, don't compare 4:3 with 16:9 straight over, it's not a correct measure in area.

 

^^^^^^
Are they???

I thought they were introduced because they are better in media laptops
(no black bars in widescreen videos)
Didn't think that was the right reason though

 

If you play board games like chess, get ready for a smaller board with 16X9 displays because the board (any square really) gets smaller when vertical space is reduced. A lot of people don’t realize this.

 

The sad part is is that 16:9 isn't really any better for movies; there will still be black bars as movies are filmed 2.35:1 (i believe) therefore the screen has to be extra long and a little high, like that tv they made i cant remember where that cost a lot and looked funny...

 

I guess it'd depend on the application - I prefer my 16x9 for gaming (RPGs and FPSs), because I mostly want to view further horizontally than vertically, and viewing two windows side by side.

 

Their is not much of a difference between 16:9 and 16:10.
For example, a 15.4" screen is 16:9 and a 15.6" screen is 16:10
The 16:10 screens are slightly wider, and slightly shorter in height.
I personally am a fan of 4:3 because it allows you to read an actual document.

K-TRON

 

16:9 and 16:10 are still so similar most people wouldn't notice an immediate difference unless they're side by side. On the plus side, some of the 15-16" 16:9 laptops have fullsize keyboards, but I've never seen a fullsize on a 15.4". On the downside, you do lose a bit of vertical resolution, and perhaps some older games won't have support for the resolution.

 

You got exactly my point there explaing that the area of a 16:9 screen in 15.4" is the same as a 16:10 screen at 15.6" ! Do you know how big a 4:3 screen would be to accomodate the area of a 16:9 at 15.4" ?

 

I also prefer the old 15” 4X3 display for a lot of things. I’m guessing that it has as much vertical space as the new 18” 16X9 display, or at least it is close. Does anybody know?

 

~35% bigger should a 16:9 screen be, to be the same screen height as a 4:3.

So about a 20.5" 16:9 screen is as high as a 4:3 screen at 15.4" but then the 16:9 screen is much wider.

 

This is not true -- in fact, it is the other way around. The more lopsided the ratio of width to height, the longer a diagonal you need to get the same area. Here's the Pythagorean Theorem if you don't believe me:

Let x be the width of the display and y be its height.

16:9 with 15.4" diagonal:

x/y = 16/9 so
x = 16/9 y

x^2 + y^2 = 15.4^2 so
(16y/9)^2 + y^2 = 15.4^2 or
y^2 = 15.4^2 / (1 + (16/9)^2) so
y = 15.4 / sqrt (1 + (16/9)^2) or
y ~= 7.55" whence
x ~= 13.42"

Therefore, the area is A = xy ~= 101.32 square inches.

By the same exact reasoning with a 16:10 screen with a 15.6" diagonal:

y = 15.6 / sqrt (1 + (16/10)^2) or
y ~= 8.27" whence
x ~= 13.23"

and therefore A = xy ~= 109.40 square inches which is roughly 8% larger.

In fact, even if we make the diagonal of the 16:9 screen 15.6" and the diagonal of the 16:10 screen 15.4" (which is what is actually done), the areas still don't come out the same:

y = 15.4 / sqrt (1 + (16/10)^2)
y ~= 8.16"
x ~= 13.06"
A ~= 106.59 square inces

y = 15.6 / sqrt (1 + (16/9)^2)
y ~= 7.65"
x ~= 13.60"
A ~= 104.01 square inches

The 16:10 screen is still around 2.5% larger than the 16:9 one, despite the fact that the diagonal is now longer. It's not by much, but you have to understand that the 16:9 screens offer less viewing area than similar 16:10 ones.

Yes. You just work backwards. As I showed above, the area of a 16:9 screen with 15.4 diagonal is 101.32 square inches. Now suppose the 4:3 screen has the same area. We then know the following:

A = xy = 101.32 square inches and
x = 4y/3
therefore,
(4y/3)*y = 101.32 or
y = sqrt (3*101.32/4)
y ~= 8.72" whence
x ~= 11.62"

so the diagonal is sqrt (x^2 +y^2) = 14.53" which is nearly an inch smaller than the 16:9 screen. Remember, the smaller the ratio of width to height, the bigger the viewable area given the same diagonal.

 

Althernai i have no idea what all your x's and y's and such are and what you are trying to prove

I just don't think you know what i mean?

I don't care if K-TRON had the exact value to accomodate the different ratios, it was just an example in my eyes, that one screen has to be bigger than another to have the same area.

If you can do all that math, then you can probably do the math for us and tell us how much area a 15.4" 16:10 display has, and what screen size a 16:9 and a 4:3 should have to be to hold the same area of viewable size.

You can cut out a 4:3 screen out of a 16:9 and vice versa, but that's not important here as that doesn't matter. The other thing was that we where just trying to establish how big the other screen has to be to accomodate the height in each ratio.

We can all agree that a 15.4" screen in 16:10 doesn't have the same area as a 16:9 or 4:3 in 15.4".. so..


