16:9 vs 16:10 ratio thread

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by kabunaru, Aug 11, 2008.

  1. kabunaru Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #1
  2. .Chris macrumors 6502a

    .Chris

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    #2
    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.
     
  3. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #3
    It depends on what you want.

    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
     
  4. kabunaru thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #4
    I guess Apple should go with 16:9. I like the benefits it has more than 16:10.
     
  5. Galley macrumors 65816

    Galley

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    #5
    I wished all motion pictures were shot in 16:9. 2.35:1 is way too wide. :(
     
  6. mrkgoo macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    #6
    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.
     
  7. iToaster macrumors 68000

    iToaster

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    Location:
    In front of my MacBook Pro
    #7
    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.
     
  8. kabunaru thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #8
    Can somebody make a 16:9 ratio MacBook mock-up please, if that is possible? :D
    Thank you.
    I don't have Photoshop.
     
  9. tk421 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #9
    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
     
  10. Jak3 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #10
    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:
     
  11. kabunaru thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #11
    I can tell the difference.
     
  12. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #12
    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".
     
  13. tk421 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    Yep, you got it. 2.35, 2.40, 2.39. Same thing.
     
  14. Techguy172 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Ontario Canada
    #14
    I Prefer 16:10 It's better for standard Computer use. You need some height.
     
  15. kabunaru thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #15
  16. jstanier macrumors regular

    jstanier

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Location:
    Brighton, England.
    #16
    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.
     
  17. DaveTheGrey macrumors 6502a

    DaveTheGrey

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2003
    #17
    lol I didn't understand a word.... :D
     
  18. kabunaru thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #18
    This is high-end geek stuff. :D
     
  19. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #19
    16:10 is alot nicer to me

    Sucks how the industry is moving to 16:9 imo
     
  20. costabunny macrumors 68020

    costabunny

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Location:
    Weymouth, UK
    #20
    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
     
  21. Maserati7200 macrumors 6502a

    Maserati7200

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Location:
    11230, Midwood, Brooklyn, NY, USA, North America
    #21
    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).
     
  22. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #22
    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.
     
  23. akm3 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #23
    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.
     
  24. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #24
    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.
     
  25. ThirteenXIII macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    #25
    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:
     

Share This Page