The official 16:9 screen protest thread

Yes there were few 1920x1200 15.4 in laptops. The only benefit I have seen to date of the 16:9 change is offering higher resolutions in smaller screens. I stated it in another post, cant remember where though.

 

Some of the netbooks are now offering 1368x768 which is hella better than the 1024x600 most were offering..

 

Guess what, the resolution on my laptop is higher than the resolution on my mobile and MP3 player

Netbooks are a step backwards in technology anyway - the first atoms had about one fourth of the processing power of a similarly clocked Pentium M, a at that time over 3 years old Processor.

Comparing a netbook to a laptop is like comparing a bicycle with an electric add-on motor to a car.
-> If you want a computer there are better models (ultraportables), and if you want a mobile you might as well buy a smartphone. (a real one - i.e. BlackBerry)

 

Offering 1366x768 on a netbook isn't terrible.

Offering 1366x768 on a so-called gaming notebook with a capable GPU is depressing. I mean sure I could hook up to an external monitor for gaming purposes (or, in my case, music production purposes) but why not take it one step further and cut out the middleman-laptop altogether?

 

1920x1080 is actually the 16:9 version of 1680x1050 in my view, it just happens to have the same horizontal width as WUXGA.
because 1600x900 is the 16:9 version of 1440x900
and 1366x768 is the 16:9 version of 1280x800.

2048x1152 (only offered in 23" monitors) is (sort-of) the 16:9 version of 1920x1200. 2134x1200 would be even better.

16:9 brings an overall increase in resolution over 16:10 counterparts, but 1920x1200 is completely dropped when it comes to notebooks, and offered no equivalent resolution.

Also 2560x1600 -> 2560x1440 is a change due to the 2560x1600 limit of many graphics cards, I believe, and doesn't really fall into the rest of the mix.

 

But the problem is alot of notebooks aren't given the option past 1600x900. Most 14-16" are stuck with 1368x768 with being 1600x900 for higher end models and some that offer that FullHD.

And yes they left WUXGA lovers in the dark offering nothing to fill the void for 1200p except with the inferior 1080p option.

 

2048x1152 on a 17.3 or 18.4 would be a downgrade to me but acceptable. Will we ever see it though?

 

And this is how we are getting ripped off...

 

Well I have only bought 1 laptop with 1368x768 on my multimedia laptop (Latitude 13) but for a 13.3" it is a decent resolution but I would still prefer 1280x800.

Screens are becoming cheaper and cheaper. Any sub 700 dollar laptop with a cracked screen, it is like 70-100 bucks to replace.

Whenever I need an ultra powerful new laptop, I will make sure I pay up for the highest resolution panel. Sad to see laptops like the Precision M4500 with 1368x768 for the base screen but at least upgrades to 1080p cheap..

 

Last I checked a few years ago, the cheapest laptops were in the upper $800's range, and those too came with low resolutions screens usually in the 1200-1300x 700-900.

We are not getting ripped off, just prices for laptops are going down. Fast. What do you expect 1920x1080 on a $400 laptop?


I find the whole 16:9 and 16:10 to be a joke. I have screens for both 16:9 and 16:10 for work, however I don't see my self relying on one or the other heavily.

 

It's easy to remember the past nostalgically, but if we're talking about affordable machines from the 16:10 past, quite a few had only 1280x800 15.4" screens, while some had 1440x900 or 1680x1050, and 1920x1200 was exceedingly rare. So I don't know, but it seems to me that FHD is more common in 15.6" laptops than WSXGA+ used to be, and definitely more common than WUXGA in 15.4" laptops.

 

Not to mention it is far cheaper now a days then in the past.

 

Any laptop mfgs still offer 16:10 laptops? I tried to find ThinkPad T500/R500 and they are nowhere to be found.

 

Resolution is one thing but the fact of the matter is the cheaper laptops get, the cheaper/crappier components using them are. Since processors, RAM, hard drives pretty much have set prices, LCDs were the next on the chopping block for cost cutting matters.