EDIT:
So the main questions are how big should a 16:9 screen be to accomodote a 4:3 screen that is 15.4"
And how much area a 15.4" 16:10 display has, and what screen size a 16:9 and a 4:3 should have to be to hold the same area of viewable size.


+rep for you anyways for being kind enough to do the math


So a 15.4" 16:9 screen is as big as a 14.53" in the 4:3 ratio. These diagonal measures gets crapped out (missread/missunderstod) with different screen ratios

 

I get where Alth's coming from (thanks to highschool trig lol).

Basically, an x-inch screen will have more pixels/area if it is closer to a square.

That doesn't automatically make it better, but if you buy a 17" 4:3 screen, it will have more area/pixels than a 17" 16:9 screen, and both will have a greater area/pixel count than a 17" 16:10 screen.

 

Yeah we can all understand that, that's easy.


And ofcourse a 17" 4:3 screen will have a larger viewable size than the respective 16:9/16:10 screens are in 17".. So the question was how big each ratio has to be to accomodate each other in viewable size.

As you can't compare 15" 16:9 vs 15" 4:3 in screensize, as they both aren't as big as each other But people tend to think it is, just because those inches are measured diagonally. So the comparision tend to be wrong just because we're used to do diagonally measure between all different types of screens.

 

I think what we can all take away from this is that companies are still trying to screw us, but that's ok, because they're only screwing us a little bit.

XD

 

Yeah maybe, but i haven't seen prices go up really with the new screens

Anyhow, to make it all correct, just get a bigger 16:10/16:9 screen to get the same viewable size of a 4:3 of whatever you're used to, the new standard isn't taking up more space so i don't see the bother

 

A 16X9 notebook would be much heavier than a 4X3 and somewhat heavier that a 16X10 with the same vertical height. The 16X9 would also take up more space because it's wider.

 

My basic point was that by shifting to 16:9, they're ripping us off (though only by a little bit).

Maybe not. I thought I understood, but I'm not entirely certain.

OK, I can do that. I assume that when you say "to accomodate", you mean "to have the same total area" rather than "to have at least as much width and at least as much height" because the latter doesn't really make much sense (though if that's what you want, I can calculate that as well).

I'm just going to write down the final answers. To your first question (the 4:3 screen that is 15.4"):

Area: 113.84 square inches for all resolutions:

Resolution: 4:3
Diagonal: 15.4"
Width: 12.32"
Height: 9.24"

Resolution: 16:10
Diagonal: 15.92"
Width: 13.50"
Height: 8.43"

Resolution: 16:9
Diagonal: 16.32"
Width: 8.00"
Height: 14.23"

Thus, to match the area of a 15.4" display with 4:3 resolution you need a 15.92" 16:10 display or one that is 16.32" at 16:9.

To your second question (the 16:10 display with 15.4" diagonal):

Area: 106.59 square inches for all resolutions:

Resolution: 4:3
Diagonal: 14.90"
Width: 11.92"
Height: 8.94"

Resolution: 16:10
Diagonal: 15.4"
Width: 13.06"
Height: 8.16"

Resolution: 16:9
Diagonal: 15.79"
Width: 13.77"
Height: 7.74"

So to match a 15.4" 16:10 screen, we need only a 14.9" 4:3 screen, but if we want to be 16:10, it must be 15.8".

It's 3 AM here so I'm going to sleep and there may be something wrong with my calculations, but I've written a few functions that automatically evaluate these things so hopefully not.

 

Thanks man

Much appreciated!

And the latter question was not making sense no haha, i was too tired there. What i meant was:

If you have for example a 15.4" 4:3 screen if you want to buy a 16:9 screen that has the same height as the 4:3, how many inches should the 16:9 be?



If i follow the pattern it seems that converting from 4:3 to 16:10 in viewable area, just add 0.5 inches to it, and from 16:10 to 16:9 just add 0.4inches? That seems simple!



And about the companies ripping us off with screen size, i can follow what you mean, but the biggest rip-off is the whole measuring system in inches. Because that gives us customers the wrong idea on how big the screens are Though the manufacturers are taking it to the level to use us customers by advertising these new screens to fools us, so yeah i understand that part.

 

I feel so locked down in a 16x9 everything feels so limited, 16:10 everything seems more even and free!

 

QFT
why are we going to such length to just reduce the size of two black bars? it's not gonna kill anyone.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=347661

That's all that needs to be said.

16:9 =

 

I think your making a mountain out of a mole hill. As long as 16:9 will be the limit I'm not too bothered.
16:9 compared to 16:10

 

Me neither, aslong as you're not one of those who compare inch to inch, and actually think that they fit the same amount you have nothing to worry about either. a 16:9 will be smaller as discussed, it's just stupid to measure diagonally to compare screen sizes as it gives the wrong idea on how big it is (as i've said before).


Here's a pic between 4:3 (blue) and 16:9 (orange) in the same amount of diagonal inches.

