monitors 16.9 and 16.10

Hi there...

I from the past year and this CES many companies are announcing new laptops and TVs, Monitors all in 16.9 ratio as its a new thing. However the majority are selling in 16.10 ratio for now, but people are looking for 16.9 (i believe).
So the thing is, at least in my mind its as comparing both 16.9 and 16.10 the later is smaller so it should be easier to manufacture right???
And Phillips also claiming have a 21.9 which is the "first cinema like ratio"


What am I missing??? Whats the problem for produce 16.9 or 21.9 instead of 16.10 or even 4.3 ???


anyone can tell me please?

fyi: This is the Phillips news>> http://www.homecinemachoice.com/blogs/team_HCC/Philips+Cinema+ultra+widescreen+LCD+TV

all the best Beto

 

16:9 lowers their cost, it's got something to do with how they cut a panel.
i see no point in going wider just to watch a film. i mean most dvds are 2.35:1 so it's still going to letter box. and why do people hate letter box so much?

 

Not exactly, if you consider the same diagonal size, then a 16:10 is slightly larger and has more pixels than a 16:9, therefore it should be expensive. Most TVs come with the 16:9 aspect ratio, therefore I think making 16:9 monitors will be easier and cheaper for the manufacturers because then they can make one panel for both TVs and Monitors.

Personally I prefer 16:10 over 16:9 for a monitor because I get more vertical resolution (i.e : 1920x 1200 vs 1920x 1080), which means more text lines = less scrolling.

Yeah, I read that a while ago, That is ridicules, only few movies are released on DVD/BluRay with that aspect ratio. Standard HDTV is 16:9, so most of the time you’ll be looking at small picture in the middle with very thick black bars on side.

 

on 1920 pixels width, it doesn't matter that much. but if you're on smaller resolutions (1024 being the new trend thanks to netbooks), the 10% loss in height is terrible. on 1280 as well.

i hope, with current crysises (spelling?) everywhere, those companies will get into troubles and then start to actually look at the consumers again..

the new tiny sony is just as ridiculous. huge width, but no height at all. it would be acceptable if it would be a tablet and could be used with that width as height. but the way it is, it's absolute non-usable crap.

reviewers should focus much more on that, and mark it a big flaw on such a device. not a "it could have a bit more screen height" but a "i can not even use every standard windows dialog ordinary, and i have nothing that does not require scrolling all the time, and it really hinders usage" (without any of the "it's ***** *** * *** ****** *** **" stuff

 

i have a 42" hdtv to watch movies and the like why do i want a 17" screen optimized for movies!? i want the extra vertical real estate 16:10 offers! really who watches movies on there monitor!? 16:9 sucks!

 

Not everybody has the money and the space for a big screen TV. I rely on my laptop to watch movies and I am glad that some laptop manufacturers are offering 16:9 monitor in their line of laptops.

 

Why do you think new notebooks come with 16:9 displays and Bluray drives ?

yes, I'm a student living in a relatively small apartment, dont have space for a 40' TV. That is why i bought a 26' Monitor, for both entertainment and work .

 

ok just curious if there was really that many consumers doing this. thanks but really what do you have again the black bars? then you can still hav the working space...

 

I think there is plenty of space on 16:9/16:10 screens. And i also do watch movies on my notebook from time to time, even though i have a 32" WS LCD.

But, it's really all about the resolution when it comes to workspace.

 

I think there are, otherwise we won't see this many 16:9 notebooks out there.

Personally I don't have anything against black bars, in fact I prefer 16:10 over 16:9 because of the extra vertical pixels. But I know there are some who hate them.

But I guess if some one is looking for an external screen primarily for movies and games, then buying a 16:9 is better because they get more width; therefore the visible video area will be slightly bigger (i.e; a 16:9 24" is slightly wider than a 16:10 24"), and you are utilizing the total area of the screen.

 

I think 16:10 is better for a computer still; while watching movies in 16:9 aspect you can keep the media controls and subtitles in the border so they don't obscure the video.

 

the extra width really isnt extra b/c the number of pixels nearly the same (if not actually the same) you just lose vertical pixels which SUCKS. don't buy into the 16:9 nonsence! its just cheaper to manufacture ALL screens the same dimentions. it offer no benefit IMO!

 

As repeatedly said, I’m not a fan of 16:9 aspect ratio either. I’m just pointing out some of the reasons why someone would want to buy one.

