The official bring back 16:10 thread

Given that the previous thread was closed. I've decided to start a new one.

I would like to avoid bashing so much the 16:9 LCDs and focus more on what can be done to get back 16:10 LCD screens, especially for the professional and gaming market segment. Yes 16:9 screens are cheaper but there are enough of us who would gladly pay $30-$40 for the extra height.

For now I've started a website where the issue is being discussed and where there is a letter of complaint.

But maybe someone else has better ideas.

 

there's nothing that can be done to bring them back. it's that simple. there's no market-relevant force driving towards it.

but yes, i'd love to see more of them.

 

*hugs new MacBook Pro with 16:10 screen*

 

gaming is 16:9? gaming for years was 4:3 on consoles and still supports it. on pc's, gaming is "every resolution supported".

and most games benefit from a bit more height.

 

Apple Macbook, Pro, Air (13"), Lenovo t410s. All 16:10 screens.

There are probably a lot more available.

 

I think the T410 has been discontinued and replaced by the T420 which is 16:9.

Yes, I think Apple is the only company that is still selling LCDs and Laptops with 16:10 screens.

 

the next 2760p from hp is 16:10. rest is 16:9 i think for elitebooks, too (not 100% sure).

are there any non-apple CONSUMER laptops that are not 16:9? business sector still has some 16:10 available.

 

The problem lies in media format consistency. Since 720P and 1080P media format between entertainment and computing have been slowly merging. I would love to see the 16:10 return but I highly doubt it.

While agreed there is a small market for our beloved 16:10's, general consumers are essentially clueless. Even the beloved the game consoles, for which most games are now being developed for, are 16:9 either at 720P or 1080P. Casual Gamers generally even if playing on a PC want consistency as well. Also games with 1920x1080 will have better FPS than 1920x1200.

Applications in general usually now have wide side menu's. This means haing a wider screen is becoming a must as well. Developers will be creating their user interfaces for new programs using these wide screens again making the full change over inevitable.

You need to get all developers to optimize for 16:10 making 16:9 non optimal. Good luck with that asking them to give up money to other developers that optimize for 16:9.

So in the end I will hold onto my 16:10 1920x1200 as long as possible but realize in the end it is just a lost cause. 16:9 is here to stay and hopefully the market stays away from yet a wider format.............

 

I have to say that I was against 16:9...but the main problem is not the aspect ratio, its the resolution and quality of the screens...

You can work on a good FHD 16:9, without problems...and for gaming its totally indifferent...but just compare the "normal" crap they call screens with a 16:10 screen from 2007 and you get a weeping attack...thats the real problem

 

The problem with quality isn't the aspect ratio as much as conversion to LED backlights. Unfortunately LED's are usually extremely unidirectional in their optimal light output. This highly limits viewing angles and consistency. Now higher quality LED backlights, along with the LCD panel itself, can solve the issues but we are talking much higher costs too.............

 

Yes, the rest of elitebooks are 16:9, I didn't know about the 2760p. Small little machine at 12 inches but good to see they have 16:10. I'll add it to the list.

As in what regards the business sector, yes it used to be like that, but all the new models are 16:9. Look at Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. Alienware is 16:9 now as well.

Moreover, the trend has moved now towards desktop LCD screens. For instance at the company where I work we all have 4:3 screens and our software is designed for 4:3 screens. Our screens are rather old (4-5) years so we wanted to replace some of them recently but couldn't find any decent 4:3 screens. If we do, they are usually part of old inventories and are generally very expensive, much more expensive than what we paid for our current screens a few years back.

 

as long as content still flows vertically (webpages, word documents, excel sheets, coding, any form of text, list, what ever) i won't care about widescreen.

i'll use them, and i can use them. but the increase in scrolling is annoying.

and there are not much ways around that. as a software developer, i know that everyone tries it's best for it. but it's not that simple, sadly. and all the gains developers make are more or less to get back what we lost, mostly. if you get a 4:3 screen you gain the same height => a 16:9 is still worst

 

There will be a time where software is designed for 16:10 but soon when everybody will own 16:9 monitors also the software will be designed for 16:9.

