Personal computing discussed

Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel

 
paulWTAMU
Emperor Gerbilius I
Topic Author
Posts: 6257
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:14 am
Location: Dallas, Texas

has 16:10 lost?

Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:34 pm

I'm looking at upgrading my monitor sometime this year, and I'm noticing that, particularly in the larger screen sizes and higher resolutions, 16:10 is hard to find, and most things are 16:9. Should I just cave in and go with that? I was looking to upgrade to a 1900x1200 but there's only like 7 listed on newegg, several of which are out of stock. And when I buy after my birthday, I'm worried they'll all be gone.
Ugly people have sex all the time. We wouldn't have 6 and a half billion humans if you had to be beautiful to get laid.
 
potatochobit
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:56 pm

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:45 pm

it depends on the size and price you are aiming for
anything under 24" and 16:9 is probably ur best bet
 
thecoldanddarkone
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2449
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 4:35 pm

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:47 pm

paulWTAMU wrote:
I'm looking at upgrading my monitor sometime this year, and I'm noticing that, particularly in the larger screen sizes and higher resolutions, 16:10 is hard to find, and most things are 16:9. Should I just cave in and go with that? I was looking to upgrade to a 1900x1200 but there's only like 7 listed on newegg, several of which are out of stock. And when I buy after my birthday, I'm worried they'll all be gone.


For some reason that's not accurate. They have other models that are 1900x1200. They have the hp zr24w, dell u2410 and DoubleSight DS-245V all three are 24 inch s-ips, and 1920x1200 monitors. I just purchased the hp zr24w with my tax return.

edit: I should note, that if your looking for a professional/high end lcd you'll probably be able to find one at that resolution. If you're looking for a tn panel it'll probably be 1920x1080.
I7 4930k, 32 GB Ballistix DDRL3@2133 , 1.2 TB Intel 750 AIC, 500 GB mx200, Sapphire R9 Fury, asus x79 ws, HP ZR24w, edifier s730
HP Pro x2 612- i5-4302Y, 8 gigs of memory, 256 ssd
 
bdwilcox
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 12:21 pm

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:56 pm

The best bang for the buck in large monitors is the Asus VW266H (if you're not overly concerned with color accuracy since it's a TN panel). I paid $260 for this 1920x1200, 26" monitor (on sale) and it's gorgeous.
 
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Posts: 19673
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:59 pm

When you can get a 21½" to 23" 1920x1080 monitor with an e-IPS LCD panel for $200-ish, why would you tolerate a nasty TN LCD panel?
· R7-5800X, Liquid Freezer II 280, RoG Strix X570-E, 64GiB PC4-28800, Suprim Liquid RTX4090, 2TB SX8200Pro +4TB S860 +NAS, Define 7 Compact, Super Flower SF-1000F14TP, S3220DGF +32UD99, FC900R OE, DeathAdder2
 
grantmeaname
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1695
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:49 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
Contact:

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:02 pm

bdwilcox wrote:
The best bang for the buck in large monitors is the Asus VW266H (if you're not overly concerned with color accuracy since it's a TN panel). I paid $260 for this 1920x1200, 26" monitor (on sale) and it's gorgeous.


Hann'sG's HG281D (or whatever replaced it) is much the same: it's a 27.5" TN 1920*1200 panel for like $280.
Krogoth wrote:
Care to enlightenment me?
 
DancinJack
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4494
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:27 pm

JustAnEngineer wrote:
When you can get a 21½" to 23" 1920x1080 monitor with an e-IPS LCD panel for $200-ish, why would you tolerate a nasty TN LCD panel?


On point. I used to not think twice about using a TN monitor as my primary display. I have owned my U2410 for just over a year now and the difference is night and day. I thought I was spending a lot of money at the time without a whole lot to show for it, but I was insanely wrong. Having a nice monitor makes my computing experience a whole lot better.

