The official 16:9 screen protest thread

Well, I haven't seen a 4:3 14" with 1050 vertical anywhere, so I can't comment on that. From what I've seen, we're now getting 14" with 1600*900 resolution, while there used to be only 1440*900 in similar sizes, which is a definite improvement. 15.6" with 1920*1080 is nice as well; not as good as 1920*1200 on a 15.4", but less rare and less extreme on DPI.

As for "same size notebook", how could it possibly be the same size notebook if the height is smaller?

 

There used to be 1400*1050 14" laptops back in the day IRRC, at least Lenovo had some I think since i found some at the office.

But yeah, seems like with 16:9 we get a few more choices in higher res screens on smaller notebooks so I won't complain about that. It's the larger ones which are a bit more on the losing side.

 

Spend a few hours going through notebook dimensions that have had a shift from 16:10 to 16:9, I'm picking you still think of a 15.6" as a replacement for a 15.4" and so on ?.....screen height smaller, 15.6 v 15.4, 14 v 14.1, 17.3 v 17 get it?

 

Diagonal is increasing, but the physical height is actually smaller IIRC since the diagonal is more "sideways" lol

At least I recall that from a few models I've seen at work.

 

You could also call 16" a replacement for 15.4", and then there is a gain in screen area, while the loss in height is very small. It makes no sense to say they're the "same size", however.

 

My mistake, it was supposed to say lower DPI. A 15.6" 1920x1080 screen has a lower DPI than a 15.4" 1920x1200 screen.

My point is not that a 1920x1080 screen offers more usable space than a 1920x1200 screen, it clearly doesn't, and in fact, I would probably prefer the latter if given the choice.

My point, rather, was that partially because 1920x1080 15.6" screens have a lower DPI, they are less of a "niche" option than 1920x1200 15.4" screens used to be, and more manufacturers are making that display option available on more models.

 

You did it again! It's true, though; the relatively high prevalence of 15.6" 1920*1080 screens is a positive development.

 

I though we agree 95 pages ago that we hate 16:9?

oh well I still hate it... 8530p FTW

 

If they played with no black bars, you'd be missing a lot of the movie. A theater movie is often 2.35:1 aspect. Your computer screen would be 1366x581. Smaller vertically than even 800x600. Unusable on most modern computers.

Consider the black bars as a sign you're getting the movie as the director intended, not as edited by some twit to make it fit a TV, cutting off the sides of the movie and editing it for content.

 

Come on, now your just being silly on purpose, 15.6 has replaced 15.4, 16" is 16" with a larger footprint again.

Thats a good point, not that I really care, all I see is a downgrade being forced on everyone by way of 16:9 aspect, I'm almost over it, not yet though

 

Oh? So 15.4" is a "sacrifice in screen area", but 16" is a "larger footprint"?

 

I actually like watching movies better on my 4:3 R60 than my X200 because when the interface controller pops up, as it inevitably does on VLC or PowerDVD, it doesn't overlap onto the movie as it does on a 16:10 or 16:9 screen. I've said it before, give me a first-rate screen, this means a high contrast ratio with wide viewing angles, it can be circle for all I care, I'm all good.

 

No, 15.6 sacrifices screen area, while most of the 16:9 notebook footprints are the same or bigger than their 16:10 counterparts......let me draw a picture for you...eg

M4400 15.4" 16:10 screen area is 106.57 sq", notebook footprint is 142.41 sq"
M4500 15.6" 16:9 screen area is 103.9 sq", notebook footprint is 146.61 sq"

So the 16:10 M4400 has a 2.67 sq" bigger screen housed in a 4.2 sq" smaller notebook.....M4500 16:9 has a smaller screen in a bigger notebook

FYI, the studio XPS16 has a 2.8sq" bigger screen area[than a 15.4 16:10] and a 9.4 sq" bigger notebook footprint than mine, so your gaining more than three times additional notebook footprint area over what your gaining in additional screen area, which is also, incidently, 1/4" shorter in screen height but obviously wider.

This one example, there are a lot.

 

See, real-world examples are a lot more meaningful. Now you have a point, though it seems the problem isn't with the aspect ratio so much as the notebooks that implement it.

 

How many times must I repeat myself ?
I have a 1920x1200 screen. Now the highest resolution screen I can buy is 1920x1080. The end.

 

well it was good to see apple still using 16:10 with the refresh.

