16:9 versus 16:10 Aspect Ratio: Am I the only one…?

[nemadeka]

Like Homer Simpson said - "If I don't care, this does not mean I don't understand".
I am looking for new laptop. Most likely it will be 16:9 because of the offered range.
Most likely it will be a transformer, allowing me to compensate the inconveniences of this aspect ratio.
However, nobody can ever convince me that 4:3 is wrong, at least because I worked at an airbase and remember very well what a good HUD looks like: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/F-18_HUD_gun_symbology.jpeg/220px-F-18_HUD_gun_symbology.jpeg
No fancy widescreens.
Same in real life, same on the training video-wall.
I am not coming back to this thread, sorry, no time for pointless discussions.

 

[Anthony_1610]

Zippy I am 100% with you on this. I am just now looking to replace my old 1280 x 800 laptop and am frustrated by the near universal offering of 16:9 screens. What if I actually want to do some work? 16:10 is more practical than 16:9, and in fact Microsoft has chosen 3:2 for their Surface Book. The tide will turn. Hopefully very soon.

 

[trifler]

Zippy I agree with you completely. I still use a 25" 1920x1200 monitor that I've held off on replacing because I prefer playing my games with the added height. Office apps are a hundred times better with the added height. Over the years I have written and called all of the major monitor manufacturers to request that they continue making 1920x1200 for mainstream users, but they don't care. There are still some for graphics professionals, but they cost at least 50% more.

Some of the responses above got it right but some don't seem to know the reasons behind the switch. While the movie industry was interested in 1080p, they weren't really pushing for it to become the one-and-only resolution. For a while we had TVs that supported a variety of resolutions. What happened at the time was the TV manufacturers started getting thousands and thousands of calls from people asking why their TV had these "bars" across the top and bottom of the screen. They couldn't get it through their heads that the screen was displaying the bars to allow them to see more on the sides. Instead, they thought the TV was "wasting" the top and bottom of the screen by not using it. Some efforts were made to educate the public, but ultimately the manufacturers just gave up and decided to stop making other resolutions for TVs.

At the same time, they were getting a lot of the same calls about "bars" for computer monitors, and once they decided to stop making other resolutions for TVs, they had even less reason to keep making other resolutions for computers. They all come out of the same factories, for the most part.

The 16:9, or widescreen as it is often called, is primarily about movies. Its universal adoption on computers was really just to allow them to use the same panels. Most gamers prefer the old 16:10, but have given up on it happening. Productivity applications benefit tremendously from 16:10.

I know of a small number of people who have bought three monitors and put them all in portrait orientation to get a view that is closer to 16:9 when looking at all three together.

That's interesting to read what Anthony wrote about the 3:2 for the Surface Book.

 

[ZippyPeanut]

It's good to know that there others who are frustrated by this trend. When I originally posted this thread, I was shopping for a gaming monitor. Now I'm beginning to shop again for another gaming monitor. There's been lots of good technological developments in the past few years, and I'm looking forward to all the learning that goes along with researching the "perfect" monitor. In order to compensate for less vertical space, I'll have to go large--maybe 34 inches, and that's going to hurt the wallet. But I want that vertical space one way or another.

 

[trifler]

Going 34" will only give the illusion of more vertical space. Unless you go to a higher resolution, the number of pixels remains the same. Maybe you mean 3840 x 2160 on a 34" monitor?

 

[ZippyPeanut]

Yes, definitely higher resolution than 1080. Thanks for this useful observation.

And this reminds me of another question that's been rolling around in the back of my mind for a while: At one time it was highly recommended that you play games at the monitor's native resolution. One thing that has kept me from getting a 4k or 2560 X 1440 (or 1600) is that in some games my two overclocked 670s in SLI will not yield an acceptably high enough frame rate at such high resolutions. In such cases, I'd like to just change the resolution down to 1080, but I'm still haunted by the advice that you should play at the monitor's native resolution. I wonder if that old advice still applies to today's newest monitors..

 

[ZippyPeanut]

Going 34" will only give the illusion of more vertical space. Unless you go to a higher resolution, the number of pixels remains the same. Maybe you mean 3840 x 2160 on a 34" monitor?

Yes, definitely higher resolution than 1080. Thanks for this useful observation.

And this reminds me of another question that's been rolling around in the back of my mind for a while: At one time it was highly recommended that you play games at the monitor's native resolution. One thing that has kept me from getting a 4k or 2560 X 1440 (or 1600) is that in some games my two overclocked 670s in SLI will not yield an acceptably high enough frame rate at such high resolutions. In such cases, I'd like to just change the resolution down to 1080, but I'm still haunted by the advice that you should play at the monitor's native resolution. I wonder if that old advice still applies to today's newest monitors..