 

I've actually done a small research on screen ration/resolution and price. A desktop 16:10 screen with a resolution of 1440x900 can still be found for 120 pounds, a display of 16:9 of the same class and manufacturer is 90 pounds and has a resolution of 1366x768.

 

1920x1080 is =/= 1680x1050. 16:9 is a drop in vertical pixels NOT horizontal. The only way to compare is to match the the horizontal as closely as possible. But some are NOT comparable to others. This is the comparison chart that has been reguarded as a correct translation to 16:9 from 16:10.

1280x800 =...................
...................= 1366x768
1440x900 =...................
1680x1050 = 1600x900
1920x1200 = 1920x1080

The idea that 16:9 increases both vertically and horizontally goes against the math behind ratios. Its basically like saying 1/2 > 3/4, its just false.

Sadly apple is the only one left.

 

At the same time, it would mean that 16:10 screens are still produced.

Which just comes to show that capitalist companies are greedy corporations that don't care the least about their customers. (Why else would WORKSTATIONS switch to 16:9)

 

Well are you sure that Apple doesn't have stock of old 16:10 screens? I'm pretty sure Apple will join the 16:9 bandwagon in their next refresh.

 

They would switch because:
Many design/photography/video professionals will need 16:9 in the near future, if not now.
16:10 has very very few benefits, specially considering the mathematics.
10%~ pixel amount increase.
BUT only a 2% PPI increase. Sure you get more pixels but the screen is also physically larger, and doesn't give you much more viewing space.

Anyways protest all you want the future is with 16:9, things are going wide screen and 16:9 IS the best ratio for widescreen functions.
I am unsure if you guys knew but 16:10 offers less actual real estate then 16:9 when using sources that are wider then 16:10.

 

Yes capitalist companies are greedy. Thats how they make their money. I dislike apple very much but applaud them for keeping 16:10 alive.

This could explain it, or they could be trying to buck the system or they could just be able to make the screens due to the fees they charge for their notebooks.

 

Print a text on an A4 page in landscape mode and tell me you enjoy reading text from edge to edge.

We read from top to bottom and not in width. What benefit is extra width to me when I loose height? -> On 16:10 I hardly ever use my browser in full screen mode because text would be TOO WIDE to read.

16:9 has only a "benefit" (for those who are allergic to black) if you watch videos.
What benefit so I have from 16:9 editing an image in Photoshop? Landscape or portrait? In portrait I have to zoom out more to see the whole picture, in landscape I still loose layers and have unused space to the side... again zoomed out more.

If I offered you a flat which consisted of a corridor 10m long and 1m wide, would you take it over a flat with a room 2m wide and 4m long? (and yes, I know the second is smaller)

-> NOBODY has given a valid reason why 16:9 would be better. And the video argument is only a proxy, as you don't loose anything with video on 16:10 (in fact, if you watch an old film in 4:3 (and the modern stuff is mainly rubbish, but not all) then you again LOSE with 16:9)

Edit:
In fact, I can still add, 16:10 is better for widescreen films as the controls don't cover as much if any part of the film.

 

So youre saying that more pixels for a smaller screen is worse? Granted some screens got smaller, but most got larger is physical size and less pixels with 16:9.

12.1 went to 12.5
14.1 went to 14.5
15.4 went to 15.6
17 went to 17.3

The only size that shrunk was 13.3 to 13.1and some 14.1 to 14.0.

So your theory is mostly incorrect. Not only did the majority of screen sizes increase in physical size, but they also lost the amount of pixels.

The ONLY benefit 16:9 has brought is higher resolutions to smaller laptops. Other then that its brought nothing else to the table.

 

I already gave a valid reason. In sources with wide screen, which btw in photography the reason I said widescreen is because most photographers are doing pictures for advertisements, designs, etc. Most designs/advertisements and more are being done in a wide screen format.