 

it doesn't change much in height. but people don't realize that every, even what ever small, change in height results in a huge loss in a world, where everything goes from top to bottom.

even small changes in height result in much more scrolling. i always today just look at pixelheightcounts (rows) when i choose if a screen is good for me. because that's the only thing that matters for close to any work i do.

the shift from 16:10 to 16:9 normally means two things: a reduction in height == productivity loss, and a reduction in actual area == another productivity loss.

the only reason is to have only one way to produce all screens including tv's. but it's really bad for customers. i could use the asus eee for close to any work, if it would be 4:3 or even 1:1. it wouldn't be much bigger, it would still fit any pocket it fits now, but the change from 1024x600 to 786 or even 1024 (at 1:1) would be tremendous.

 

And now imagine fat bottom taskbar in Windows 7 on netbook screen 1024x600, it will be even worse... Hopefully you can move taskbar to the right or left side and get full 600 pixels vertically. I agree with you, 1024x768 on netbook screens will be much better.

 

Useful Monitor DPI (pixel density) calculator:
http://www.raydreams.com/Prog/DPI.aspx

 

you nearly have to replace it to left or right. but you can as well make it smaller..

but yes, every pixel counts. win7 by default has a lot of vertical space-eaters. the title bar got more thick, the taskbar got much more thick, in the end you have 500something pixels height left.

the only partially nice thing about widescreen is, it fits to the keyboards (they're wide and have not much height). but that's more an excuse than anything else..

if i nowadays want a screen with more than 1000 pixels height, i have to get a notebook that's very wide, doesn't really fit into an ordinary bag. when 4:3 was modern, a friend of mine got an ibm with 1600x1200 pixels, 14" big.

try to find a 1200 pixels high notebook screen for 14" nowadays..

 

I am perfectly happy with my 1600x900 laptop at 16.4". It's a perfect resolution, perfect screen size and perfect aspect ratio. And of course, perfect for watching movies.

I am not so sure that I would want a 1600x1000 resolution since it would mean that they have to squeeze more pixels resulting in higher DPI than I wanted.

 

nope it would just mean a higher screen, no increase in dpi actually (and you'd get a 17" screen, then, or so).

 

1600x900 at 16.4" would give me 111.9 DPI. 1600x1000 at 16.4" would give me 115. So, there is a difference.

 

you don't get it..

you don't get the same 16.4" screen. 16.4" ones are the replacements for the 17" ones before, namely you NOW HAVE LESS SCREEN ESTATE than you would have with a 16:10 laptop. it would be higher, same width, same pixels per width, same pixels per height, same dpi. just more pixels upwards, a.k.a a bigger screen.

but the notebook dimensions would not get affected, except the height maybe (but most have that thick borders around screens that it wouldn't affect the notebook dimensions AT ALL).

 

There is nothing to prevent anybody to make any screen at any size at any aspect ratio. So, to say that 17" screen will be completely replaced by 16.4" is not true.
Having said that, I am very happy with my 16.4" notebook. 17" is too big for me. 16.4" is perfect. Sony AW 17" is a ton heavier and bulkier than it's 16.4" counterpart. I am very happy that 16:9 become more and more common. I am a big movie watcher but don't have the space in my tiny room to put the TV in. A 16:9 screen is a perfect solution for my problem.

 

fact, is, they replace them more or less always to smaller notebooks.

but it's nice to have a perfect solution for your problem.

 

I will second that!! It feels very squished - depenig on what programs you are running.

fattail95

 

yea, to me 16:10 is ideal for anything under 16". i dont mind the 18" 16:9 screens though.

also they must be either WUXGA or full HD screens.

i almost bought the acer aspire 6935, but the narrow screen killed the deal, i spent quite a long time with it in the store but couldnt get used to it. made word documents annoying to check layout wise

 

IMO 16:9 is good for larger screens (I had no problem working off of my LCD TV this summer), but for smaller screens I would miss the real estate (1440x900 is much different than 1440x810).

 

Sony offers a 16.4 inch 16X9 display. Wll other companies offer this size? If I had to buy a 16X9 notebook I would prefer the 16.4 to the 16.0. At least the display height is close to my current 15.4 16X10 notebook.

 

heh, just seen the "hot mail" topic around here and remembered it.

imagine on a 1440x810 screen (just measured it) with default settings and browser and a hotmail mail account. half the screen is window, menues, taskbar, advert, and live-stuff. only around 400 pixels high are actual hotmail mails and features of hotmail itself. the rest is gone.

widescreen is really not useful, not for web, not for apps. possibly for movies (but i don't care there, as i just want a big screen.. and now that i have a fullhd beamer, i don't care about it anymore at all big is no problem)

 

I used to be a 4x3 loyalist for computers. I liked HDTVs, but always wanted 4x3 for browsing. After getting a 16x9 notebook though, it's really not that bad. Sure sometimes I miss having the vertical space, but it's just a little bit more scrolling.

I like what having a 16x9 housing does for the keyboard real estate. Having a full keyboard and decent palm rests in a 15" notebook is awesome.

 

Yeah, but we 16:10ers also enjoy this luxury =D

 

16:10 is better than 16:9 but costs more. just imo

 

actually, my 15" 4:3 one had that luxury, too.. most of the 16:10 / 16:9 15"ers have much space besides the keyboard..

 

16:9 good for movies...especially if u have larger screen..

but if u have 14" or lower...avoid 16:9 ......it can get very congested.