 

[newbie12]

I wouldn't mind a 16:10 version of UHD(not that IBM crap - 22" too small for me(and I think it's discontinued as well anyways! 😛)...hahahah, 30" or bigger @UHD/4k resolution for me), so a resolution of 3840x2400 instead of 3840x2160. I heard there's 16:10 version of true 4K and it's 4096x2560! I forgot where/what monitor that was from, but last I remember - it was crazy expensive!

 

[Aaron Chavez]

16:9 has become the standard because thats what most widescreen movies use. Stop having a whinge, they do this so you can get cheap monitors, so they dont have to make different panels for every occasion.

The man speaks the truth, award him the solution!

 

[trifler]

Duplicate please delete

 

[trifler]

And this reminds me of another question that's been rolling around in the back of my mind for a while: At one time it was highly recommended that you play games at the monitor's native resolution. One thing that has kept me from getting a 4k or 2560 X 1440 (or 1600) is that in some games my two overclocked 670s in SLI will not yield an acceptably high enough frame rate at such high resolutions. In such cases, I'd like to just change the resolution down to 1080, but I'm still haunted by the advice that you should play at the monitor's native resolution. I wonder if that old advice still applies to today's newest monitors..

Modern monitors are better about it, but LCD technology will always have lower image quality at non-native resolution because the pixels on an LCD are fixed. The old CRT monitor technology was able to adjust resolution on the fly because it literally drew the image on the back of the screen. My understanding is that when an LCD displays a lower resolution, it combines two or more pixels and draws it as one. Newer monitors have improved their ability to blend the colors of the combined pixels to make them look less blocky.

A lot of gamers say that they were able to switch off anti-aliasing with the 1440p without losing clarity, which made up for the higher resolution. I haven't tried it myself. Of course, the next time you upgrade your video card(s), it won't be an issue, at least not at 1440p.

On another note for the future, for gaming I personally would recommend 1440p at 144Hz over 2160p (4K) at 60Hz. Opinions vary, but I find most people who opt for the 2160p at 60Hz haven't tried even tried 144Hz, much less with Gsync/Freesync.

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

I have a 2560x1440 25" monitor and play most of my games at that resolution. Anti-aliasing is a non-issue as the higher resolution does indeed keep the jaggies at bay. For the few games that I do play at 1920x1080, I use x2 MSAA or TXAA, as long as the game runs at 60 fps.

Playing games at a lower resolution than the monitor's native one doesn't affect my gaming experience, buy playing at a resolution with a different aspect ratio certainly would.

The specs of my PC can be found be hovering over my picture.

 

[newbie12]

And this reminds me of another question that's been rolling around in the back of my mind for a while: At one time it was highly recommended that you play games at the monitor's native resolution. One thing that has kept me from getting a 4k or 2560 X 1440 (or 1600) is that in some games my two overclocked 670s in SLI will not yield an acceptably high enough frame rate at such high resolutions. In such cases, I'd like to just change the resolution down to 1080, but I'm still haunted by the advice that you should play at the monitor's native resolution. I wonder if that old advice still applies to today's newest monitors..

Modern monitors are better about it, but LCD technology will always have lower image quality at non-native resolution because the pixels on an LCD are fixed. The old CRT monitor technology was able to adjust resolution on the fly because it literally drew the image on the back of the screen. My understanding is that when an LCD displays a lower resolution, it combines two or more pixels and draws it as one. Newer monitors have improved their ability to blend the colors of the combined pixels to make them look less blocky.

Nope, running 1920x1200 on a 1600p monitor is still blurry on my HP ZR30w when I had it because State of Decay (SOD) had a max resolution of 1920x1200....

A lot of gamers say that they were able to switch off anti-aliasing with the 1440p without losing clarity, which made up for the higher resolution. I haven't tried it myself. Of course, the next time you upgrade your video card(s), it won't be an issue, at least not at 1440p.

I did notice some Anti-Aliasing does blur the edges a bit as to make it look smoother without the jagginess but turning it off would of course make it clearer and sharper but also more jaggier.

On another note for the future, for gaming I personally would recommend 1440p at 144Hz over 2160p (4K) at 60Hz. Opinions vary, but I find most people who opt for the 2160p at 60Hz haven't tried even tried 144Hz, much less with Gsync/Freesync.