Actually you can loose significant portions of real estate using a 16:10, please do some simple mathematics to see why. Check out 16:9 movies, and more popularly cinematic wide screen. There is a website that gives you exact numbers, however I'd rather you do some work and find it or do the math yourself.

Well I guess we can keep watching old films, right? That's your argument?

Apart from bringing affordable higher resolutions, 16:9 has also brought down prices. Before a 1920x1200 resolution screen on a notebook would easily cost you hundreds of dollars, flat. On top of the premium your paying for a laptop that even OFFERED such a resolution.

Many photographers utilize a high resolution camera which makes 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 moot point compared to the 4k-6k resolutions the camera's take pictures in.

Anyways I am out of here, too many trolls here.

Personally as long as the screen functions for what I need it to do, it's fine by me. That's why I stick to 1920x**** resolutions.

 

You do not lose space with 16:10. 16:9 you lose space. With 16:10 you have the same or better horizontal pixels and more vertical pixels. Im trying to understand how you think there is any benefit to 16:9 as movies made NOW are viewed the same in 16:10. There is ZERO loss in what you see with a 16:10. If anything was changed you would see more.

I would like to hear how more pixels horizontally and vertically means less viewed in a movie or anything for that matter...

 

I already said do mathematics when you view a widescreen movie on a 16:10 screen vs a 16:9 you will get more viewable space on the 16:9 then a 16:10.
You can also search online and find a particular site that does the math for you.

 

Well it all depends on the resolutions. Yes base 14" notebooks come with 1368x768 but going to 1600x900, you don't lose anything from 1440x900, only a gain in horizontal pixels. Now business professionals don't need widescreen..

I mean I would prefer 16:10, but if 16:9 didn't result in the loss of pixels, then it is whatever, but 17" notebooks suffer with WUXGA.

 

That's a diagonal - due to the aspect ratio change you cannot compare absolute numbers.

And photographs are still shot in 3:2 or 2:3 - which means ZERO gain from a wider screen. But I suspect you have not got a real camera

And advertisements - neither billboards not magazine ads are in a wide screen format.

The ONLY wider screen advertisements are found in either TV or films - which is NOT photography.

You also forget that MOST people who do any form of productive work do not just watch films, but for example run simulations, write code, write articles, all tasks that take place in vertical space more than in horizontal space.

This is the number one selling argument for selling workstation and productive tools, is it? "It's optimized for videos compared"

No wonder "the west" is heading down the hill... education is dumbed down to the lowest denominator and the economy is based on a coupled of frauds with their "investment schemes"....

Good old fashioned work is hardly practices anywhere any more - ironically enough, the places that do are right now doing better than "the west"....

What does video matter on a productive machine? Sell it to the consumers who don't know what a screen is anyway (except that it displays an image) but not for productive reasons.

 

I have a Canon Rebel XSi, DSLR camera. Not exactly high end but certainly no consumer grade camera.

Exactly. Actually it is, many advertisements both in TV and others use still shot pictures, but I guess you know better. Odd, guess my eyes must be seeing in correctly when I see advertisements out in the streets, usually they are wide.

True. Simulations is something that depends on the models you are working with. Programmers would be, and are far better off using dual to quad monitor set ups. And actually most code writers would prefer a wider screen not a vertical screen. It keeps things nice and neat not 2 paragraphs for a single line on a wide monitor. Article writers, I will give it to you there, they would do better with 16:10 but not a whole lot better specially for the price.

I could list many fields that utilize wide screens, however this 16:9 vs 16:10 debate is long done. 16:9 won, whether because of greedy corporations in a capitalistic socialist America or because of consumer demand (yes I use those words in a twisted sarcastic manner to poke fun at some of you).

What do you mean by good old fashioned work? You mean using inefficient methods of working in the past? There is a reason why humanity has changed the way it works, constantly through out it's existence. Efficiency=key.
If pushing 1,000~ 16:9@ 1920x1080@$150 on $800 laptops brings high resolution screens to more consumers compared to only 100~ 16:10@1920x1200 $200 screens on $1400+ Laptops, I think the answer is quite clear who would win.

