The official 16:9 screen protest thread

16:10 screens are da s**t.

This protest needs more cowbell. And pitchforks.

 

I am so frustrated with this 16:9 BS!

i want to buy a 13" with 16:10 but they are all 16:9 and the only light 14" like the T410s costs a fortune. I am so mad!!!!!!!!!!!!

if someone knows of a 14" that weighs less than 5 lbs please let me know

 

I really think this thread is about 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200.
For me, the more, the merrier.
And i do like to have 1200p screen instead of the "full HD"
1200p is also FULL HD, and movie controls beneath the full sized movie.
If it's about marketing, you can if you want to market beyond FULL HD, 1200p

That's why i'm the d900f is still eyeing me.

 

You know, I recently started using a 16:9 screen and it really doesn't affect the usability of my laptop...as a matter of fact, I find it no worse than my old 16:10.

 

I've found a 16:10 screen, CiBox C1907 19" LCD Monitor(Factory refurbished) from play.com. I'm more than pleased with the price of £59.04 with free delivery.

 

It's the total pixel counts that matter for me :/
16:10 or 16:9 doesn't matter. 1920x1080 is still a better resolution than 1680x1050, ratio aside.

 

same thing here for me.. i really can't see the difference in between 16:10 and 16:9.. i actually prefer the latter.. no black bars when see videos..

 

denial is a powerful thing.

i get black bars on my 1080p tv all the time while watching recent movies. 16:9 not only sucks, it's not even capable of providing what the "purists" seem to chant as the loudest advantage--the ability to run without letterboxing.

 

I went back to use my old 5:4 17" flat panel monitor @ 1280x1024 sweet, great for webpages.

 

For 17" the change from 16:10 to 16.9 isn't so problematic, even then i have put my windows taskbar vertically instead of the bottom... For 15" there was a comparative bigger reduction in vertical resolution.

 

16:10 is the closest resolution to the golden rectangle. PERIOD. any other 15" 16:9 laptop looks positively mammoth next to a good 16:10 15".

 

I had to order a 17" 16:9 laptop because a 15.6" 16:9 is like only 1mm taller than the 14.1" 16:10 laptop I currently use.

When I use my wife's 2007-era 15.6" 16:10 Compaq, the ratio is just perfect.

I miss 16:10 badly...

 

ur dvd's must be pirated or crappy.. all of my dvd's work properly... maybe its also because i have proper software codec... but some old movies do have aspect ratio problems but new ones don't have the black bars.

 

It's not a matter of quality. It's just that most "1080P" Blu-Ray movies aren't actually 1080P. Instead of being exactly 1920x1080, the video is actually at some lower resolution (ie: 1920x1040, 1920x816, 1920x800, 1920x796). Which means, that even on a 16:9 1920x1080 screen, there will still be "black bars" since the aspect ratio isn't truly 16:9.

A quick visit to Blu-Ray.com shows the actual aspect ratios of new "1080P" releases:

Movie Title	Aspect Ratio	Actual Resolution*
Date Night	2.35:1	1920x816
Diary of a Wimpy Kid	1.85:1	1920x1040
The Back-up Plan	2.35:1	1920x816
Kick-*ss	2.40:1	1920x800
The Ghost Writer	2.34:1	1920x820

*Actual resolution can be determined by dividing 1920 by the aspect ratio and rounding accordingly.

For the list, I chose 5 recent "blockbuster" movies from the "Latest Blu-ray Reviews" list on Blu-Ray.com's home page.

 

Either way, 16:10 gets more black bar than 16:9 for those, isn't it?

 

Yes. 10 char.

 

Hey laptop executives....get us the 16:10 screens, we people actually work on these machines rather than just watch movies or powerpoint presentations &%@$$

 

Powerpoint even doesn't play too well with anything other than 4:3 ...

 

Business notebooks should be 4:3, consumer notebooks should be 16:10.

 

4:3 sucks and 16:10 is crappy for movies.. for me 16:9 is perfect.

 

2 black bars will kill you or what?

The only reason why 16:10 is better for the majority is because most people got a resolution upgrade - notice I said most - for some it was a downgrade.

 

I dont mind 16:9 - only because I know its just going to get wider and wider, and soon we will have 2:1 (16:8) laptops.
And in a few more decades, we will have 16:6 laptops
...which have 2 times as many sockets for everything we have now, and can separate into 2 fully running 4:3 laptops!
we will come full circle.

so im not worried about it.

 

Can I attempt to take a CEO's head off by throwing such a laptop at him/her?

I suppose you can try to run them turned by 90° and post the image online with a caption "apparently laptop designers and CEO's levitate at an angle of 90° in free space - otherwise their technology is unusable"

 

hmm what I was saying was not 90° but that would be interesting
I KNOW
we can get all the newly manufactured tiny 16:9 screens
build a 3x lvds controller
and get 21:16 which is roughly 4:3!

problem solved.

 

Huh? Wouldn't that be more like 27:16?

 

You know, thats true...

Anyone know if there is a laptop lcd with more than 1920x1080 res on the horizon?

 

Maybe at some point there will be considering Sony stuffed 1920*1080 into a 13,1" Z...

 

I haven't heard of any. But I'm curious where would you apply such a high resolution? It's use would be too esoteric to become mainstream anytime soon.

 

Of course there are laptops with bigger resolutions.
Alienware for instance uses 1920x1200 LCDs in their laptops. And there are a number of business class laptops that still use 1920x1200 LCDs.