 

it also good to see they're not using Full HD pannels in their 15 incher , not putting any USB ports on the right , using a 256MB GT330M.. charging extra for a 5400rpm drive... seriously i see no fuss with 16:9 screens.. in fact they look better...

 

Define "look better". A panel's image quality has little to do with the aspect ratio and more so with the technology behind it (ex: CCFL vs LED vs RGBLED backlighting, IPS vs NT etc.).

 

Sort of blows the "they made us change" excuse out the window used by the others.

 

Well, business laptops still come in 16:10...

I suppose its the same as with any other products...

Manufacturers forcing a 2 class laptop world onto us...

 

It won't be so for long. From a manufacturing point of view, running anything more than just one type adds complexity ("you can have any color as long as its black!")

Pretty soon, someone will break ranks and offer a business laptop in the 16:9 ratio, taking advantage of the cheaper economies of scale. That will force the others to convert with pressure on both supply and demand side. The first mover can offer the 16:9 screens for a few dollars cheaper - capturing customers; whilst the loss of a major OEM buyer will drive the costs of 16:10 screens higher, making it hard for the remaining players to maintain their price points/ margins.

It is only a matter of time..

 

Well... Sony's business range is 16:9 already...

 

Well, Sony's laptops aren't quite business laptops, particularly in the U.S.
Nonetheless, there have already been a number of such "betrayals" in business laptops; the Dell M4500 and The Lenovo T510 are of note.

 

Some business line laptops already come in 16:9. Some Dell Vostros and HP Probooks are 16:9.

 

What i meant was that 16:9 pannels make videos look much better without black bars which u get with 16:10 res... also , in a way , u might loose vertical res but u do get more horizontal space.. u have to move on as time changes... just as we went from 4:3 to 16:10 , its now time to move on to 16:9.. no point whinning or complaining.. the world ain't going to change for u..

 

Black bars depend on the movie(not all are filmed with the same aspect ratio), some will still be present even in 16:9.

As for the "more horizontal space", that's entirely dependent on the resolution we're talking about. For example 1080p(1920*1080) offers no extra horizontal space over its predecessor(1920*1200) and is purely a loss in terms of vertical space.

That being said, if they start inputting higher res screens, I don't think anyone will complain. I'll take a good quality screen, regardless of aspect ratio (as ZaZ said, it could be round for all I care).

 

Honestly, who cares about movies on a business laptop!!!

In fact people who buy a laptop for only watching films should buy a portable DVD player - cheaper and easier to transport.

You could possibly argue a point on the "consumer lines" - they tend to be irrational anyway in terms of what they buy... (marketing... how easy that must be at times)

But business laptop which are Primarily WORK orientated should be in the most working friendly format - and that's not 16:9.

Imagine having your industrial tools built to the same quality as a consumer product...
They wouldn't last a second. In laptop's that's often just accepted...

 

Well I hope that was hyperbole on his part? Nevertheless, as a historical reference, circular screens were introduced a long time ago, but for obvious asthetic reasons lasted as long as a snow cone in the desert.

 

Yes it's a hyperbole(at least the way I used it).

To me, quality of the screen trumps aspect ratio. Obviously speaking, as time goes by, screen technology improves so the most "current" aspect ratio will most likely be the one used when producing the most current and quality screens. That being said, not all screens are equal.

I'd still take my 4:3 IPS Dell Ultrasharp at the office(with 1600*1200) over a crappy 16:10 or 16:9 any day.

 

And how many DVDs can you fit on the hard drive of a common portable DVD player? Oh, right... none.

Along the same vein... why do people buy these stupid iPhone things? They can buy a separate phone, and portable game system, and mp3 player. Why would you want one device to do multiple things?

 

Actually we have. Despite the emotional arguments to the contrary, the 16:9 aspect ratio stands supreme--at least as far as the industry is concerned!

Not even the wide-screen in monolithic. It has always come in many flavors. The 16:9, is just the best compromise.

Maybe not movies specifically, but the introduction of video in business/the workplace, is now common practice.

Honestly, you're a lot smarter than that. Laptops moved beyond single use devices a long time ago.

That would depend on your "business" wouldn't it?

Again, it depends on your use: There's no since investing in a Dewalt when a Craftsman will due.

 

I actually use my phone as a phone, a portable MP3 player for music and a DSLR for photos.

Result:
I don't get a device that does a bit of everything badly but devices that are good (or even one of the best - MK II with 24-70mm f2.8, Sony X1060) in their category.