Really think about. The companies pushing 16:9 are doing us prosumers a favor by making high resolution screens WIDELY available. Compared to the past were a 1920x1200 screen was something that would put you at $2,000-$3000+ business laptops in a time when minimum wage was what? $5?

 

Perhaps the reason why WUXGA laptop screens are missing is related to the anti-trust law suit successfully won against the display manufacturers who were price colluding. This caused the mfgs to cut costs by providing less screen dimension varieties, whereas before, there were plenty of screen dimensions/ratios to choose from.

"1920 x 1080 resolution screens are displacing 1920 x 1200 resolution screens in both laptops and monitors because they are cheaper. LCD panels are cut from very large panes of "LCD glass"; I think some panes are as large as 12' x 7'. You can cut more 16:9 panels than you can 16:10 panels from each pane. Therefore, each individual panel can be sold at a lower price to recover the cost and to make a profit." -jaguarskx-

 

That was more for consumer laptops in general, not so much 16:10 laptops.

 

Still sucks to see business notebooks weren't immune to this wave of cheapness. I would definitely pay extra for a 16:10 or 4:3 screen.

 

If you have a Canon XSi (or rather a 450D) you should know that it shoots 3:2 images. All Billboards are in a similar aspect ration here in the EU - 3:2 or 5:4, I can't tell exactly, but definitely NOT wide screen.
(On that note - your camera is just a toy 5D MK II )
Also, nearly all photographs printed are 3:2 or 2:3 - there are very few exceptions where panoramas are shot, which, ironically also couldn't care less about 16:9 - a panorama is framed in a manner that suits the motive, not some arbitrary aspect ration.

That leaves TV ads - why should photographers suffer from a worse aspect ration because of TV?

With respect to code - yes, 1280*800 is nicer than 1024*768, and I do agree that code in one line is better than 2 or 3 - BUT loosing lines do to a reduction in resolution isn't an option.
My old laptop has a 1024*768 screen, I had to use it last year for a little while until I could get my fan replaced in my Vaio - it was a chore. Also because of the lack of height.

-> At the same time, someone mentioned a 25xx*1600 screen in the time or 4:3 or 5:4 - so a higher resolution than today used to be obtainable.

It is very interesting to see how everything gets dumbed down to video for everything and those people that actually can read are disadvantaged by corporate greed...

What I meant with good old fashioned work was engineering, production of quality products.
-> Banking isn't work, it's fraud. (Not so much the safe keeping of money, but the "investment" side... Germany is doing fine overall, as are all the countries East of Germany that used to belong to the Soviet Union - ironically all countries that still have a manufacturing industry.
And I'm stuck in this broken place called UK... ah well...

And regarding screens and prices - I would like to see a link to an 800$ (is that at 400€ by now? - possibly about 500-600€ realistically) that has a 1920*1080 screen.
The lowest priced laptops start off around 400 Pounds/€, getting bearable specs around 500 Pounds/€

The other aspect that you are ignoring - we are getting this low resolution rubbish in WORKSTATIONS as pointed out previously.
Even going by your efficiency argument - 1920*1200 in a workstation is better than 1920*1080 because it gives you more usable space for someone who wants to do work and hasn't bought an overhyped DVD player.
And considering a workstation generally will cost you 2000€ upwards (I think a Dell M6400 or M6500 could cost up to 6500€ or maybe even more) a price difference of 200€ for the screen is insignificant.

 

I've already pointed out this :

 

I will just say this: who has bought a $2,000+ machine JUST to get 16:10 ratio, or paid a premium of over $500+. Also you are missing the point, that you are forced to buy a $2,000~ machine when there are laptops in the $800~ offering FHD.

 

You're mixing things up right now.

-> If you want to have 16:9 in consumer rubbish, be my guest. Companies have been selling rubbish as prized products for ages now.