The ergonomics(height,tilt,swivel,pivot) are fantastic with the UltraSharp series.
sRGB and AdobeRGB modes
A plethora of inputs
I love the 16:10 resolution on my U2410 and probably won't be going smaller than 27" for my next monitor.
i7 6700K - Z170 - 16GiB DDR4 - GTX 1080 - 512GB SSD - 256GB SSD - 500GB SSD - 3TB HDD- 27" IPS G-sync - Win10 Pro x64 - Ubuntu/Mint x64 :: 2015 13" rMBP Sierra :: Canon EOS 80D/Sony RX100
 
Synchromesh
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:56 am
Location: The Land of Beetles.
Contact:

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:39 pm

bdwilcox wrote:
The best bang for the buck in large monitors is the Asus VW266H (if you're not overly concerned with color accuracy since it's a TN panel). I paid $260 for this 1920x1200, 26" monitor (on sale) and it's gorgeous.


I've used one at my previous job. The U2410 I currently own is way better on every front except for size itself.
 
paulWTAMU
Emperor Gerbilius I
Topic Author
Posts: 6257
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:14 am
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:00 am

I *really* like the 1900X1200 format is why I'd rather stick with that...but if I can get an IPS panel cheaply enough on the 1920x1080 that's what I'll probably do.
It'll be May--I'm busy trying to add on a shed and increase retirement saving so there's no fun money right now :(

JAE: what would you advise? I hadn't seen a 200ish IPS panel (but then I haven't been looking too hard at that resolution).
Ugly people have sex all the time. We wouldn't have 6 and a half billion humans if you had to be beautiful to get laid.
 
DancinJack
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4494
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:32 am

This and this

You'll have to wait for a sale for them to get down near 200. The U22 is often at 219 and the U23 can be had for 239 fairly often as well.

And as usual keep an eye on slickdeals for coupons and such.
i7 6700K - Z170 - 16GiB DDR4 - GTX 1080 - 512GB SSD - 256GB SSD - 500GB SSD - 3TB HDD- 27" IPS G-sync - Win10 Pro x64 - Ubuntu/Mint x64 :: 2015 13" rMBP Sierra :: Canon EOS 80D/Sony RX100
 
bdwilcox
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 12:21 pm

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:24 am

JustAnEngineer wrote:
When you can get a 21½" to 23" 1920x1080 monitor with an e-IPS LCD panel for $200-ish, why would you tolerate a nasty TN LCD panel?

I thought that would be pretty obvious: it's considerably bigger, it's less vertically challenged, it's easier and more comfortable to read text on it, it's cheaper and it's faster if I play on it. Plus, compared to the image quality of the NEC IPS panel I use at work, it's picture quality is quite nice even for a TN panel. The question really is: if I don't need 8-bit color accuracy or wide viewing angles, why would I buy a slower, smaller, more expensive monitor? Just to say I have the best panel technology available? Meh.
grantmeaname wrote:
Hann'sG's HG281D (or whatever replaced it) is much the same: it's a 27.5" TN 1920*1200 panel for like $280.

Those HannsG's are notorious for having QC issues, so I didn't mention them. The only place I'd consider buying one is at a brick and mortar store so I could easily return it (Costco often has them on sale).
 
flip-mode
Grand Admiral Gerbil
Posts: 10218
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 12:42 pm

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 12:04 pm

JustAnEngineer wrote:
When you can get a 21½" to 23" 1920x1080 monitor with an e-IPS LCD panel for $200-ish, why would you tolerate a nasty TN LCD panel?

I don't think this discussion should be derailed by debates of TN versus IPS and such. :D The topic is really regarding resolution, and the question is about the dearth of 16:10 options. Let's not do the TN/IPS thing yet again.
 
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
Posts: 23043
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:24 pm

Considering that you can get a 1920x1080 monitor for cheaper than a 1680x1050, I'd take the 16:9 any day.
 
Krogoth
Emperor Gerbilius I
Posts: 6049
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:20 pm
Location: somewhere on Core Prime
Contact:

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:32 pm

16:10 fate was sealed once HD standard became mainstream.