If you do a bit of math you’ll find out that a 16:9 screen is physically wider than a 16:10 of same diagonal length (not by much, but there is a noticeable difference when you compare side by side). Therefore, the video area will be slightly larger on a 16:9 screen when watching HD content. It has nothing to do with resolution, I'm talking about when watching movies in full screen mode.

 

yeah agreed. i just will be very ticked off if they stop making 16:10 and i have to buy a 16:9 in a couple years when i get my next laptop/monitor. it gets my panties all up in a wod! plus i should have learned my lesson. posting before coffee is bad.

 

im definitely in the 16:9 hating club.

i loved it when the 4:3 made a switch to 16:10 because on high resolutions widescreen was much more usable, but this change to even wider narrower screen is a bit silly imo.

on 15 inchers and 16 inchers i find it unbearably narrow. its ok on 18" though, but those are monsters

 

I see that as a trivial matter of satisfying certain people who freak out about letterboxes. I don't care that a 16:9 screen is physically wider than a 16:10 screen of the same measured diagonal width. To tout that as an advantage would assume that all of these panel manufacturers will stick to the same screen size for a given aspect ratio, and we know that's not the case considering how, in the 16:10 arena, we already have 24" TNs and VAs, 26" (or 25.5") TNs and IPSes, 27" VAs, and 28" TNs, all at 1920x1200. They all show the exact same raw pixel data when playing a movie. The only difference ends up being how close you sit to the screen.

All that a switch to 16:9 computer screens accomplishes is the elimination of horizontal letterboxes. Apart from that, the only things that really matter are viewing distance and pixel pitch. Physical dimension and screen resolution are a product of the latter, and if you don't sit the proper distance from the screen, none of this matters a lick.

Physical screen size is a small factor in the overall equation, but it's the only thing many people focus on. Of course, using that same logic because it applies to the lowest common denominator, that's probably exactly why, as much as I hate it, 16:9 monitors will be a hit with the mainstream.

 

Ok guys I read all posts but all most all are giving personal opinions... the real question is about the production point of view.. but, well im the 16:9 lovers...not because of the black bars but because of the mobility... so a 13" 16:9 is SWEET!!!

Now about the real topic, which is related to the manufactures... why companies are just bringing this "new" format now?? is it any how related with prices of the technologies?, or the panel itself that has different things that make it harder to become produced, and now due the tech we have, producing them is easier???

or maybe from 4:3 to 16:9 is a big step for consumer change, so thats why the era we have now is 16:10, and after saturating the market with 16:10 its time to go for 16:9, and eventually even 21:9???

PS: im not considering the Economics of Scale (Mass production bringing the price down when high volume are produced)

all the best

 

The thing is, all this commotion about changing the aspect ratio cannot be taken into account without considering screen resolution. It may not matter much for TVs, but it is very important for monitors since, last I checked, people still work on computers. Economics aside, reducing the number of lines on standard screen resolutions is not cool.

 

actually, _because_ of mobility, i hate widescreen. a non-widescreen 4:3 13" notebook would be much less wide => would fit much better in any bag or backpack or where ever you want to put it in. the 16:10 made a lot of problem in ordinary bags, and the 16:9 even more.

_AND_ besides getting an actual smaller (less wide) 13" notebook, you'd get more screenspace (and more screenheight).

so, even while it may be SWEET, you have losses in all other aspects. essencially: they fooled you by making you feel sweet about such a purchase. it's just a cheap product, nothing else.

 

16x9 to me is great! I love the more compact size it makes notebooks like the Vaio Z compared to the SR/SZ, and the HP 2140 vs other 10" netbooks.

 

One thing that people don't realize is 16:9 would make the font slightly bigger and therefore more pleasant to read. A 1920x1080 looks bigger than 1920x1200 because of slightly reduced horizontal resolution.

 

Well, personal opinions are important when it comes to see why the formfactor is popular or not and to see what the upsides/downsides are!

Well, it depends on how you put the notebook down in the bag, doesn't it!?
There is a wide side of the notebook and there is a smaller side of the notebook on a WS notebook.
A 15" 16:10 vs 4:3 for example, the 4:3 should have a bigger screen therefor the notebook is bigger as the screen is higher?! Or did i miss something? And the 16:10 should be just more compact in height making it smaller in that way, making it easier to fit a bag "sideways", there is more ways to pack down a notebook in a bag than putting it down with the backend or the front down first.


And i think when people is buying WS-notebooks and they do feel sweet about it. What says that they suddenly isn't gonna feel sweet about even though it's cheap from the beginning?

 

people that complain about font size jsut don't know how to enlarge it i guess this thread makes me sad a can't believe there are people that buy into this crap!