Look at games. 7-8 years ago it was hopeless to play computer games with a 16:9 monitor. Now it is hopeless to play games with a 4:3 monitor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

Programs will most probably be designed for 16:9 five years from now, maybe earlier.

 

Can't speak for other resolutions but at 16:10 of 1920x1200 I gain height over 16:9 1920x1080..............

 

Not true for the vast majority of games.

The height is the same on 1920*1080 and 1920*1200 but *1080 has greater width.

Field of view in video games - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

field of view is mostly adjustable and constant in width in the games i've played. so no, i gain width, not lose height.

 

In most games you cant do that but you are lucky if you have found them. Those kind of options will just be more and more rare. Witcher 2 doesnt even support 16:10.

In games where you can set the FOV yourself you neither gain width or height with 16:9 or 16:10. The resolution only effect details then.

1920*1200 is a rare resolution for 16:10. Over all 16:9 monitors have higher resolution so over all 16:9 users get to see more details even in those games.

 

@Indrek

If someone says something that isnt correct I have to reply and inform and tell how it works. Missunderstandings around how aspect ratio and resolution affect FOV in games happens often. I hope more people get informed in this issue so we dont have to discuss it again.

To read this article is a good start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

 

in most cases you can. and witcher 2 just supports our "bring back 16:10" argument.

you have no clue what FOV is, then.

still not true, no matter how often you state it.

 

i prefer to see a closed thread with correct information than an open one with wrong information.

no one came to this site to get wrong information. everyone came with the assumption to get correct information. that assumption has to be taken care of. not "what people like to hear".

 

I am not talking field of view perspective, I am talking pixels as in applications. Sorry not a heavy gamer here..............

Edit, it also counts on how the programer want's the perspective displayed. If the lock in the top and bottom of the viewed area, IE 20 degrees up and down from viewed perspective, then 16:9 will show a wider FOV. If however they lock left and right perspective at 30 degrees then the 16:10 will have a taller FOV that 16:9.

I will use Dirt2 as an example. If I sit on the menu and change between 16:10 to 16:9 aspect ratio I loose FOV to the top and bottom of the displayed picture. It doesn't hold the height and make the sides FOV narrower. So 1920x1200 at 16:10 increases FOV both to the top and bottom, whether this is usefull or not I guess is another issue....................

 

so this means we want this thread open and filled with wrong information, then?

no thread should have wrong information in it. being open or closed doesn't matter. information is what matters.

btw, for opinions, you have the right to chose which one you want to have. for facts, not so much. you can't say to yourself "this is true, this is not". facts are facts. you might like, or hate a fact, that doesn't change it.

and going from 16:10 to 16:9 means you can stay with a constant vertical field of view, increasing the horizontal field of view OR with a constant horizontal field of view, reducing the vertical field of view. or a mix between both. in any case, the vertical view will stay or reduce, the horizontal will stay or increase. the reverse would not be physically possible (without stretching the image).

 

You can always find exceptions because there are still some games that are vert-.

As you can see the vast majority of games are hor+
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=32&sid=d9e72bc6c115c5c0bd172144f0265c90

 

Going by what I have and play. That is also why I said it counts on how the designers lock the perspective. Either way I mainly use the desktop and 1920x1200 is well prefered over 1920x1080..............

 

Can you give some screen shots as examples davepermen? I think that would settle the argument permanently.

@ Indrek
I think it's best to just send it to the OEMs from which you own laptops. Soon I will also make a list with desktop LCD producers and OEMs and after that you can start sending it to everyone .

Once I get replays from them I will post them on the website so we can all read their point of view.

I agree with most of you here that there is little hope for 16:10 screens, but there is a small chance that for the business and high-end segment the aspect ration may be returned to 16:10. So I cling to that chance, even if at the end nothing happens I will at least feel reassured that I tried and didn't just stay idle.