But yes, laptops with more than 1920 pixels on the horizontal ... I don't think I've heard of any... yet.

 

Photo editing for example

Why do you think people use multi monitor setups?

 

High resolutions are nice; they made 1920x1200 for 15.4" laptops; 1920x1080 is a downgrade.
High res screens are very soothing for the eyes; and a joy to type/work on.

The highes res (modded) laptop I have heard of is the 15" Thinkpad R50P which could take a QXGA (2048 x 1536 ?) LCD. I know of people who had put in the QXGA lcd in the R50P

 

Count me in on this, luckily Dell has not killed them off some of their laptops yet.

 

Ahh you're right, forgive me. aspect ratio math is hard to do in your head

laptops will never have more than 1080p vertical afaik

coming soon however are plug and play, USB powered, portable external LCDs. Probably 12" (16:10) WXGA which are about the height (sideways) of a 17" 16:10.
Or just whatever you want, though it may not be USB powered. I'm making them

 

1) For any text rendering higher resolution = better. Text (and any other vector-based art) can be perfectly rescaled to any res, and making res higher makes it a lot crispier and sharper, easier on the eyes (think about high print quality)
2) Higher res makes it better for higher-quality raster rescaling. Rescaling blurs when not much difference between rescaled sizes. If you, say, rescaling from 1024x768 about 4 times, you will barely notice any blurreness. Again, think about print process - because photo resolutions on print is so high, rescaling artefacts on pictures almost never are issue.
Therefore, "legacy" low DPI content actually will look a lot better rescaled on extremely high-DPI screen (think of iPhone 4 screen, upped res exactly 2 times, making perfect upscale of old iPhone apps possible). It does not work nearly as well when resolution is just a bit higher (like the case with current laptop "high" DPI screens).

 

I'm more disappointed than anything at the fact that it's nigh impossible to find a computer maker offering a high resolution option on their 16:9 machines. You pretty much have to get a business laptop to do anything regarding the screen.

 

Or a gaming machine.

 

Ya, and those are either super expensive or tacky

 

Actually, for me, productivity is up because I can comfortably have two windows open side by side.

Pro Tip: click on any open window and press windows key + left arrow.

Now click on any other open window and press windows key + right arrow.

Viola, 16:9 is now an advantage.

 

I'm impressed that this thread is still going on over a year after I had to eviscerate some guy 900+ posts ago who thought he could sound smart by trying to tell a Web designer (me) that 16:9 was beneficial to Web design.

Anyway, I'm glad I don't have to buy a new display screen of any sort in the foreseeable future.

 

That would really depend more on your resolution than aspect ratio, as you could do the exact same thing with 16:10. If you had a 1440x900 and went to 1600x900, then yes, you got more space, but if you had a 1680x1050 that went to 1600x900, or a 1920x1200 that went to 1920x1080, you actually lost space.

 

The only problem is you need a larger laptop for a higher resolution or you get extra tiny pixels.
...

 

That's not always a bad thing, but that's more dependent on scaling at that point.

 

Not reallly.

Your 16:9 13,1" screen is less high than your 13,3" 16:10 - that won't be changed by scaling or resolution. You can increase the size of individual letters - but you cannot put more lines on the screen at the same size font.

On that note - compare 2 Sony eReaders next to each other - the PRS-350 and the PRS-650 - their screen size difference is 1", both have 800 vertical pixels - the difference in font size next to each other is very large.

The only choice for a similar sized laptop for 16:10 13,3" users is 14" on 16:9

On that note there is another point too - 16:10 is much closer to A4 paper in size - it's much more useful for packing into a back - it fit's. 16:9 wouldn't.

 

Oh, certainly. My point was more to the extra tiny pixels; the smaller the pixels get, the easier it would be to "down-scale" to a lower resolution without losing image sharpness (since smaller pixels are more likely to "split" along the appropriate lines).

 

That is true but:

16:9 screens are lower - so unless you accept the tiny pixels you loose exactly what we love about 16:10 (or older formats like 4:5)

 

i can't believe this thread is still going either. even more dumbfounding, is that it sits here in limbo without so much as a peep of a response from the mfgs regarding this issue.

as has been well established:

1. 16:9 does not fix letterboxing--many new movies are not shot in this resolution any more.

2. 16:9 would not be as bad if the net amount of pixels increased, instead of decreased. this is a significant problem for 15.4" and 17" laptops, where "higher than wuxga" resolutions are mysteriously lacking.

3. 16:10 is the closest resolution to the golden rectangle.

p.s.

anyone know how to rebuild a sager 8662 in a few years when it can no longer hack the graphics? i don't want to lose this screen.

 

As a widescreen format 16:10 is my favorite, not that it's perfect but it's a good compromise. I still have a 17" Viewsonic flat panel and it's native resolution is 1280x1024. I can't get over how naturally it fits into the online scheme of things. There is very little webpage scrolling with a 5:4 aspect ratio.

 

Extra pixels are always welcome; they increase the clarity of the screen, for any sized screen. For a given surface area, more pixels = clearer screen.

 

To be honest I don't think it can get much clearer than 1280*800 on a 13,3".

Yes, if I inspect the screen closely I can see individual pixels - but in normal life I don't.

My ereader has a higher pixels density - it's a 600*800 5" screen - yes, they are smaller. and maybe the fonts are a bit smoother - but in terms of clarity I wouldn't ever pay extra for the higher resolution unless I hope to gain "More space" on the screen - i.e. more lines of text for example.

 

can't believe this thread is alive still.