There's little reason for monitor manufacturers to dedicate two separate production lines for sightly different aspect ratios. 16:10 is technically superior, but 16:9 source material is more commonplace. Guess where monitor manufacturers are going to gravitate towards? ;)
Gigabyte X670 AORUS-ELITE AX, Raphael 7950X, 2x16GiB of G.Skill TRIDENT DDR5-5600, Sapphire RX 6900XT, Seasonic GX-850 and Fractal Define 7 (W)
Ivy Bridge 3570K, 2x4GiB of G.Skill RIPSAW DDR3-1600, Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H, Corsair CX-750M V2, and PC-7B
 
bdwilcox
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 12:21 pm

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:34 pm

16:9 is cheaper to manufacture. I believe it has something to do with maximum utilization of the sheets they are cut from.
 
morphine
TR Staff
Posts: 11600
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Portugal (that's next to Spain)

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:42 pm

Source material, as Krogoth mentioned, is where it's at. Although a 16:10 monitor is better for viewing websites (more vertical pixels), as soon as you watch a 16:9 video, you're screwed, as all your extra pixels at the top/bottom will go to waste because of scaling 16:9->16:10.
There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(
 
UberGerbil
Grand Admiral Gerbil
Posts: 10368
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:55 pm

I'd say 16:10 has "lost" in the same way that IPS has "lost" -- it's a more-expensive niche than the mainstream, and it will remain so. There was a time when panels destined for TVs were much lower DPI than those generally intended for computer monitors, so the two pools of panels were distinct and the computer monitor pool -- which was smaller and more expensive anyway -- supported a wide variety of techs and resolutions (5:4 and 4:3 along with 16:9 and 16:10). But 1920x1080 is a reasonable resolution for a computer monitor (if a bit vertically-challenged) and the volumes involved with consumer TV panels mean that those are going to be the cheapest option when re-purposed for computer monitors. Which doesn't necessarily mean that 16:10 is going to die out completely, any more than IPS will, but it does mean that it will always be an expensive niche relative to mainstream 16:9 (or TN) monitors.
morphine wrote:
Source material, as Krogoth mentioned, is where it's at. Although a 16:10 monitor is better for viewing websites (more vertical pixels), as soon as you watch a 16:9 video, you're screwed, as all your extra pixels at the top/bottom will go to waste because of scaling 16:9->16:10.
You're in no way "screwed" if you have decent equipment and it's set up correctly. The pixels map one-to-one, and you have black bars at the top and bottom (which come in very handy for the video player controls). Just because they aren't used when the movie is playing doesn't make them "wasted."
 
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
Posts: 23043
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:57 pm

UberGerbil wrote:
You're in no way "screwed" if you have decent equipment and it's set up correctly. The pixels map one-to-one, and you have black bars at the top and bottom (which come in very handy for the video player controls). Just because they aren't used when the movie is playing doesn't make them "wasted."

They work nicely for subtitles too, depending on the movie player. Now if only you could shift the video to the top and have all of the black bars on the bottom for the scrub bar and subs, that'd be fantastic.
 
morphine
TR Staff
Posts: 11600
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Portugal (that's next to Spain)

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:05 pm

UberGerbil wrote:
The pixels map one-to-one, and you have black bars at the top and bottom (which come in very handy for the video player controls). Just because they aren't used when the movie is playing doesn't make them "wasted."

They're black. How are they not wasted? :)

One could make the case for the subtitles, but I don't think *anyone* leaves the movie controls on in full-screen mode.
There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(
 
ludi
Lord High Gerbil
Posts: 8646
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:19 pm

morphine wrote:
They're black. How are they not wasted? :)

If video is your primary application, AND you bought a 16:10 monitor instead of a 16:9 monitor with a large diagnal to give roughly equivalent screen area, then yeah, they might be wasted :P
Abacus Model 2.5 | Quad-Row FX with 256 Cherry Red Slider Beads | Applewood Frame | Water Cooling by Brita Filtration
 
MethylONE
Gerbil XP
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:30 pm
Location: Orlando

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:28 pm

I wondered from day 1 why 16:10 was ever standard at all. 16:9 makes way more sense. All of our content is 16:9 (or wider).

Our eyes are on the left and right after all, the wider the better. I'd like to see some desktop monitors that go much further wide without getting taller.
License to kill gophers.
 
Anomymous Gerbil
Gerbil
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:51 am

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:04 pm

MethylONE wrote:
I wondered from day 1 why 16:10 was ever standard at all. 16:9 makes way more sense. All of our content is 16:9 (or wider).


Huh?