 

For PC games I love 1280x1024 resolution. I recently went and bought a 19" Dell monitor that is also in this format. It's by far my favorite.

The 16x10 format is a very good compromise as a PC monitor or for a laptop although I miss laptops with the 4x3 aspect ratio.

 

I love my WSXGA+ 1680x1050 reso screen. Excellent all-rounder. This laptop is already 4 years old but now NEW 15" laptops such as my friends rubbish Dell 15R laptop has a pathetic 720p resolution. The screen looks grainy and really bad quality.

At the end of the day most people are happy to buy cheap badly made equipment rather than pay more for good quality so the manufacturers are gladly supplying the market with such cheap laptops. While demand remains money can be made. Nothing made these days has the same build quality of machines made in the past except perhaps Apple Macs which are certainly not for everybody.

 

it always matters that information is correct. and you're definitely wrong about gaming being not important. i don't game much, but i know a lot do, and a lot on these forums do. dismissing them as unimportant doesn't help the argument.

no i can't, but i could draw something in paint, for those that can't take a pen and just do it themselves on paper. there's really no magic in it at all, it's absolute basic math everyone should have learned in school.

in plain text: 16:9 is more wide andor less high than 16:10 => the viewport in a game will be more wide, or less high, or a blend between. that means you gain horizontally or lose vertically. that's all there is to it.

as horizontal field of view is mainly important (esp in the beloved shooter genre), most games don't change it, as it would give a 16:9 screen an unfair advantage over a 16:10 (or 4:3 or 5:4) screen. thus, instead they reduce in height (by 10%, as this is what a 16:9 screen lacks). in a lot of cases (fps mostly) that normally never matters. but depending on the game, it does (portal f.e. you like to see the floor and ceiling there. the less of it you see, the more you have to look around to solve a puzzle)

 

@davepermen

Well that makes sense. But I reckon that's just for some games.
It's a fuzzy argument in favor of 16:9, but I can understand it.

 

well, you have those two options in a pixel-independent setting (games, movies you want to watch as fullscreen as possible (there, only cutting away works if it doesn't fit, else you get borders), 3d applications, drawing applications.

for pixel-dependent things, the typical discussion is the same as always: some say it increased on switch, some say it decreased. for me, it always decreased (and there's no payable replacement for 1920x1200 without pixel loss).

but one thing's quite clear: it never (much) increased in height. most of the time, even with a horizontal increase, the vertical resolution went down a bit (or much).

and that brings me to my main point: most content (with the exception of games and movies) is vertical-extending in nature. lists, texts, webpages like this one and most others (blogs, search results, foriis (??), etc..). so not gaining in vertical but in horizontal is rubbish.

 

one thing i've learned on the web: the ones with faulty knowledge will never stop to re-post it. so there's no other way than to re-post the right stuff. (and thus, the ones with wrong knowledge, believing they're right just as i believe i am, will do the same).

there is no "the smart one stops first", because that will mean the stupid one will be the last man standing.

and about who's right and who isn't (i'm right! ), just to be aware i always try to do only statements based on scientific knowledge. mostly math (the resolution and aspectratio stuff is just a simple game of math, nothing more). so i know i'm right. the stuff i'm not sure i state as such.

btw, i love your avatar i have them in hd on a bluray (16:9, gasp) and they look gorgeous.

 

indeed it is (but other pixar shorts are about as awesome. and other pixar movies, too).

i've seen quite some who realized they're wrong and changed their mind, and where thankful. both online in chats, social networks, and foriis like this very one (forii, really??), and in real life, too. sometimes i need to be rude for someone to understand, sometimes politeness is the way to go. on the web, it's quite hard to balance that.

but if you looka t my sign, you see that i love this

so the short sorta-conclusion is this: going 16:9 is about never a gain in vertical space. vertical space has a lot of uses, but not all depends on it (games, movies). for those who see use in vertical space, the 16:9 trend is thus never a gain, sometimes a loss.

as a frequent forum user here, i see use in vertical space (it's a perfect example). so i see loss in going to 16:9. (they're quite thin for vertical usage, too.. for those who can turn the screen like i can)

 

16:10 isnt better than 16:9 for productivity. I would actually say the opposite because it is easier to multitask with 16:9.