But right now you are FORCED to DOWNGRADE to 16:9, you have NO CHOICE (which apparently is the core of a free market capitalist society).
Buying a laptop with respect to the screen is a lot like buying a car in communist Poland - the colour differs, but you're not asked which one you want (you just get the one available)


Additionally, people are buying workstations anyway - so it's not people just buying a 2000€+ machine for 16:10 - it's people buying a 2000€+ machine because they want to do PRODUCTIVE work and not just watch films.
But I suspect that might be an issue with "the west"... people have no idea what "productive work" is.

Offer 2 equally specced out workstations, one with a 16:9 and one with a 16:10 screen, maybe even with a price difference equal to the production cost difference which won't be too high - maybe 30€, maybe 10.
Then have a look which sells better.

The claim that customers want 16:9 is a farce. 16:9 is the only ratio offered if you want a new screen - you do not have a choice. And there are many other reasons to buy a screen - e.g. contrast, viewing angles.

On this note, it is even interesting to see that the absolute high end is also succumbing to that 16:9 craze - and if your monitor costs a few thousands you will be even less bothered by a small change due to the aspect ration.
But he loss is a full 160 pixels in height - you can have a complete tool palette in that.

old:
EIZO ColorEdge CG303W

new:
EIZO ColorEdge CG275W LCD Monitor

 

Once again people who buy workstations have a peculiar need for them, and I can assure you it is not solely for a 16:10 aspect ratio, nor does it play a major factor.

Let me make my self quite clear, my previous laptop was a Dell M6500 Workstation. I am the person buying workstations, not just talking out of my butt. The laptop before that was a Dell E6500. Both of those laptops were 1920x1200 resolution.
At the moment I am using my Envy 17 Sandy Bridge laptop, after selling my M6500. The Envy 17 is far more powerful and cost a whole lot less, the only thing I miss is the support that came with the Dell M6500 which was a Next business day response with on-site technician and Accidental Damage.

One of the biggest reasons for buying a workstation is not a 16:10 format but:
Professional graphics using optimized drivers for many ISV software.
Phenomenal support that takes care of you by sending a tech to your site, usually the next day. A business cannot have a downtime associated with depot service on a consumer laptop.
Reliability of the product, workstations are designed accurately to keep hard drives in stable temperatures, wifi cards are intelligently placed, and of course cooling systems are usually overkill.

My next laptop will likely be a HP Elitebook "W" in a couple years.

 

At the same time though, you'll also want a screen that offers the best resolution available in its class.
-> Take Photo Editing for example, or simulations.

You do not gain anything from 16:9 - you loose resolution (as workstations, being big, would have a 1920*1200 screen) and you still tell me 16:9 is something useful?

It seems the propaganda department was successful when it comes to converting you to an INFERIOR product.

 

Inferior? Highly unlikely as the Envy 17 offers 72% gamut compared to the 40%~ I had on the M6500. It also offers slightly brighter screen with slightly more accurate colors (albeit I need to calibrate the SB, as I had the previous generation Envy 17).

Yes I do have a need for higher resolution, however 120 vertical pixels will not persuade me to pay $1000 more then the Envy for a Workstation. Other things will though, like professional graphics. amazing support, and a few other features here and there such as RAID, and security.

Uhm not sure if I can call the Envy 17 SB i7-2630QM inferior considering the processor makes the m6500's i7 720QM look like a slow Pentium 4 against a Conroe processor. Albeit that's a exaggerated comparison. Nor the better screen, slightly better gpu, and vastly better battery life. 2 hours M6500 vs nearly 6 hours on the Envy 17 SB.

 

The healthy debate in this thread is good, regardless of whether or not actual results will come about in a move back to 16:10. Personal attacks and other inflammatory posts, however, are not so good--keep those out, and remember to treat each other with respect. Thank you.

 

What?



M6500 RGBLED has higher color gamut than the DC2...