 

Why yes they do. However, a computer/server geared towards a specific task will still do better in that task than a "multipurpose computer". Some computers parts geared towards specific tasks(ex: better screens, better graphics etc.) will inevitably perform better at certain tasks than others with inferior hardware. I mean, in computer talk, we could just ramp up every hardware to the max and then it would be apt to do anything we ask it to, but in realistic terms, that's rarely the case.

Computers come in all shapes and colors(symbolically speaking) so clumping them all into the same category is a bit unfair(considering smartphones are mini computers, even calculators are computers).

Bringing this back tot he topic of aspect ratios, every ratio has uses where it will shine compared to the other. There's no "magic aspect ratio" that's the second coming of Jesus and will do every task we want better than the others simply because we have a variety of tasks that simply require different viewings.

The market will pick whatever the market will pick and we'll complain, but ultimately end up living with it (assuming it's not something inhumane or horrendously against our morals or whatnot). Humans are beings that adapt after all. I'm not happy that higher resolutions are now a premium when back in the day they weren't, but hey, I don't lose sleep over it at night.

 

Just got my first 16:9 laptop... and I have to say I'm not too sad at all. I do use my laptop for movies, so definitely a plus there. For general use (web browsing, word processing, etc etc), it's not really any worse or better than my old 16:10 laptop. To be honest I love it so much more than my old screen, but that has to do more with the raw increase in resolution (1920x1080 vs 1280x800) than the aspect ratio. Every game I've thrown at it so far has handled it fine.

I, for one, like that computers screens and HD displays have converged at 1920x1080... makes a lot of things easier to setup and use. Yup, it's not for everyone, but it's fine for me

 

I've noticed that there are still a few new laptops that have 16:10. Would it ever swing back?

 

And while you carry 10lbs of equipment, I have a single 4.5oz device in my pocket where I am always prepared to take a snapshot, show off photos, listen to music, use the Internet, email, use GPS and navigation, and send and receive phone calls.

Sometimes good enough is all you need. Yes, your SLR takes nicer pictures, and when I'm specifically out to take pictures I prefer having a nice camera. But I'm not going to carry a 4lb camera with me everywhere I go.

Result: I'm actually able to enjoy and participate in things, and just get things done.

Single-purpose devices are usually superior. But you don't seem to realize what you give up to carry them. And in the case of the special-purpose DVD player, it is actually a significantly inferior solution.

 

Crap I never knew this thread existed till today.

Anyways add me to the list of 16:9 protesters. All of my laptops with the exception of 1 is the 16:10 format. My Tosh is the only 16:9 and I absolutely hate the format. In fact I was looking for a new monitor and bought a 16:10 format monitor with 1680x1050 native resolution. My favorite aspect ratio is the 5:4 just because it's perfect for viewing webpages, it cuts down on vertical scrolling.

 

It is market demand that will dictate that. If all of a sudden people ignored the 16:9's and primarilly only purchased 16:10's the market will follow. This really won't be the case though as the general consumer will swallow whatever the manufacturers can give them at the best price point.

Personally I think it is just plain stupid. The one thing we interface to most on a computer is the screen. Essentially it is the most used periphial. This is even worse with a notebook compared to a desktop as what the system is built with is what it will stay with its functonal life.

It doesn't matter so much what the hardware, if the display is junk it can make a system almost intolerable. Even worst yet it can make the system unusable. I long for the day hardware selection options were minimal and your primary concerns were size and display. Not that I'm advocating going back to that old hardware.

My personal dream machine would be the, to be released, Asus N82-JQ but with sony's 14" 1600x900 display. Upgraded to a 256GB C300 and use the USB 3.0 for storage with 7K500's in a few enclosures. We however are the extreme minority.

Most users do not care enough to shell out the extra $100-$150 premium for a display let alone the premium for a named system that will include this display. So in the end the market decides! Despite our few protests the wallets, or purses, rule the day............

 

IMO, 1600x900 is a bit too much for a 14.1" display. I do wish that more 15.6" laptops had that resolution, though. It's the perfect resolution for the size.

1366x768 is actually not bad on a 14.1" display. Anything smaller really causes eye strain on me. Actually, I'm not as bummed out by the resolution of the laptop I'm getting; it'll be a lot easier on my eyes. But the lack of vertical pixels bothers me.

 

Well one added bonus of 16:9 laptops is that they allowed numberpads to be added on lots of laptops.