And if you don't want to discuss the disadvatages with 16:10 what is this thread for?

 

productivity is (as i've listed again again) a matter of VERTICAL space. most productivity tasks are actually single-tasks (working with a list, or some text). all of them are vertical expanding and aligned. all of them gain from having more vertical space.

and as 1920x1200 is very common on productivity desktops, 16:9 is no gain there. show me the payable (around 300$ 1200p 16:9 replacement that does not reduce in height)

 

First of all. Why do you compare with a such unusual 16:10 resolution as 1920x1200?

16:9 is standard and if you do it the standard way you can lower the production costs. This is the reason why you get more pixels for the money with 16:9. More pixels are good for the productivity.

And that taskbar and such are designed for 4:3 for some software will change as more and more take the step over to 16:9.

 

because it's NOT an unusual resolution as i and every of my tenthousands of coworkers use it daily at work, and i as a lot of my friends use it at home. it is the default resolution for 24" 16:10 screens, and 24" screens are very common around here.

but you still run away from my question: show me a 1200p 16:9 screen that is in a similar cost range as the one i have now.


and yes, applications try to adapt to gain back the screen space we LOST by going from 5:4 to 4:3 to 16:10 to 16:9. but CONTENT WILL NOT. this forum IS VERTICAL GROWING. every new post is BELOW the one before. every google search forces you to SCROLL DOWN as it's a VERTICAL LIST of content. every list of customers, every application development project, every blog, every forum, every newspage grows VERTICALLY, not horizontally.

so more vertical space always means more content. which always is a GOOD THING.

 

@davepermen
It appears to me that you want higher resolution, not 16:10. You have far bigger chance to get higher resolution 16:9 laptops than 16:10 laptops in the future.

 

btw, my first laptop was 14" 1280x1050. the biggest 16:9 laptop i can get is now 1920x1080, so i gain 30pixels in height. and that's not really available on a 14" screen (without being unreadable small).

hint: the laptop was as wide as my 1280x800 16:10 screen now on it. an as wide (in size, not pixels) laptop with 16:9 would again lose in height. so it would have more dense pixels, most likely 1266x768 (again loss in height). that's about 3/4th of what i started with.

 

no, i want a VALID replacement provided from you right now for my screens i use daily, which does not explode in cost like the only solution you could provide to me: the 2560x1440 screen from apple or dell which cost more than double the price of the screens i have right now.


and while you're at it, provide me with a laptop that can be put into an ordinary bag (no more wide than an a4 paper, thus, as that fits into every school or workbag) that has can have a bigger screen than a 5:4 one (physical area). a friend had a 1600x1200 4:3 14" laptop years ago. that height is not available on 16:9.

 

That you want a certain monitor for an exact price at this moment isnt really intresting considering the incredible amount of people that have recieved higher resolution monitors because of the transition to 16:9.

And you will gain from it sooner or later as well because you will be able to buy higher resolution monitors for prices which wouldnt be possible with multiple formats.

 

I would LOVE to have 16:10 over 16:9 but don't see it coming back. And I don't see how 16:9 is more productive either. Non only has screen quality gone down the tubes, you lose vertical pixels:

1280x800 --> 1366x768 or 1280x720
1680x1050 --> 1600x900
1920x1200 --> 1920x1080

I don't know about your but I'd like to scroll less.

I know home digital movies are 720p and 1080p but laptops aren't used primarily for watching movies.

Eventually we'll end up with screens like this and people will say it's more productive:

 

not true. provide me with answers. you say 16:9 is better. show me. it's out now since some years, and provided me with ZERO better solutions than 16:10 had. not on any scale. you say it's more cheap. i say, it has less pixels. show me that you're right. show me that i can right now replace my screen with something better, more cheap. you can't. you fail to. and you will not be able in the next years. why? because fullhd is "the standard" now. and fullhd is WORSE than what i have and used since years.

 

this shouldn't be an argument about 16:9 vs 16:10. Everyone knows 16:10 is perfect.

 

16:9 doesnt have fewer pixels. 16:9 is about aspect ratio, not pixels.

I dont say 16:9 is better. I dont say 16:10 is better. I say that we will get more for our money if we take advantage of massproduction.

At this moment it is absolutely crazy to have two such similar resolutions as 2560x1440 and 2560x1600 just to mention one example. That increases costs and the price the costumer must pay.

Better to drop 16:10 than paying overprices for the rest of your life.

(and personal situation actually doesnt have much to do with it.)

 

i personally love 1:1

a 2560x2560 screen, 30" would be awesome. and yes, it would be placed in a height that i look at exactly the middle of it. i would buy that instantly.

 

mass production was just as great for 16:10 screens. for years, there was nothing else. so mass production has nothing to do with it.

and 16:9 was in MOST product lines a replacement to the SAME horizontal resolution, and 10% less vertical resolution. just as HTWingNut noted some posts above.

1280x800 => 1280x720.
1920x1200 => 1920x1080.
notice how they moved to halfhd (720p) and fullhd (1080p) from >halfhd and >fullhd.

there is NO place where vertical estate IMPROVED.

and the costs did not go down thanks to it, as those screens where massproduced before and massproduced afterwards. they where just one thing: 10% cheaper due to 10% less pixels.

and you still can't provide me with a non-16:10 solution that is better than my 16:10 screens i use since years.

 

You are wrong when you say that 16:9 and 16:10 have the same costs. 1920x1080 actually is cheaper than 1680x1050 at this moment.

I bet Dell U2711 and Apple Cinema Display 27 is better.

 

it wasn't cheaper at the same time. so omg, it got cheaper over time.

both the dell and apple cinema are at a completely different price range (>100% more than 24" ones). they're near the cost of 30" 2560x1600 ones here (and targeted at the same customers). now guess what: again 10% loss in vertical real estate.

 

Because of the lower production costs of 16:9, yes.


"Bennie Budler, product manager of IT products at Samsung South Africa, confirmed that monitors capable of 1920x1200 resolutions aren't being manufactured anymore.

“It is all about reducing manufacturing costs. The new 16:9 aspect ratio panels are more cost effective to manufacture locally than the previous 16:10 panels,” Budler said."
Widescreen monitors: Where did 1920x1200 go?

They will go down in price. As I said 16:9 is cheaper to produce than 16:10.

 

no, as they where SIMILAR PRICED EVEN IN 16:9, back then. they got cheaper as EVERYTHING gets cheaper over time. except for the obvious: 10% cost reduction due to 10% screen reduction. (hint, even with SAME DIAGONAL SCREEN SIZE, AREA GOES DOWN => LESS MATERIAL, LESS REAL SCREEN ESTATE, THUS LESS COST)

marketing blabla?

only if there is less screen estate. else, no. screens get cheaper all the time, that's nothing new, and independent on anything else. but the step to 16:9 allowed to replace with cheaper, SMALLER screens. like the death of the 1200p ones.

you really have no clue about the development of screens over the last decades, right? i do, i've went trough all those steps, and believe me, there is nothing special or good about 16:9. it was used to drive costs down by reducing the screen size (and the quality at the same time, too). that's all there is to it.


the 1440p ones will not get much cheaper over time, just as the 1600p ones don't. as they are NOT mainstream (unlike the 1200p 16:10 24" ones WHERE and got replaced by the omgitsfullhd 1080p ones)