LED 16:9 Screens to be Mainstream for 2010

I don't mind the 16:9 aspect ratio, I only get peeved when I lose resolution, such as going from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080. If I go from 1440x900 to 1600x900, I have no problem. I think I even like the 16:9 ratio to 16:10.

Since 16:9 looks to be the future, I hope we can get 1920x1200 replaced with 2133x1200 instead of 1920x1080.

Its a real shame that thanks to deceptive marketing, many think that 1920x1080 is the highest resolution possible.....EVER.

 

Going off-topic, I wonder why these recent CULV ultraportables use 11.6" screens vs. 11.1" the premium ultraportables like the Vaio TX/TZ/TT, Asus U1/U2, Lenovo U110, etc. used.

 

See the problem is the new resolution doesnt add width, it takes hieght and adds nothing.

1440x900 and 1600x900 arent the same category of size. Rather compare 1680x1050 and 1600x900. You're comparing 16:10 resolutions with 16:9 of the level above. Here is the chart:

------------------------
16:10 standard :: 16:9 standard

1280x800 :: 1366x768
1440x900 ::...............
1680x1050 :: 1600x900
1920x1200 :: 1920x1080
...............:: 2048x1152
2560x1600::...............
------------------------

So as you can see the only thing you stand to gain from going to 16:9 from 16:10 is less height and a larger notebook. All while paying the same price... Seems like a rip off to me, being as the manufactures dont pass the savings they are getting switching to the new ratio to the consumer.

 

I'm...still just shocked by the "ripoff" charges. Because some people prefer it? What about those who don't care, or prefer 16:9? Did you really think they'd be a non-standard aspect ratio for ever? I really don't think for most of us we're going to care. I wasn't remotely a factor when I bought my current notebook or monitor (both of which are 16:10, but that's not why I bought them).

 

Sorry for the off-topic. I wonder this myself too.

Would it be hardware based?


Back to topic

In fact, speaking of sizes, this will sound rather stupid, and perhaps wrong. But theoretically speaking, the closer the a square the shape, the bigger the area it occupies. More rectangular in fact, would mean in theory, a smaller area.

So 16:9 should make the laptop smaller, basing on maths.

 

I'm not trying to make you jump on my bandwagon, rather Im trying to inform those who think its an improvement. If you or other prefer paying the same money for a lower amount of pixels on your screen so you can watch movies with less black bars then have at it. But you will not be without the correct information (unlike what retailers and OEMs are telling you).

Some are smaller like 14.0 vs 14.1, but others are larger like 15.6 vs 15.4 and so on. In hind sight I should have said mostly and not over generalized.

 

Nothing pisses me more off then seeing a good laptop with a resolution of 1366x768. Once I see that number, I stay away. That's why the only 13" laptops out there with 1280x800 are basically the Macbooks and HP dv3s.

And the thing that pisses me off even more, which I think someone has already said, is seeing 1366x768 on 14 or 15" screens.

 

I don't know but I'm glad they do. I looked at the TT at SonyStyles stores and found 1366x768 a little to small while on an 11.6" screen is perfectly fine. And before seeing this, I had always wanted an 11.1" Sony ultraportable.

DV3 is 1366x768...

and 1366x768 on 14" is not different than a DV4 with 1280x800...

 

You can't compare 16:10 resolutions to 16:9 resolutions just as you can't compare 4:3 resolutions to 16:10. They're simply of a different standard. Phinagle and I once had a debate on this and we've agreed that even naming scheme of screen resolutions(ex: WSXA) vary from manufacturer to manufacturer so it's a pointless argument. DPI is a way of comparing resolutions between different aspect ratios, but it's not totally accurate either.

The only accurate things to write are these facts:

1- You get less surface area on a 16:9 than on a 16:10. As Serg said, the farther away you get from a square, the less area you get. Therefore, the ladder goes 5:4>4:3>16:10>16:9 in terms of pure area. The difference and reason the ongoing shift hasn't seemed so bad was that they upgraded the resolutions half the time during those changes so while you physically got less area, your virtual screen real estate increased(ex: 1024*768 used to be standard notebook resolution in 4:3 and it went to 1280*800 in 16:10).

2- You get less vertical-to-horizontal ratio with 16:9. It's the same ladder as above; 5:4>4:3>16:10>16:9. As the name fo the aspect ratio suggests, they're making screens more rectangular as time passes by.

 

A quick comparison of some model's that I could find easily.....

16:10 latitude/precision 142.41 sq inch footprint 15.4" screen
16:9 inspiron 1545, 141.12 sq inch footprint, 3 sq" smaller 15.6" screen
16:9 Studio 15, 146 sq inch footprint,3 sq" smaller 15.6" screen
16:9 XPS 16 151.8 sq inch footprint 2.8 sq inch bigger 16" screen

16:10 latitude e6400 122.7 sq inch footprint 14.1" screen
16:9 inspiron 14 125 sq inch footprint 5.5 sq inch smaller 14" screen
16:9 new vostro 14 128.64 sq inch footprint 5.5 sq inch smaller 14" screen

old studio 17 16:10 175.62 sq inch footprint
new studio 17 16:9 179.73 sq inch footprint 2.2 sq inch smaller 17.3" screen

old m15X 16:10 156.6 sq inch footprint 15.4" screen
new M15x 16:9 180.79 sq inch footprint 3 sq inch smaller 15.6" screen

Sager NP8662 16:10 151.58 sq inch footprint 15.4" screen
Sager NP8690 16:9 147.5 sq inch footprint 3 sq inch smaller screen....wooohoo, at least there's a couple,there is probably more out there, but the overwhelming majority seem to have added width and not shrunk in depth to account for 16:9 truncated screen's.

So I agree Serg, they should have got smaller [like the screen panel's have] but doesn't seem to be happening in reality, with those brands anyway.

 

It does add width if you are going for a standard resolution screen, because then you are talking about 1280 vs 1366. In the UK the vast majority of notebooks sold have a screen resolution like this.