16:9 vs 16:10 ratio thread

[kabunaru]

This thread is a continuation of the 16:9 vs 16:10 argument from here:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6019053&posted=1#post6019053

16:10 guys, why do you think 16:10 is better?

16:9 guys, why do you think 16:9 is better?

Discuss to your heart's desires.

[.Chris]

Both are good. Keep in mind if the resolution is right (such as 1920x1200) in the 16x9 setting then there wont be any problems.

Many people are unaware of this and think apple is stupid and will add the current resolutions to a 16:9 but I fell apple will do the right thing and add the correct ones.

Arguing about this is pointless. If you dont like one format then so be it. dont put down others views as it will only make you look stupid.

[iMacmatician]

16:10 advantages:

Higher resolution for the same ppi and "
More vertical resolution
Higher resolutions for 1280·x, 1920·x, and 2560·x
Wider range of resolutions (as of now), including high-res 15.4" 1920·1200
17", 20", and 24" displays have higher resolutions (both ways) than 16", 18.4", and 21" 16:9 displays (except for 1920*x)

16:9 advantages:

Wider so no "black bars" when watching 16:9 movies
Wider so easier to display two things side-by-side
Cheaper panels
High-res 13.1" 1600·900 panel has no 13" 16:10 equivalent
Can fit a full-size keyboard in a smaller display size
16", 18.4", and 21" displays are physically wider than 15", 17", and 20" 16:10 displays for similar heights

[kabunaru]

I guess Apple should go with 16:9. I like the benefits it has more than 16:10.

[Galley]

I wished all motion pictures were shot in 16:9. 2.35:1 is way too wide. :(

[mrkgoo]

Wait, surely aren't many of the "advantages" related to screen size, not ratio?

You can equally see a 16:10 screen as a 16:9 with the sides chopped off, or the 16:9 as a 16:10 with the top chopped off. Surely advantages such as keyboard size compared to screen size is negligible.

[iToaster]

Personally, I prefer any screen larger than 12" be 16:10, not 16:9 as that's just too thin to work with for me. 16:10 is pretty close to the golden ratio and thus looks better to the eye than 16:9 does... however, in the end all it is is preference.

[kabunaru]

Can somebody make a 16:9 ratio MacBook mock-up please, if that is possible? :D
Thank you.
I don't have Photoshop.

[tk421]

I wished all motion pictures were shot in 16:9. 2.35:1 is way too wide. :(

Almost no movies are shot 16:9. It's a TV resolution.

Most movies are shot 1.85:1, and 16:9 translates to 1.78:1, so it's really close. Other common movie sizes are 1.66:1 and 2.35:1. Personally, my favorite is 2.35:1. :D

[Jak3]

I think 16:9 is better due to most new TVs having this aspect ratio, but really, just using the screen, it's really hard to tell the difference when using it so I'm really impartial to this, either way, I'll be happy...

and if you can tell the difference (just by looking at it), that's just freaky....:eek:

[kabunaru]

and if you can tell the difference (just by looking at it), that's just freaky....:eek:

I can tell the difference.

[Nermal]

Most movies are shot 1.85:1, and 16:9 translates to 1.78:1, so it's really close. Other common movie sizes are 1.66:1 and 2.35:1. Personally, my favorite is 2.35:1. :D

I have the Matrix and Harry Potter movies in HD and the box claims that they're 2.4:1, not 2.35. Is this a rounding issue, or are they actually slightly wider?

Edit: Courtesy of Wikipedia, "The anamorphic standard has subtly changed so that modern anamorphic productions are actually 2.39, but often referred to as 2.35 anyway, due to old convention" and "Sometimes rounded up to 2.40:1".

[tk421]

I have the Matrix and Harry Potter movies in HD and the box claims that they're 2.4:1, not 2.35. Is this a rounding issue, or are they actually slightly wider?

Edit: Courtesy of Wikipedia, "The anamorphic standard has subtly changed so that modern anamorphic productions are actually 2.39, but often referred to as 2.35 anyway, due to old convention" and "Sometimes rounded up to 2.40:1".

Yep, you got it. 2.35, 2.40, 2.39. Same thing.

[Techguy172]

I Prefer 16:10 It's better for standard Computer use. You need some height.

[kabunaru]

I think this post shows a good example of the difference between 16:9 ratio and 16:10 ratio:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6390200&postcount=436

Also, included 4:3 ratio in there as well. ;)

[jstanier]

I certainly wouldn't mind any form of widescreen, as long as the overall height is decent enough for it continue to be something nice to work on, rather than just something shaped to watch films nicely.

[DaveTheGrey]

Almost no movies are shot 16:9. It's a TV resolution.

Most movies are shot 1.85:1, and 16:9 translates to 1.78:1, so it's really close. Other common movie sizes are 1.66:1 and 2.35:1. Personally, my favorite is 2.35:1. :D

lol I didn't understand a word.... :D

[kabunaru]

lol I didn't understand a word.... :D

This is high-end geek stuff. :D

[dukebound85]

16:10 is alot nicer to me

Sucks how the industry is moving to 16:9 imo

[costabunny]

I was always a 16:10 fan, but since moving to a 16:9 (Ilyama) I am finding the love. I play COD a lot and its great on that and also despite thinking the lower vertical res would annoy me in PS & CorelDraw; it doesnt.