 

people feel sweet when they buy an iphone. doesn't make it a good phone..

well, my 15" notebook fit into an ordinary side-bag with ease, 16:10 notebooks don't. they're too wide to fit into any ordinary bag, actually. and i can't put them in 90° switched then they would be too high.

my 12" actually fits about as good into the bag than the 15" did..

i do think 16:10 is quite nice to work. but still, i prefer to work at 3:4 (a 90° turned 4:3 screen). you never scroll on such a screen.

what i'd like, is, when stuff like that new sony-crap gets created, that the developers actually think about usability. like creating a big thumb-reachable mousewheel style scrollpad for easy access to drag the scrolling. something like grab'n'drag in firefox for the whole system.

 

hey now don't be dragging the iPhone into this. anyhow it IS a SWEET phone! you just don't have one

 

yep, having an xperia, i don't need a crappy iphone. now the xperia is SWEET

i like sweet. but only if it's sweet and useful. 16:9 definitely isn't. not even for a tv (as still a lot is 4:3, and 4:3 is very tiny on 16:9. 16:10 works great for both (tv on pc), having small bars in both cases (and those are zoomable if one wants to). for movies, 16:9 is useless, too, as it's not borderless for a lot of stuff.

for actual work, it's 100% useless. no matter what, everything could be done as well, or better, on 4:3 (or 1:1 for that matter. i'd love to have a big 1:1 screen )

 

Not all software supports enlarging fonts. Changing the DPI is not a perfect solution. Changing the resolution is not a perfect solution. I prefer to leave it at its native resolution at default DPI. 16:9 is the way to go.

 

On a site coded like this, less vertical resolution doesn't mean more scrolling if their's more horizontal resolution. Posts become shorter and wider. But I think that's limited to certain forums.

I have no qualms with 1080p on a notebook. It's a high res to begin with, most people would probably complain about the small font, not as much the vertical resolution. UWXGA admittedly has the advantage for photoshop. To be honest I don't watch too many movies on it, but I did watch Burn After Reading yesterday with hardly a visible black bar, I think it was 1:85. I hear FEAR 2 is letterboxed, but I didn't notice at all having a 16:9 screen

 

Why do people hate black bars? I don't notice it and it's better than staring at the background of whatever's behind your screen. I wish they continued manufacturing screens at 1:1 aspect ratio.

 

If people hate black bars and also hate movies i don't see a problem really. As they won't watch a movie?

But if they do, they'll still hit into the "black bar" problem.
On a 4:3 when watching a WS-movie you'll get black bars on top and beneath.
On a 16:9/10 when watching a letterbox-movie you'll get black bars on the sides.

So what?! You can't get rid of the black bars when watching a movie on either one.

And everyone who says a 16:9/10 is a cut of 4:3. You can cut the 16:9/10 screen into a 4:3 too.
And for example a 15" WS-screen shouldn't be compared to a letterbox 15" as they are two different screens, as they aren't the same physical size, that's just how it is So deal with it?

 

It would be improper to choose a side on this 16:10 vs 16:9 debate, as I haven't really seen or observed firsthand a 16:9 laptop up close. But what I really hate about this 16:9 thing is that manufacturers are pushing this "new" and "cool" trend down consumers' throats, not because it's new and cool at all. Only because it cuts down their expenses, purely for reducing their spending.

 

That's what i mean, there is no real "side" to choose. As there is two different types of screens.
For me the new WS-screen "era" isn't about fooling people into thinking they get the same area as a corresponding letterbox screen in the same inch-size.
It's about working/watching area, size of the notebook and most important, because it's cheaper for the manufacturer!

I think the notebook prices has gotten lower with time and especially since all notebooks started shipping with the WS-screens that's out there. So i really don't see where anyone gets fooled, they're just economical and those who buy it knows what kind of screen they get (16:9, 4:3, 16:10 or any other aspect ratio).

I haven't seen any of the manufacturer say something in a "fooling" way to make customers think they are getting a letterbox screen (that's physically larger than a WS in same inch-size as said) when buying a WS-notebook or anything about that they do say WS is larger than the corresponding letterbox.


I may be wrong on several points ofcourse, but i only wanna share my thoughts with you guys and see what you say, i'm just trying to be realistic and nothing "fanboyism" about anything.
And if i'm wrong i will gladly learn and correct myself

 

I'm 100% aboard the 16:9 train, it just feels right to my eyes. I used to cling to 4:3 when it came to computers just because I was used to a desktop that shape. I couldn't go back now. 16:10 is fine, but I like the uniformity with HDTVs.