 

If you don't mind offset keyboards, I do, and know I'm not the only one.

Do members who like 16:9 want even wider and shorter screens than 16:9?

 

I'm sure they do. Because we all know society's eventual goal is to make a 2.35:1 laptop screen, as it will fit movies perfectly.

 

There are a lot more benefits than that: For one, the screen itself--whether flat or CRT, is thanks to the television industry. In addition, the inclusion of the 16:9 aspect ratio also brought with it the movement towards higher and better resolution--which would not have existed (or certainly not have been as prevalent, nor as cheap) otherwise.

In fact, all of the current and most advanced innovation in monitors are due primarily to the movements of the tv/movie industry. Rather than launching an endless cavalcade of detrimental remarks towards the new ratio and it's industry innovators, you should all be thanking them!!

 

Thank the industry for horrible screens?
Thank them for what??

I actually prefer 4:3 for a film.

In a cinema I can have a wide screen - but on a home screen, 4:3 is perfect - 16:10... NO gain at all.

(Yes, once DVDs are 16:10 a 16:10 screen will be better than 4:3 - but else?)

Also - I did NOT buy my laptop to watch films on it.
I can do so, but its not meant for that.

And because there are people who want glorified portable DVD players it doesn't mean other people need to suffer.

And about resolution - its NO gain if the pixels get so small that your eyes hurt because programmes are still laid out for 96PPI - my Vaio has 113PPI - it took me a while to get used to it, but I can't use it without glasses any more and I'm near sighted - smaller and I couldn't read it...

 

Which are still available. Why are you arguing this?

On the contrary, a LCD is meant for viewing content. For me, viewing films/movie/media is expressly what I have it for.

Would you prefer to go back to the sixties when ticker tape or punch cards were your primary source of computer output? The fact is, monitors come from TV, and TV comes from movies (that includes your beloved present standard ratio). If you think it's perfect, you still can thank TV!

If it make you feel any better, you can just think of it as coming back home!

As am I. Nevertheless, I adapted, and so can you.

In any event, I think we've beat this dead horse long enough and I think you're being intransigent. I'll acquiesce, and let you have the last word--if you so choose.

 

Thank you for this thread. I was wondering if it was me or were we really losing pixels. 6 months ago I needed to buy a couple of monitors for my work computer. I was surprised to find that even desktop monitors are regressing. Best Buy doesn't even carry anything with a resolution bigger than 1920x1080! I ended up buying online. When I asked one of the guys in a blue shirt if I was just imagining a time of better monitor resolutions. He stared at me blankly and thought I was talking about the time of CRTs.

Just a week ago I went online to shop for a much needed new laptop. My #1 criteria was lots of screen real estate without too big of an overall size. After all, my 5 year old Sager had 1600x1200, surely there is better higher resolution technology now... Nope (not the latest models anyway). Monitor resolution has gotten worse. I ended up getting an "over the hill" dell model E6500. Unfortunately it is not available with the latest processors, but it does have a 1920x1200 in a 15.4" screen.

I understand video content pretty much maxes out at 1080 vertical pixels, but PCs have the need and content for pretty much unlimited screen resolutions. For those concerned that high resolution means small fonts: understand that the 2 items are not related. You can have hi-res with big fonts. Try opening your browser, holding down ctrl and scrolling the mouse wheel up and down. You just changed the font size without changing your resolution setting.

I am hoping the new iphone 4G will help swing the market back the other way. It has a 960x600 pixel screen in a very small space. Once people start seeing how much better fonts and pictures look, they may look for the same in their laptops and desktops.

 

"Movement towards higher and better resolution"? I'd say the opposite, if anything. With the introduction of 16:9, we now have a huge influx of lower resolutions like 1366x768. The high end for notebooks has largely dropped from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080, and most even higher resolutions are still in 4:3 format or 16:10.

 

So why not just leave it at that instead of trying to convince everybody the world is flat with trying to prove a technical superiority of 16:9 when the maths say otherwise, your arguments are completely subjective and ignore the FACTs of what is being lost.

Talking of going retro, 768 pixels high....1980's?

Please tell us those benefits, apart from movies.....movies....and....more movies, adding a numpad isn't because it can be done on and was/is with 16:10 also, what else?

 

1024*768 really came into play with XGA in the 90s, actually. Before then it was all about 640*(200/350/480)

 

80's....90's, 1990 to be exact, you get the point though.