Somehow I prefer the look of the wider format screen - seems to 'fit' better when you look at it.

(Wish dell would make a 32" 16:9) :)

To be honest I feel for those using their screen mostly for production (CS, PS, FC etc) then a 16:10 is better for the pixel real estate, but for those who do occasional design stuff (me), and play games, browse the web and watch movies/tv then the 16:10 seems a little more practical.

^^ all my opinion tho

[Maserati7200]

16:9 advantages:
Wider so easier to display two things side-by-side
[/LIST]

Actually it wouldn't make a difference. Similar screens of 16:10 and 16:9 would be 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 respectively. So the 16:10 screen still has the same amount of horizontal pixels (1920), so it would ot be any wider to fit anything more. The only difference real-estate wise is that the 16:10 would have more vertical room (16:10 would have 1200 vertical, and 16:9 would have 1080 vertical).

[Heilage]

I will always find 16:10 to be better, but since it problaby will be a dead format in while (why beats me. There is no logical corrolation between ratios on TV's and computer monitors to make it so that they have to be the same) I'll have to go with the flow.

Also, the resolutions get switched down. Now, 20" is 1600x900 instead of 1680x1050 and 24" is 1920x1080 (aka 1080p) instead of 1920x1200. The panels suck anyway, it seems the IPS and PVA panels are dying out with the 16:10 format, which means that for us designers it will get increasingly more expensive to get proper colors in our work.

[akm3]

I don't really care about the ratio (within reason) but I *do* care about vertical resolution. More = better.

Since most 16:9 displays just take an existing 16:10 resolution and lop off pixels (1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200 for example) I tend to prefer the 16:10.

however, if they would come out with some 16x9 with decent vertical resolution (like that 2048x11xx) or whatever, then we can start to talk.

2560x1600 = lovely.

[Tomorrow]

Seems to me that the 16:9 panels are mimicking the TV aspect ratios, which is driving the price down; but to me, there's no redeeming reason to do this to a computer screen.

A 16:9 screen can do NOTHING that a 16:10 screen can't do.

I don't watch movies on my computers; I have a TV for that.

[ThirteenXIII]

to me it seems logical...i think the way things are being done that everything will form to a certain standard so television and computer displays could be completely interchangable as well as video formats for HD Digital video and/or if BluRay catches onto a complete standard...and well know apples take on BR.

so to me it sort of make sense but it will take a while for everything to come together in a form that meshes well with all forms of upcoming tech and multimedia products.


so it should be interesting to see the way the new imacs shape up.


:cool:

[Full of Win]

16:9 is just a way to rob us of pixels. If they increase PPI/lower dot pitch, then no problem. However, if they keep the same DPI and just chop off the bottom, then its a problem

[gunraidan]

16:9 for watching movies and playing video games.

16:10 for computing and media creation.

[dontwalkhand]

I prefer 16:10 just because it makes sense when you are editing a 16:9 movie, to have room for your toolbars and application menus/UI.

It doesn't make sense for the computers to lower down to the crappier TV aspect ratio.

[Heilage]

16:9 is just a way to rob us of pixels. If they increase PPI/lower dot pitch, then no problem. However, if they keep the same DPI and just chop off the bottom, then its a problem

That's the good thing with the new 27" iMac. That resolution is pretty slick. You get way more pixels than from other 27" screens out there who have 16:10 (standard is pretty much 1920x1200 on those).

[Rodimus Prime]

I must be one of the old school guys who likes the old 4:3 format. My biggest problem with the wide screen formate (both 16:9 and 16:10) is neither have enough vertical pixels. Most of the stuff I work on his a lot more vertical information over horizontal. That and I am a fan of 2 4:3 monitors. One for working and one to hold relative information I need to keep looking at.

As between 16:9 and 16:10. I see 16:9 winning out because TV are in that format now and cost wise it will be cheaper to produce 16:9 because everything for TV is already set up for that fact so equipment to produce the monitors will be cheaper for the 16:9 format.

[ss957916]

With the new HD and better-than-HD displays on the iMac it makes perfect sense to have them 16:9 - great for watching all your HD Bluray movies... oh, hang on.

[cube]

It DOESN'T make sense. You waste all the vertical space available over your monitor.

1:1 FTW

[paolo-]

Beats me why you would want a wider screen, other than movies what benefits from 16:9 (okay, your wallet perhaps), even then, in a short while, most computer screens will be of higher def than HD, so who cares about little black lines. Web browsing, typing/reading documents, coding... all vertical!

[KRB24]

16:10 ups:

(1) More real estate.


16:10 downs

(1) Looks more boxy (aesthetics). I like how 16:9's look.
(2) The base is boxy as well, which prevents the keyboard from being larger/wider.


Verdict: I'll go with 16:10.

[DingleButt]

Ive had both and with Windows 8 coming, Id rather have 16:9. But 16:10 was nice while I had it too. It was a bit weird going 16:10 to 16:9 at first though.

On Macs with OS X I think 16:10 is a better choice though.