has 16:10 lost?

From the pixels, bits, and shaders to the graphic cards that power them. Discuss the latest from AMD and NVIDIA here.

Moderators: morphine, SecretSquirrel

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Postposted on Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:37 am

How much it sucks? My rough non-linear estimate is that 10% less V space makes a display 15% worse, while 10% more H space would make it 6% better.

Not sure about 2048x1152 though (Acer, Dell, Samsung, all TN). I think I could live with that without developing claustrophobia.
Wirko
Gerbil
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:38 am
Location: Central Europe

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Postposted on Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:25 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.


There are a few, the HP LP2475W, ZR.... the Dell U2410, NEC has a few.

If it's the vertical space you want, just get a 16:9 NEC 232wmi, it has an e-ips and fully adjustable stand so you can rotate is 90 degrees.

Myself if I had the money I would get the HP LP2475W or Dell U2410 which ever has the better sale price.

Check out tft central for reviews.

Happy shopping.
Life doesn't change after marriage, it changes after children!
anotherengineer
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:53 pm
Location: Timmins, ON Canada, Yes I know, Up in the sticks

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Postposted on Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:20 pm

My primary monitor was 1280x1024 for a very long time, and I always thought that widescreens suck, and I was completely sure that the next one is going to be as squarish as it can get, and that 16:9 is an abomination.

Then I was walking through the shop one day, and noticed that 24" 16:9 screen were sold for few dollars... Brought one. Now I wish I had a screen with 20:9 aspect or something like that, the wider the better, 16:9 is squarish. Especially if you watch movies or game. And yea, 1920x1080 is not really that huge of a screen, I could use twice the size. Of course, the old screen helps to extend and widen the desktop so 1920+1280 is somewhat ok, with 1280 desktop being unbearably narrow.

I'm glad I brought 16:9, black bars in movies are annoying, and a lot of movies are even wider than 16:9, so even on this format you'll get the bars.
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 3:55 am
Location: Latvia

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Postposted on Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:36 pm

DancinJack wrote:
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

Agreed. I've got a pair of U2411's, and they are fantastic.
Buub
Maximum Gerbil
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4175
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:59 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Postposted on Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:15 am

For anything consumer, 16:10 seems to be dead and 16:9 is kicking everybody's butt around. Personally, I DON'T like it. Give me my vertical pixels back dammit. There still seems to be nisch markets, like photography where 16:10 is still the norm, and I would expect that continue for quite a while, but since I saw that many of the new 27"'ers are actually 16:9, it might be too late.

That said, this thread is dangerous, I had no idea Dell had AdobeRGB compatible screens out, so thanks to this thread I just ordered a Dell U3011 that will be delivered tonight as a complement to the sandy bridge pc i build in january. Perfect timing since I will start running all my 5D mark 2 shoots from New Zealand through Lightroom this weekend after the first rounds of organizing and sorting. Good thing I got a 6970 graphics card though, seems like it will get a fair workout after all with that resolution.
Aphasia
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3354
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Solna/Sweden

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Postposted on Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:24 am

A couple of deals that might interest some folks.

The U2711 can be had for 825 USD through Mar 7 with coupon code :VX30ZRKCH08MLN

The U2410 is also on sale right now for 479 USD. A 16:10 monitor worth picking up if you're looking for one.
i7 860 - GA-P55-USB3 - 8GiB - HD7850 - SSD - 3.64TB HDD - Xonar D1 - U2410 - Win7 Pro x64.
DancinJack
Gerbil Jedi
 
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: Cambridge,MA

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Postposted on Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:20 pm

Most cinematic content is 2.53:1, which would blow for a computer screen, because, you know, people do like to do other things on their computers besides watch movies. HD TV's are of course 16:9, and since manufacturing of TV's and computer screens are generally done using the same mother glass, it's just plain cheaper for manufacturers to cut 16:9 for everything. So, in my estimation, 16:10 hasn't lost, the consumer has lost, not just vertical pixels (which blows), but also in resolution.

Case in point: Dell E2011H, a 20" LCD with 1600x900 resolution and LED backlights. Very cheaply made, low-ish DPI, with a TN panel with poor IQ. The difference I believe is the backlight in this case. Anyway, these are replacing 17" Ultrasharps with great IQ (using DVI), but people prefer the E2011H for the simplest reason: the icons are bigger.

This also brings me to the side note that while Mac's can scale the icons to whatever DPI for acceptable reading, Windows still has the same three basic settings. Two of those settings still have formatting problems.
Last edited by drsauced on Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
Calm seas never made a skilled mariner.
drsauced
Graphmaster Gerbil
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 12:38 pm
Location: Here!

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Postposted on Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:21 pm

Buub wrote:Agreed. I've got a pair of U2411's, and they are fantastic.

Wait, you have U2411s? I thought those were just rumors. How are they different from the U2410?
Zoomastigophora
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:10 pm

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Postposted on Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:34 pm

Zoomastigophora wrote:
Buub wrote:Agreed. I've got a pair of U2411's, and they are fantastic.

Wait, you have U2411s? I thought those were just rumors. How are they different from the U2410?

Sorry you're right -- I was smoking something. They are in fact U2410's, but they are still fantastic. :-)
Buub
Maximum Gerbil
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4175
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:59 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Postposted on Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:04 pm

I dont have my webserver up, but i did some calibration of my old BenQ and my new U3011 with the Spyder3elite and then put the resulting profile into the compare at http://www.iccview.de to get a 3D representation and a screenshot of the 3d Model. Turns out that, contrary to the review of the 3011, it actually has a larger gamut then even AdobeRGB is capable of when set to custom. Also, the included AdobeRGB profilee is quite decent from factory already. Funny how different an image look between an BenQ and the Dell now when one can actually reproduce the colors that the camera captured.

The only thing that is a bit offputting with the dell is the anti-glare coating. The coating on the BenQ FP241W I used before wasnt matte, but it wasnt glossey either, more like semi-matte / semi-glossy, which as it turns out, are great for clarity. The Dell screens can look like they have a bit of grainyness to the surface infront of the screen. Although its the same grain as a Firehawk projector screen gives, so one gets used to it after a week or so.
Aphasia
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3354
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Solna/Sweden

Re: has 16:10 lost?

Postposted on Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:31 pm

Congratulations on the UltraSharp U3011. Upgrading from a 20" to a 30" monitor was the biggest "Wow!" factor I'd seen in PC computing since the Amiga days.

I've got the UltraSharp U2410 on the other PC, and it's a terrific monitor for $450+tax.
i7-4770K, H70, Gryphon Z87, 16 GiB, R9-290, SSD, 2 HD, Blu-ray, SB ZX, TJ08-E, SS-660XP², 3007WFP+2001FP, RK-9000BR, MX518
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15137
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Previous

Return to Graphics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests