The official bring back 16:10 thread

You need to have some kind of source for such conspiracy theory.

 

well. no? we stated the obvious stuff in here times and times.

1280x800 got replaced by 1280x720 => 10% screen reduction
1920x1200 got replaced by 1920x1080 => 10% screen reduction
2560x1600 got replaced by 2560x1440 => 10% screen reduction

those where the cheap end, mass market, and high end some years ago.

each time, that meant 10% cost reduction. each time it meant 10% loss in vertical screen estate.

there is no replacement for 1600p on the market. there is no replacement for 1200p on the market (except moving up from the 250-300$ to the 700$+ market).

these are FACTS. yuo can lie about them, but it's history. it's facts. one can still buy tons of 1200p 16:10 screens.

the time where the 16:9 screens came up (search up threads in here), about EVERY new laptop generation had a REDUCTION in height as a result. the screens had LESS pixels in vertical for most of the laptops that replaced the previous gen 16:10 screens.

and besides, that a 15" screen of 1:1 has the most screen area, and one of 1:infinite the smallest one (zero) is basic math. so a 15" screen of 16:10 kind has more area than a 15" screen of 16:9 kind. that's math. you can draw it on paper if you want.

 

You forget that over all 16:9 monitors have higher resolutions than 16:10 monitors. If they wanted to cut down the pixels they would have made 1600x900 to the next standard, not 1920x1080 which is higher than 16:10s most common resolution 1680x1050.

So you mean that they made the trasition to 16:10 from 4:3 to lower the production costs as well?

so why demand 16:10 instead of 4:3 then?

 

so then why exactly is the highest resolution screen a 16:10 one (professional, 2560x1600), and got replaced by a LOWER resolution one.
why is the next lower resolution AGAIN being replaced with a LOWER resolution one.

etc etc..

yes and no. as the computer got more and more interesting for media playback (wasn't that trendy before 2000), the request for a screen aspect ratio that fits movies better was there, and made sense. 16:10 thus provided some middleground between widescreen and non-widescreen content (black bars in both cases, but slim ones in both cases) and provided quite good usability for most work-tasks.

but yes, at the same time we moved from crt (where aspect ratio didn't matter) to tft, where suddenly aspect ratio meant real cost. thus reducing it by reducing area made sense.

 

How many such monitors are sold?

16:9 monitors over all have higher resolution than 16:10.

1680x1050 is the most common 16:10 resolution. 1920x1080 is the most common 16:9 resolution.

You said it yourself. Media playback!

16:9 is most compatible with media playback. Far more than 16:10 so why shouldnt that have been important this time?

 

the highest end is massive in use in photo studios and video editing studios for obvious reasons: highest res.
the replacement is less of it.

same for the highest ordinary res: 1200p.

which i've proven to be wrong.

which you make yourself up to believe it. i can tell you that 1680x1050 screens overall in companies get replaced with 1600x900 screens in MOST cases.

no, it's not hte most compatible with media playback. it forces you to have any interface ON TOP of the media. it is not well compatible with 4:3 content (which is what most tv content over all the decades of tv existance are).

it is not important this time as 16:10 is GREAT for media playback. 16:9 did not ADD anything to it. 1080p movies work PERFECT on a 1920x1200 screen, as do 720p movies work PERFECT on a 1280x800 screen.

you have 5% high bars on top and bottom. 5%. that's not much. with a 4:3 screen, you had one fourth black, that means 12.5% bars on top and bottom. that's quite a bit more.

 

Right... so any other laptops that use 16:10 besides Apple and HP's little toy ?

Also has anyone seen desktop LCD screens that are currently in productions which are 4:3 or 16:10 ? I know Dell has a 24 inch display that is 1920x1200, but besides that...

 

Oh come on! Not another thread....I was getting sick of the last one.

Mr. Mysterious

 

The stats dont lie
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

16:9 -- 1920 x 1080 19.39%
16:10 - 1680 x 1050 18.02%
16:10 - 1440 x 900 9.50%
16:10 - 1920 x 1200 7.36%
16:9 -- 1366 x 768 6.17%
16:10 - 1280 x 800 5.17%
16:9 -- 1600 x 900 3.84%

Not just 1680x1050 is more common than 1920x1200. Even 1440x900 is.

and people dont want black bars. 16:9 is the most media friendly aspect ratio.

 

HKTAL yes perhaps for media. I think however you are not getting what davepermen and many others are trying to say in that going from 16.10 to 16.9 screen of same size you lose screen size real estate from a business and browsing point of view. Anyways how is 1600x900 bigger and better than 1680x1050. It is way way worse; you lose both vertical 150 pixels AND 80 horizontal pixels! What a load of rubbish

 

Both in their own way. Different users.

The intresting is that both links show that the 16:9 over all have higher resolution than 16:10.

Cause in your link 1280*800 is the most common 16:10 resolution.

 

Are you really quoting a Steam hardware survey? Because gamers constitute a majority of the populace right?

1080 has the highest because it practically the only high resolution offered to consumers. 1200p was always rare and commanded a 30-40% premium over 1080p.

 

Which is my point. 1920x1080 is more a replacement for 1680x1050 than it is for 1920x1200.

 

You still dont get it. 1680x1050 is corresponding to 1920x1080. Both 22 inch resolutions.

and if you check resolution over all you see that 16:9 has higher resolution.

 

I support less scrolling in IDEs, documents and web pages!

Now to get apple to make a traditional keyboard so I can convert (cause I would if they did that).


edit: Oh crap hktal is back, get ready for the filter monster and/or closed thread monster to visit.

 

Then you need other stats cause most internet users have ordinary lcd monitors.

 

9 pages and counting in one day about 3 cm +-. wow

 

@Cloudfire
I am fighting for my right to have 120 extra pixels of height!

Yeah, it appears the discussion has turned into a 16:9 vs. 16:10 thread. The main arguments in favor of 16:10 are summarized here: The problem Sixteen By Ten . To summarize it even further: HEIGHT MATTERS!

I have worked on 16:9 screens and every time I do, I keep staring at the top bazel for some reason, it's like something is missing.

 

Actually 1280x800 was a step up from the base XGA resolution of 1024x768 when they went from 4:3 to 16:10. Yes there is a increase in pixels in 1368x768 but you lose 32 vertical pixels.

But I do miss SXGA+ on 14" and QXGA on 15". Only comparison is WUXGA.

 

lol. Last thread was hundreds of pages long and all discussed the same thing over and over and over again ad nauseum. Here we go again.

 

it grew fast despite the lots of scrolling the 16:9 promoters have to do..

nice weekend to all of them. might their small vertical view guide them trough their life. i just hope nothing falls on them, as they might not notice

 

No one has said 16:9's should die. In fact they are quite usefull for media consumption machines. They can be somewhat usefull to gamers as well. So there is no real reson to kill the 16:9 as they do have their place.

16:10 though is more of a productivity resolution. Much better geared towards the consumer for that purpose with the advantage of still being able to do the media thing, even switching output display to 16:9 when need be for that aspect ratio. As an example with the 1920x1200 I can easily switch a game to 1920x1080 if it turns out I really need too, 1280x900 people could just play at 1280x720 for 720P.

It just so happens some consumers, myself included, want a higher end productivity screen. The media consumers need not get up in arms about it as your aspect ratio is safe, at least for now. Also we productivity consumers are willing to pay a small premium to have our screens for the better work flow. The protest is OEM's are pulling those options from us.

Will the debate fall on deaf ears, probably so. The OP and others just want to feel if they are going down, they are doing so fighting. You can not blame them for that, nor should media consumers fight them on it either. In fact they may want to join the cause.

One day the market may decide your resolution, aspect ratio, quality of display etc is no longer required. Where will you then be when the market no longer offers options?

Now would I love to have a 17" 1920x1200 (120Hz would be nice too) 2920xm with a GTX 485, surely I would. Instead though I've had to put another $700+ into my current machine to be sure I can get 2-3 more years out of it if need be. Then I guess a desktop may be the order of the day...........

 

We need a petition with a vote count. +1

 

I also miss using my 100lb widescreen 24" Sony FW900 CRT, aspect ratio was whatever was needed. (though I think at normal beam spread it was 16:10)

Anyways, 16:10 should come back because it is the most feasible way to come close to the golden ratio (phi) using small integers as least common denominators.

Golden ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nature provides math, man comes up with a $%!@&# crappy movie format to ruin it.

 

Better yet, how about 9:4:1, squares of the first three prime numbers, as in the monolith!

 

16:10 will never comeback. People do so much gaming, watching movies, TV and such. There isnt enough demand for 16:10 monitors and they cost to much to produce.

Within a few years everyone will have 16:9 and the discussion 16:9 vs 16:10 will be over.

 

No they won't LOL. I have enough 5:4 and 16:10 monitors and 16:10 laptops to hold me out for the next 15-20 years

 

I'll keep buying older laptops just to get 4:3 or 16:10..

