Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → 16:10 vs 16:9 for monitors
16:10 vs 16:9 for monitors
2009-06-20, 2:51 PM #1
What do you guys think? I personally like 16:10 better (specifically, 1920x1200 / 24") overall because it feels "fuller" / bigger over 1920x1080 at 24". I went to Best Buy to check them out and 1920x1080 just feels "small" to me due to the over-wideness and smaller vertical height. And having black bars when displaying 16:9 content doesn't seem like that big of a deal since a lot of movies are shorter than 16:9 and display black bars anyways. =/

1920x1200 seems to be more expensive, though, so I'm not sure if it's worth the difference. Mreh.
一个大西瓜
2009-06-20, 2:57 PM #2
I have no idea.

But I have a 16:10 tv and it does my nut in.
nope.
2009-06-20, 5:02 PM #3
No, Because it messes with some consoles that don't have 16:10, and the difference is so tiny. I would have 16:9 but this was on sale.
2009-06-20, 5:09 PM #4
But I don't have any consoles
一个大西瓜
2009-06-20, 5:50 PM #5
The difference is still too small to be any real use.
2009-06-20, 6:23 PM #6
16:10 is closer to the golden ratio, not that it means much for viewing, only because 16:9 is apparently standard for a lot more things.
if(GetLocalPlayerThing() != jkGetLocalPlayer()) call implode_universe;
2009-06-20, 6:24 PM #7
I don't watch movies/TV on my computer, and 16:10 is more standard for PC stuff (games and the like), so I prefer 16:10 as a computer monitor.
2009-06-20, 8:57 PM #8
4:3
"Nulla tenaci invia est via"
2009-06-20, 9:03 PM #9
What Darth said.

16:9 is the standard for TVs; 16:10 is the standard for monitors. Unequivocally if you get a 16:9 display it's intended to be used as a TV set.

That said, computers can output at basically any resolution but devices intended for televisions (like DVD players) expect a 16:9 aspect ratio.
2009-06-21, 8:54 AM #10
Not to mention that, as you said Pommy, 16:10 seems "fuller" because of the extra height and will be more useful for computer activities. Web browsing is a hell of a lot better in portrait than in landscape, for example.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2009-06-21, 9:03 AM #11
I like 16:9 just because there are no black bars in widescreen. :P

Then again, I'm running two, so I have both options (1680x1050 20" and 1920x1080 23").
woot!
2009-06-21, 9:45 AM #12
Originally posted by JLee:
I like 16:9 just because there are no black bars in widescreen. :P


Sure there are. The most common aspect ratio in North America is 1.85:1, wider than 16:9.
2009-06-21, 9:46 AM #13
I don't get the fuss about black bars. If I'm going to sit down through a whole movie, I usually do so in the dark. Not to mention that the bezels on most monitors (including mine) are black, so in a dim environment you never notice anything but the film itself.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2009-06-21, 9:57 AM #14
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Sure there are. The most common aspect ratio in North America is 1.85:1, wider than 16:9.


I just checked my BSG HD DVDs, Heroes HD DVDs and Firefly DVD set and they were all 1:78:1.

I don't watch a lot of movies. :P

Originally posted by Emon:
I don't get the fuss about black bars. If I'm going to sit down through a whole movie, I usually do so in the dark. Not to mention that the bezels on most monitors (including mine) are black, so in a dim environment you never notice anything but the film itself.


It's not the end of the world, but it's still kinda nice. Like watching DVDs when used to 1080P HD. It's still enjoyable, but it's the little things. :P
woot!
2009-06-21, 3:00 PM #15
Why do I hate black bars?

Because my TV set is a 32inch 4:3 CRT TV. You can guess how small the screen ends up.

I like... either one? I've got 5:4 right now.
2009-06-21, 4:16 PM #16
this is a dumb poll, cause whether or not it's worth it to any one of us, has nothing to do with whether or not it's worth it to you. You want us to tell you what kind of music to like too? :p
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Lassev: I guess there was something captivating in savagery, because I liked it.
2009-06-21, 4:20 PM #17
I'm going to save that post and edit it slightly for every time you make an opinion.

:psyduck:
nope.
2009-06-21, 4:57 PM #18
Originally posted by Sarn_Cadrill:
this is a dumb poll, cause whether or not it's worth it to any one of us, has nothing to do with whether or not it's worth it to you. You want us to tell you what kind of music to like too? :p


I'm intersted in other people's opinions on the subject, not trying to formulate my own / it's market research

And besides that my opinions are influenced to some degree by other people's opinions as they might provide insight or alert me to things that I hadn't noticed or considered before (this applies to all things and not just monitors :p)
一个大西瓜
2009-06-21, 5:23 PM #19
I my case, it's not worth it because I have a 360. Unfortunately my TV is a 16:10 (but I'm not missing anything atleast, the black bars that show look like the TV is turned off so it's hardly noticeable. An inch on the top and bottom. But it's a pretty old LCD
"Nulla tenaci invia est via"
2009-06-21, 7:52 PM #20
Get three 16:10 monitors, turn them on their sides to make them 10:16, and put them together into one 30:16 display.

↑ Up to the top!