The official 16:9 screen protest thread

a² + b² = c²thats what I know, I'll do the math now to see if the 17" diagonal is actually a smaller screen for 16:9 vs 16:10

Even so I guess thats why 16:9 are bigger, my W90 uses a 18.4" diagonal screen not 17".

 

Agree and that's exactly what i sad a few post back,

 

My guess is that 18.4" 16:9 is roughly the same surface area as 16:10. That is based purely on gut feeling though.

 

its a bit larger I think, as its infront of me and I can compare it to 17" 16:10 that I have seen.

Still that surface area thing is a bit off base. The screen surface area does not = size of what you see again due to the number of pixels on the screen.

The easy way to look at this would be to make up imaginary screens.

A square screen with 100x100 pixels that is 8x8 in size.

It would have an area of 1000 pixels but 64 square inches.

If you reduce the area of pixels porportionally to the area of the screen the size of the image or what ever you were seeing on the screen would remain the same. Just like when you crop a picture in a photo editor, your just cutting the outside of the picture off not reducing the size of the picture.

Since 16:9 1920x1080 has a reduced pixel area it needs less screen area to produce the same size image on the screen. So the surface area can actually be reduced to keep the same size.

it seems logical that this reduced surface area is exactly porportional to that loss mentioned above thus you wont actually lose any of your "what you see" by keeping the diagonal the same.

I'll do all the math later if anybody really wants to know, but the point is there and you can see the above point was not entirely true.

 

I believe Sony XBrite DuraView screen is the closest I know with your requirement. Unfortunately, they are only available with the Z series which screen is quite small (13.1").

 

So I ran the numbers.

First set of numbers in the group is ratio of x:y:diagonal.
Following sets of numbers are diagonal dimension followed by x and y dimension followed by surface area.

16:9:18.36
15.4" 13.4" 7.5" 101sqin
16" 13.9" 7.8" 109sqin
17" 14.8" 8.3" 123sqin
18.4" 16" 9" 144sqin

16:10:18.87
15.4" 13" 8.2" 106sqin
16" 13.6" 8.4" 115sqin
17" 14.4" 9" 130sqin
18.4" 15.6" 9.8" 152sqin

As you can see, at any given diagonal size, the surface area of the 16:10 is larger. Comparing a 18.4" 16:9 to a 17" 16:10, you can see for a 10% reduction in pixels, you get roughly 11% increase in surface area. At the 15.4" vs 16" range, for the same 10% drop in pixels, you get about 3% more surface area. At the higher size, it could be argued either way (though personally, I'd rather the pixels than the sqins), but at the smaller size, the 16:10 is clearly a loss. You have less information on barely any more space.

 

16:9 vs 16:10 at the same resolution "grade" (ie WSXGA+, WUXGA, etc) will ALWAYS be a reduction of 10% in screen realestate (that is, pixel count). That is indisputable. Things don't get scaled to fit, the bottom or top just get chopped off. At comperable resoltions, as to size on screen, by and large, surface area directly correlates to size on screen. It's all a matter of pixel density (ie pixels per sqin).

for simplicity's sake, let's say your screen is 160X100 pixels (for a total of 16,000 pixels on screen) for 16:10 and 160X90 pixels (for a total of 14400 pixels on screen) for 16:9. Using the numbers I have above, pixel density on a 15.4" 16:10 display will be 151 pix/sqin while a 16" 16:9 panel will have a density of 132 pix/sqin. That's not very significant at all.

 

Sad people who need a cause lol. I cant say that I notice the difference between my 15.4 inch 16:10 and my 15.6 inch 16:9 other then one laptop is a bit wider.

We should protest low resolutions before they switch computers to 2.4:1

 

All I can say is I am neutral on the matter, the quality of the laptop & screen will determin what I get.

I would be happy with a 16:9 or 16:10 but if you made me list the good/bad things I think my list would be slightly in favor of the 16:9 because I have a lot of wide screen movies and anime I like to watch and its nice to get the full screen when its already so small.

the loss of pixels vertically has not effected me at all though if I had the extra 120 pixels I would use them.

I can very easily say I prefer both of the widescreen formats to 4:3, but if surface area is your thing the 4:3 screen would have the most surface area per diagonal.

What is the largest resolution for a 4:3 on a laptop? I will go edit that image I did for comparison to include 4:3 also.

 

1400x1050
http://www.dynamism.com/#Product=panasonic_y

 

Another easy way to think "size" when comparing 16:9 to 16:10

Take that picture I posted a page or so back with the red area shaded to show the extra pixels between 1920x1200 and 1920x1080

My screen is 18.4" when viewing the forum I lose 120 pixels below me screen that a 16:10 user would see.