 

Except it has no real basis in math or design: there are countless primes, why only the first 3? why in a ratio? how was it derived? There are far better things to pick if you are into primes

Phi is a derived mathematical constant like pi and e, and has a long history in art and design just like they do. A perfect circle is self evident, there is nothing "better" than pi. Continuous growth and many other things expose the constant of e.


16:10 is within 1% of the golden ratio, its one of the closest small integer ratio you'll get. (technically its 8:5 but whatever) This is to consider possible complications to manufacturing, such as slicing up a master panel into many evenly divided sets of whole pixels, or addressing small arrays of pixels as single logical pixels.

...now, if we made the pixels themselves at this ratio, that is another idea worth considering

 

me too!

i still use 4:3 displays at home (I have a tri-display and dual display config, each display is 18" running 1280x1024, on my two most used desktops at home) and have a number of extra 18" LCDs stashed away as a stockpile. i won't ever be using a widescreen desktop monitor if i can help it.

as for laptops, i bought five 16:10 laptops in the last year because i didn't relish going to 16:9 and figure those will hold me for the next 5-6 years easily. i still have several 4:3 laptops which are still going strong including a x31 and x61s...which i use frequently when i go on vacation.

16:9 is a productivity killer!

 

I'm on my old asus G1 since my current laptop is being sent back for repairs.


man, 1680x1050 >>> 1600x900.

if only 'cause my wallpapers fit right again.

 

I must admit I prefer the 1680x1050 over the 150pixel shave it's descendants are wearing now. Someone in the previous thread wrote that the 16:10 was pretty much close to the golden ratio, which makes sense because I was always an advocate of using either 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200 but now we have to stick to things like 1920x1080 and etc.

Not saying they should get rid of 16:9, just saying that they should start offering 16:10 again as well, and then let the sales do the talking.

 

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3khTntOxX-k?fs=1&hl=nb_NO"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3khTntOxX-k?fs=1&hl=nb_NO" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='480' height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

Great movie!

 

hehehehe

 

Wow and here I thought I was the only one.

 

There are just so many advantages with 16:9. 16:10 is just strange.


16:9 advantages
1) 16:9 products provide higher resolution
2) Better for multitasking
3) Better for games
4) Better for movies
5) Better for TV
6) Better for youtube

 

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dTAAsCNK7RA?fs=1&hl=nb_NO"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dTAAsCNK7RA?fs=1&hl=nb_NO" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='480' height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

16:9 don't provide higher resolution and 'better' is subjective. this has been discussed before and beaten to death.

 

Ïts your choice



or



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

 

16:9 provides higher resolution products

"In 2008 the computer industry started to move over from 16:10 to 16:9. According to a report by displaysearch the reasons for this were/are:[7][8]
Innovative product concepts drives a new product cycle and stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market.
16:9 provides better economic cut (panelization) in existing TFT LCD fabs.
16:9 products provide higher resolution and wider aspect ratio."
16:10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

1) Stats show that 16:9 monitors have higher resolution over all and displaysearch confirm it. Pretty obvious to me. All facts say that 16:9 means higher resolutions.
2) 16:9 gives higher resolution but also wider apspect ratio
3) not true, most games are hor+ but some you can change FOV.
4) 99.9 percent of all movies are 16:9 or wider.
5) ditto
6) ditto (Well, congratulations, if you are a timetraveller you can go back in time and use your 16:10 monitor)

 

This ^^^ All of the above. I don't care about 16:9 and if someone finds their Yoko in life fine!

All I ask is to allow me and others to HAVE the option of buying a 16:10 aspect which I would gladly do.

 

There is no business in that.

Why dont you and the others who want 16:10 to remain take your own money to finance the project. It will not be cheap. Thats for sure.

 

We sure would, it's called paying a premium for the item. I would GLADLY pay $100-150 extra for the option to buy a 4:3 or 16:10 display or a laptop that uses that aspect ratio.

 

Obviosly it is not enough. The companies have made investigations and come to the conclusion that 16:10 laptops aint profitable any more. Therefor are they phased out.

 

Tablets are ridiculous at 16:9. Portrait mode completely useless.

 

nah, we're out there and still holding out.

unfortunately however, the 'unwashed and uneducated masses' who use their computers for movies, gaming, and youtubing such as HKTAL have largely accepted the specious arguments about 16:9 displays that the LCD makers have foisted upon them.

 

I find gaming better for me at either 1680x1050 or 1280x1024. I have a lot of older games that don't use WS ratio.

Funny how HKTAL asked if we would pay for it. I and others most certainly would, and a $100-150 premium is more than what it would cost the mfg for the extra expense. I guess he meant we should start our own mfg plant, silly "Trix are for Kids".

 

1366x768 on a 12 inch tablet makes you cry.