I've tried 144Hz but opted for 2160p @ 60Hz instead, don't get me wrong, 144hz is great; less tearing at higher refresh rates and less input lag too, to boot which in turns makes for a smoother gameplay - provided that your PC hardware is able to dish out at least 144fps consistently in whatever resolution that your monitor is able to display at 144Hz....

Now the reason I went straight to 2160p60, rather than 144Hz @ 1440p was because I already had a 1600p monitor so I know what it's like to play at that resolution - and 1440p is slightly less height pixels so it'd be similar, now I just want more screen estate and see what it's like to play @ native 2160p! Besides, as far as I know, there's no hardware capable of playing *any* game at this current point in time at a consistent 144fps @ 2160p resolution(otherwise I'd love a 144Hz 2160p monitor instead, however I couldn't wait for a 144Hz version to come out so pulled the trigger and got it). So I thought, yeah why might as well at least I'll be with those group of 4k/UHD'ers, heh.

I have a 2560x1440 25" monitor and play most of my games at that resolution. Anti-aliasing is a non-issue as the higher resolution does indeed keep the jaggies at bay.

Perhaps to you if you don't mind or can't see it, but I can and depending on the situations, I may or may not mind having jagginess on edges. I'll pick Tomb Raider (2013) as an example. At 2560x1600, I could still see jagginess on edges, but when I turn on SSA 4x - it's all gone and looks beautiful.

Playing games at a lower resolution than the monitor's native one doesn't affect my gaming experience, buy playing at a resolution with a different aspect ratio certainly would.

Both of these affect *my* gaming experience.....hahahaha, I can't stand blurriness coz the game doesn't support the monitor's native resolution....*cough* SOD *cough*

 

[trifler]

And this reminds me of another question that's been rolling around in the back of my mind for a while: At one time it was highly recommended that you play games at the monitor's native resolution. One thing that has kept me from getting a 4k or 2560 X 1440 (or 1600) is that in some games my two overclocked 670s in SLI will not yield an acceptably high enough frame rate at such high resolutions. In such cases, I'd like to just change the resolution down to 1080, but I'm still haunted by the advice that you should play at the monitor's native resolution. I wonder if that old advice still applies to today's newest monitors..

Modern monitors are better about it, but LCD technology will always have lower image quality at non-native resolution because the pixels on an LCD are fixed. The old CRT monitor technology was able to adjust resolution on the fly because it literally drew the image on the back of the screen. My understanding is that when an LCD displays a lower resolution, it combines two or more pixels and draws it as one. Newer monitors have improved their ability to blend the colors of the combined pixels to make them look less blocky.

Nope, running 1920x1200 on a 1600p monitor is still blurry on my HP ZR30w when I had it because State of Decay (SOD) had a max resolution of 1920x1200....

If it's still blurry running 1920x1200 on a 1600p monitor, then that's in agreement with my statement, not against it, so I don't know why you said "Nope".

 

[newbie12]

And this reminds me of another question that's been rolling around in the back of my mind for a while: At one time it was highly recommended that you play games at the monitor's native resolution. One thing that has kept me from getting a 4k or 2560 X 1440 (or 1600) is that in some games my two overclocked 670s in SLI will not yield an acceptably high enough frame rate at such high resolutions. In such cases, I'd like to just change the resolution down to 1080, but I'm still haunted by the advice that you should play at the monitor's native resolution. I wonder if that old advice still applies to today's newest monitors..

Modern monitors are better about it, but LCD technology will always have lower image quality at non-native resolution because the pixels on an LCD are fixed. The old CRT monitor technology was able to adjust resolution on the fly because it literally drew the image on the back of the screen. My understanding is that when an LCD displays a lower resolution, it combines two or more pixels and draws it as one. Newer monitors have improved their ability to blend the colors of the combined pixels to make them look less blocky.

Nope, running 1920x1200 on a 1600p monitor is still blurry on my HP ZR30w when I had it because State of Decay (SOD) had a max resolution of 1920x1200....

If it's still blurry running 1920x1200 on a 1600p monitor, then that's in agreement with my statement, not against it, so I don't know why you said "Nope".

It was towards the first bit of that sentence(of the paragraph) and the last bit of that paragraph you typed...

Oh yes, you're right(just noticed what you said in the second half of the first sentence of that paragraph, hahaha - so wasn't answering the paragraph as whole but bits of it - should have been more specific with my quotes, sorry), but my experiences still stand though and backs your statement up. 😀