For there screen to show them the same thing at the same size as me I would extend the bottom of my screen by 120 pixels. I would then have a 16:10 screen.

So real "SIZE" it would be somthing like 19.8"+ 16:10 = 18.4" 16:9

They need more screen area to produce the same pixel density, pixel density is what = size of what you see.

So you can probably visualize that a bit easier, the main point is while you have less screen surface area with 16:9 vs 16:10 if you had the same diagonal measurement is that the 16:9 produces a larger image with less screen area because the pixel density is lower, your just "cropping" the image, not reducing its size.

 

I have a IPS screen already. That is the closest to my requirements, good contrast and angles. While I'm sure the DuraBright is nice, I wouldn't think it offers the viewing angles of the IPS, but I've never seen one. The only thing that's new and close would be some tablet PCs. The Lenovo X200t and the Dell tablet offer them. I think there may be a Toshiba tablet with this screen as well. Before I made my IPS screen, I was actually considering swapping the tablet LCD into the x200, but decided I didn't need the ultra mobility of the X200 and I like the extra resolution SXGA+ offers. The fact it was considerably cheaper played a role too.

The highest resolution screen for a 15" notebook is QXGA(2048x1536), ThinkPad part number 92P6684. It was offered on some ThinkPad R50ps. It is an IPS screen. With some tinkering you can put them into other ThinkPads like the T60 or R60. I can't imagine using one for extended periods, but some do like them. The PPI is very high at 170 as opposed to about 145 for a 15.4" WUXGA screen. I was considering the UXGA for my R60, but was glad I decided on SXGA+ and happy to have a good screen again.

 

<3 my 18.4" 16x9 screen.

 

In all honesty I used to be against 16:9 screens too. But realistically, it's not that much of a loss. For instance, going from 1280x800 to 1366x768 you only lose 32 vertical pixels, yet you gain 86 horizontal pixels. This is useful for applications like photoshop where the extra horizontal space is utilized.

IMHO protesting it isn't going to accomplish anything. LCD manufacturers are switching to 16:9 screens to cut costs. If that results in a cheaper end product for us, the consumers, I'm all for losing a few pixels. Give it a chance, you'll likely not notice the difference after a while.

 

Hey, you cutted me off Here I am now WOW, something strange happens, what's that Quote thing.

 

16:9 fails in netbooks with 1024 width. 576 is like the amount of lines in a PAL broadcast right?. I believe it cant even display 800x600, cause when I plugged someone's HP Mini 2140 to a projector for an event, the only options were 640x480 and 1024x576 (the 1024 made the display shorter, since the projector is 4:3) But thankfully, new 1366x768 displays are coming out for netbooks.

Otherwise, 16:9 is okay for me with bigger laptops.

 

Initially, 16:9 displays were either 1366x768 or, on more high-end models, 1920x1080. The vast majority of mainstream displays were 1366x768, even up to 16.0". While 1366x768 is sufficient for a typical 14.0" display, it wasn't very impressive on 15.6" and 16.0" models.

More recently, 1600x900 displays in 14.0", 15.6" and 17.3" sizes have appeared. They actually have the same diagonal pixel count as a 1440x900 display AND they add 160 additional horizontal pixels.

I wouldn't buy a notebook with 1366x768 resolution, but I find the 14.0" 1600x900 resolution display rather appealing...

 

Quote "WE the people will pool together"


Until the waters cold.


Im happy with both aspect ratios, and to be honest i did actually prefer 16:9 on my old sony, somethink about it i prefer to 16:10 but i cant really tell what.

 

So I guess if you think about it the major qualm is with the supplied resolutions, not the aspect ratio.

For all you know they may just pop-up with a 16:9 XXXX x 1200 with the same vert pixel count as the all mighty 1920x1200 and just have more horizontal pixels.

So if you can focus on the aspect ratio and the aspect ratio only for a minute and factor away the pixel count I think most would agree that the 16:9 ratio has more native benefits.

So if you really had to protest something, you should protest the reduced pixel count not the aspect itself.

 

I was able to work with 1200 pixels height on 15" notebooks. don't tell me, 900 is good enough, as it's a massive backstepping from what i had before.