 

What? Please be careful when you post graphs, be sure you are pulling the right information.
M6500's don't come with RGBLED standard.
My LCD was a Ultrasharp 40%~ Color gamut 1920x1200 WLED LCD, model LG LP171WU7 D1 XX I forgot the last 2 numbers I believe it was T1. The RGBLED option was an additional $200~ if I recall correctly, and was not required.

Anyways now from my perspective, it is inferior (m6500 vs Envy 17 SB in a purely LCD comparison).
Lastly I would take a DC2 LCD hands down, unfortunately that will be a future purchase in a couple years or so.

 

Right, I never said they come with RGBLED standard (at least for base model, some mid range models you only get RGBLED). You didn't state which LCD you had.

DC2 hands down is the best LCD out, but it is 550 dollar upgrade for basically IPS over the M6500's RGBLED screen (usually not much money for the upgrade).

I just wanted to point out in no way will a consumer screen ever match up to a high end business mobile workstation LCD.

 

Hardly, there are a few RGB LED's screens offered on Dell's Consumer lines that are basically the same quality as Dell M6500's RGB LED.

The only case it isn't true is the Dreamcolor 2 IPS LCD's in which case the premium speaks for it self.

 

I have watched the same movies in 16:10 and 16:9 and there is no visible difference in what you see between the screens. The only difference is how big the black bars are on top and bottom. With 16:9 screens they are slightly decreased in size but still present. Other then that there is ZERO viewing difference.

As for searching online thats not necessary as I already am seeing enough misinformation in this thread alone.

 

Well I have range of aspect ratios available: 16:9, 16:10, 4:3, and a couple others. I can assure you I see the difference using a 16:10 screen, big time. By the way you can't discredit an argument simply because you think so.

Here is the link for comparisons.
http://www.silisoftware.com/tools/screen.php
Difference is around 15%.

 

I welcome the widespread adoption of the 16:9 aspect ratio computer screens because standardisation will encourage developers and publishers to tailor future products according to a single standard. I used to complain about aspect ratios in the past for three reasons: watching DVDs, browsing the internet and word processing. However, the source of these problems was because the personal computer and film industry had started off with different aspect ratios. A transition to the 16:10 aspect ratio, in my opinion, will bring benefits to most end consumers.

Personally, I found watching a DVD on a screen with a 16:10 aspect ratio very awkward because of either a stretched picture or black bars, and although zooming would eliminate the bars, you lose part of the video and the picture quality drops. I disagree with people saying they are against the transition to the 16:10 aspect ratio merely because they think laptop users should watch DVDs on a proper TV. The ‘proper’ use of a laptop is an evolving definition which is ultimately dictated by the current generation of users.

Browsing the internet and word processing is no longer a problem. Website programmers may even be happy to adopt a new standard rather than trying to accommodate many different aspect ratios. For word processing, the zoom function provides an effective remedy to the problem, but I would like manufacturers to implement higher pixel per inch monitors and high definition fonts.

 

Sorry but I like choices, don't like the one size fits all, what's good for you is good for me approach.

 

I should mention many web* developers are adopting a wider format then before.

 

You can have your choice... nobody is stopping you...

Considering this is a forum, could you elaborate why you desire choice rather than standardisation, so that I can a least try to understand why?

 

Sure, because I don't watch movies on my laptop. I use my laptop for all things Internet, watch TV and Live sports feeds. I prefer not having to scroll down as much as when using a 16x9 format.

I think the sweet spot was 16x10 but my preference has always been 4x3 or 5x4. I love the 1280x1024 resolution even for playing games. Yes if I watched a ton of movies I might put up with 16x9 but since I don't watch movies on my computer I prefer not having to vertical scroll for hardly anything. Fortunately I have four 16x10 laptops and two 5x4 monitors i'll keep for as long as I can.

I think forcing the 16x9 format on everyone just for movies was plain dumb on the industry.

And it appears the choice has been taken away because there are no more 16x10 laptops or 4x3 laptops made so the choice is all but gone to the laptop blackmarket lol.