There is a gigantic amount of TV/movie content at <16:9, and loads more at >16:9. There is has never been a hard standard aspect ratio for films, even though a lot of it is now packaged up at 16:9. Sure, most "HD" cameras are now 1920x1080, and TV/film at that res will become more and more common. But if you're serious about TV/movies, including anything more than a few years old, then you're going to have scaling (eww) or black bars with whichever size screen you get. In which case, most people would be better off with 1920x1200 (or whatever) for the additional vertical pixels.
 
potatochobit
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:56 pm

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:31 pm

the reason 16:10 is better is because people don't read a newspaper sideways, you get it now?

also, just fyi, movies are not shot in 16:9
they are still formatted from the film size you see in a theater
 
ludi
Lord High Gerbil
Posts: 8646
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:33 pm

MethylONE wrote:
I wondered from day 1 why 16:10 was ever standard at all. 16:9 makes way more sense. All of our content is 16:9 (or wider).

Our eyes are on the left and right after all, the wider the better. I'd like to see some desktop monitors that go much further wide without getting taller.

Computer displays have been gradually evolving wider from the days when they were simple text terminals and driven by electrons flying through a vacuum. On early CRTs the width-to-height ratio was partially a function of technology limits, but even so, the human eye likes the extra width when dealing with graphical interfaces, but not necessarily when dealing with text. Displays from the early UNIX and DOS days routinely had native resolutions in the range of 1.33:1. A 16:10 monitor is 1.67:1 and was a reasonably good evolution that compromised between the common media types of the time. The switch to 16:9, or 1.78:1, has been driven by manufacturing efficiencies more than anything else, although now that HDTV is mainstream, the media market has been responding by standardizing a lot of content in that range.

The typical human field of view is around 200 degrees horizontal and 100-135 degrees vertical, or somewhere between 2.0:1 and 1.5:1, and a lot of that lives in peripheral vision; the focal field of view is more like 40-50 degrees wide, or about 1/4 of the total visual field width. For immersion, things need to continue happening in the peripheral even while the focal point is occupied on something specific. When concentrating on a specific task, excess peripheral information can be distracting.

IOW, it depends on what you are trying to do and how far you are sitting from the display. There is no rule that wider is always better, and if that were the case, we could just start computing on marquee displays.
Abacus Model 2.5 | Quad-Row FX with 256 Cherry Red Slider Beads | Applewood Frame | Water Cooling by Brita Filtration
 
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Posts: 19673
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:53 pm

ludi wrote:
Displays from the early UNIX and DOS days routinely had native resolutions in the range of 1.33:1.
Not all of them had square pixels.

ludi wrote:
A 16:10 monitor is 1.67:1
:-? :-? :-?
· R7-5800X, Liquid Freezer II 280, RoG Strix X570-E, 64GiB PC4-28800, Suprim Liquid RTX4090, 2TB SX8200Pro +4TB S860 +NAS, Define 7 Compact, Super Flower SF-1000F14TP, S3220DGF +32UD99, FC900R OE, DeathAdder2
 
paulWTAMU
Emperor Gerbilius I
Topic Author
Posts: 6257
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:14 am
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:27 pm

frankly for office work I'd rather have 2-3 regular, non wide screen monitors of 17"-20" vs one widescreen--but for gaming and video? Widescreen!
Ugly people have sex all the time. We wouldn't have 6 and a half billion humans if you had to be beautiful to get laid.
 
bdwilcox
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 12:21 pm

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:27 pm

"CinemaScope [widescreen] is fine for snakes and coffins, but not for people." -Fritz Lang

Take a look at this early widescreen monitor...
 
morphine
TR Staff
Posts: 11600
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Portugal (that's next to Spain)

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:45 am

Entertaining the thought of, in the future, buy a 22" IPS screen and put it sideways for web e-mail.
There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(
 
Wirko
Gerbil Team Leader
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:38 am
Location: Central Europe

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:03 am

It's not just the aspect ratio that matters. I need enough vertical space, both in pixels and millimeters, for browsing/office/programming/graphics, and enough horizontal space for video and programming; when I have both, the ratio is not that important. 1920x1200 to me is perfect for every need and 2133x1200 (16:9) would be a little bit better.
 
grantmeaname
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1695
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:49 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
Contact:

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:53 am

That's because 2133*1200 is bigger than 1920*1200; of course it's better! The question to me is how much it sucks to lose 120 vertical pixels, not how nice it would be to gain 213 horizontal pixels, especially when no such devices exist.
Krogoth wrote:
Care to enlightenment me?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
GZIP: On