1200 pixels are simply in NO configuration available anymore. no scrolling ever needed, amazing for programming, websurfing, writing documents, etc.

nowadays you have to go really huge to get 1080 pixels height, and still are nowhere close to what was available on 15" before.

pixels on the side don't gain in productivity at all. actually, having a tablet that can work in vertical mode proves me, the vertical mode is just as useful (while just having 800 pixels width, then). still, the less scrolling and smaller taskbar/toolbars/menues/window borders still result in much more screen estate.

so no, in no way does 16:9 help anyone. not even for movies, there a 21:9 one (or what ever that strange cinema-width is) would.


count me in, while i know, we have no chance. variety and choise would be way to go, instead we get forced "it should fit everything" displays that are just cap for general usage.

personally, i'd take a 1:1 screen over anything. a bit 30" 2560x2560, sunken a bit into the table, would be the best thing ever.

 

i love 16:9 screens. haters go away

 

I largely agree with you on that. However, that's not what they are doing, as far as I've seen. They are calling 1920X1080 "full 1080p WUXGA" for instance. WUXGA is 1920X1200. It would be like buying what was marked as a 20oz soda and finding out it only has 18oz of soda in it. It's not a big loss, but it is also not what you were shopping for.

 

as everything goes from top to bottom, no, sir, in no way i can agree to that.

imagine a world with no scrolling.

i protest on both.

on not getting a x1200 screen anymore, and on not getting a work-related useful aspect ratio anymore.

 

I dunno man, 15.6 looks kinda big compared to 15.4....

 

15.6" 16:9 is 2sqin smaller (~2%) than 15.4" 16:10. Pixel density is lower on the 15.6" though.

 

I see a lot of the 1366x768 displays labeled as WXGA. From there, I'm thinking that some companies took license to apply WUXGA to 1920x1080, since it was the closest thing to 1920x1200. Just a theory.

Dell has their 16:9 displays labeled as follows:

720p - 1366x768
900p - 1600x900
1080p - 1920x1080

It's more specific and less misleading than using the old WXGA/WXGA+/WSXGA+/WUXGA acronyms.

 

how about just stating the numbers?

i miss the days where i could read 1920x1080 on some package yes, i've seen those in big print on some tfts.

all those "p" standards, and WXBLABIGSMALLA stuff is useless. why not stay at the simple thing: the actual pixels.

 

Then consumers would have something to quantify and compare different displays....and it might actually make sense to most of them. We can't have that!

 

a right, that explains why get forced down to 16:9, and shiny over non-shiny, and such, just as well..

i always forgot it's about money, not about customers..

 

My brother's 15" VAIO has 1600x1200, it's quite an excellent display but they only offered it for a short time.

 

See you forget the past, or werent born yet. Way back when that mattered 100%. At one point it wasnt just resolution it was also color and signal specifications like XGA, CGA, EGA etc. Technically NTSC and PAL go in there as well. But the modern implementations are almost purely resolution, rather then signal standards like the prior.

Plenty of things that arent needed anymore for the non technicals or at all, but things dont change over night.

 

nice thread!
why don't we make a flame sub-forum including this thread and of course the mac vs. linux vs. windows?

And i haven't seen one post stating the obvious! it's market, companies try different things to get customers, one of them is 16:9 screens.
If you don't like it, don't freaking buy it! end of story.
if you are right, other people will agree with you and keep buying 4:3! So what happens? companies will return to (actually keep making) 4:3. What ever gimmick a cartel of companies want to promote, it won't work if you are rational buyers! they are money-hungry and at the end of the day the ll do what YOU want.

time and free market will tell what will happen but my guess is that the two aspects will coexist.I don't see why having a "portable media player with Os" is that bad? What? not "true hardcore computing"? each one has its own priorities.let other people have thir own!

Anyway, too much fuzz for nothing. One could assume by reading the first post that all pc manufacturers will stop making 4:3 and switch immediately and permanently to 16:9 only! like vhs--->dvd--->bluray.

Zaz said best thing in this thread indeed. worry more about the quality of the display,

because that can't be easily measured and be accounted when buying a computer.
sure you can measure price and ghz, but there is no easy way for everyone to see if "thn-nla-mou-super vision technology" produces actually better screens than "clutchx2-extra bright",
and most people nowadays buy a computer without looking how the display actually performs, just by its other technical data. so that's why standard market rules don't apply to screens. you wouldn't buy a laptop if there was a cheaper one with extra ghz of cpu or mb ram etc cause it's easy to see 2gb>1gb, but when it comes to displays? X company says it has great displays, Z company says "mine is -kicking" too.So,most go "ok enough market search, point, click, checkout" and see how it works


P.S. i prefer 16:9
p.s.2. I don't like silver cars, let's US all go and demand that the companies stop painting cars that color.WE must do it.
PS3 note to poster - don't bypass the language filter

 

HA! HA! The ignorance and utter lack of education is shocking!! Screen Mfrs have switched to 16:9 because its CHEAPER to produce. They dont give a crap that it makes laptops less productive.

 

I love 16:9 displays.

Oh, your little anti 16:9 movement is destined to fail and I'm quite glad because you are wasting your time.

 

lol I love how subtle that was.

 

Lol, this thread demonstrates how good we really have it when the aspect ratio of a screen becomes a concern worthy of a protest! :laugh:

 

This thread also demonstrates how badly everyone got trolled over aspect ratio.

 

I just realized today that the Toshiba Satellite line-up has now "jumped the shark", so to speak. They have introduced 16:9 displays in 14.0", 15.6", 16.0", 17.3" and 18.4" sizes.

 

Yeah, I expect to be forced in to a 16:9 at some point in the relatively near future. I won't be happy about it... but there won't be much choice. As has been said, 16:9 is cheaper for mfgrs to make, and as this thread shows, for most people, it is as close as makes no difference to 16:10, so the transition will be assured, like it or not.

 

People hear me now!! for I have seen the future of laptops.

Behold the future!!

 

Thats awesome, look how thin it is, its like the Mac air.

 

I'm not a fan of change, especially when it doesn't serve a purpose that's in my best interest! But resistance is futile in this situation. I think I can live with a 14.0" 1600x900 display!

 

the RGB LED display on my 18.4" Sony is to die for. I don't really miss the 200px lost in height, and the image it puts out is spectacular.

 

funny how that is simply not possible as all screen vendors just stopped producing them and switched to the worse version as they could cut cost (but only if all did it at the same time.. no cartell for sure, no).

how should i exactly buy a laptop without a 16:9 screen if that's all that get offered for new laptops? how can i as a consumer influence the marked?

exactly: i can't. not a tiny bit. i get those screens forced on me, and they're useless. and i have no choise. that's why this thread is here.

 

@ Igrim:

what exactly is ignorance? i didn't question manufacturers prefering these displays cause they are cheaper. but what is less productive to you is "more entaertaining" to others and if they are more then sorry, "the need of the few...blah.. blah.."
You could check before you buy that 16:9 laptop of yours.go to a store and just play with it for like 10'. that would have saved you lot of time money and anger.

@davepermen, all vendors? all models? i think you are exaggerating.


seriously, there are options.you can influence the market.I mean not you personally, burt many people, who just don't like 16:9. ok, don't buy these notebooks.if lots of people kepp looking for 4:3 displays what happens? if manufacturers see their sales fall and move towards notebook series equipped with "old-school" displays, by their line of products,or other companies' what are they gonna do? keep making them and lose money? And there always gonna be a smaller company willing to take the risk and make 4:3 notebook, just to get that share of the market.

And i m saying all this, while I prefer 16:9. But that's no reason to be nazi about it.
I just hate it when people beleieve they psess the Absolute Truth

P.s. coca-cola in 1985 tried to change their recipe,while market tests showed peope preferred the old recipe. new coke goes into market,people didn't like it, hey started buying pepsi, and quickly coke returned to old recipe.simple eh?

 

there are ZERO 4:3 notebooks out in shops, and the 16:10 ones are getting fased out.

there are no 4:3 lcd panels in production worldwide. i actually ment at the start of this year, any 16:10 production line stopped, but i'm unsure about that.


there are no choises. really not.



and just to clear up, there are 3 - 4 display vendors out there. they all agreed on only producing 16:9 screens in the future (and mostly glossy only).

show me one 2009 released notebook with 4:3 8or 5:4 which i prefer). show me one. you won't find one.

 

Nazi...eerily good choice of words!

Unfortunately, when they returned with "Coke Classic" they pulled a nasty little switch on American consumers- High Fructose Corn Syrup took the place of the Real Cane Sugar of the original recipe!

 

16:10 consumer/multimedia-oriented notebooks are quickly disappearing, very true.

But a lot of business notebooks seem to be sticking with the 16:10 aspect ratio...for now, at least!

 

jup, for now at least.

my first notebook was 15" 5:4 (1280x1024).

it was as wide as my 12" right now. or as an 11" 16:9 one.

width does matter as it has to slide into my bag. height doesn't matter as even a 1:1 notebook would slide in, and would just be as handy.

now i have to live with 800 pixels height down from 1024. and in the next gen i will have to buy it with 720 pixels?


i have no option to get a 5:4 laptop, or a 4:3 laptop. or anything. i'd like a 1:1 screen, i have no option. even if i would pay more for it, i have no such option. thn nila mou should realise that this is the hard truth while trying to find me one

 

Interestingly, you can still buy a 12.1" 1024x768 Lenovo ThinkPad X61s from Lenovo Outlet (it's still a NEW model).