Your pick: 16:10 or 16:9?

[qubit]

1:1 all day every day
1920p goodness.

Wow, I didn't know such an animal existed! This is 26.5" diagonal so of course the problem would be that sat on my desk it would be far too high, so I'd be looking up and down a lot, making for uncomfortable viewing.

Is it just me, but there appears to be an optical illusion where there monitor seems taller than it's wide. Even the screenshots on the website seem to be like this. Check out the website and let me know what you think.

http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/index.html

 

[FordGT90Concept]

*shrug* Looks square to me.

Edit: I think I would prefer 4:3 over 1:1 though. There is such a thing as "too tall."

...where x1200 is only better if you have OS usage or old 1600x1200 games

1920x1200 is always better unless you absolutely hate 120 pixels of letterboxing. If you don't mind or don't watch 1080p content much, 1920x1200 is always better (all else being equal).

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

It is not just you. It does not appear square to me as well.

*shrug* Looks square to me.

I am undecided .. I need a bit longer to make my mind up .

16 :16 for me, always has been, always will be.

 

[qubit]

Nah, 17:17 is much better.

 

[xorbe]

Rocking 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 -- which is glorious, btw.

 

[SaltyFish]

Voted 16:10.

1920x1200 can be considered better than 1920x1080 because of the higher pixel count in the same way that people praise 2560x1440 and 2560x1600. As a side note, 16:10 does retro-gaming better. 1920x1200 can display older 4:3-only games at 1600x1200 (a common resolution), something 1920x1080 can't. Most older games don't have a 1440x1080 setting and the next steps down are 1280x1024 (technically 5:4 but some 4:3 games supported it), the uncommon 1152x864, and the ubiquitous 1024x768. The highest common 4:3 resolution is 2048x1536 which fits in 2560x1600 but not 2560x1440.

As others have mentioned, 16:9 overtook 16:10 for mainstream computer monitors because of the whole convergence thing with TVs saves manufacturers money on production costs. 16:10 monitors these days are predominantly the realm of professional graphics editing. It skyrockets the price more due to the need for accurate color reproduction and makes buying 16:10 monitors financially painful. At least you know you're getting a technically nice monitor. There's also less choice in 16:10. You can find a 27-inch 2560x1440 monitor easily but there's no 27-inch 2560x1600 monitor; they only start at 30-inch.

 

[Octopuss]

The only situation when I'd think about buying 16:9 monitor would be 120Hz IPS panel, if it was only available with this ratio.

 

[Ja.KooLit]

I'm a bit surprised that there is alot who wants or prefer 16:10. Even the price is abit high compared to 16:9.

For example, here in korea, I bought the korean 1600p 30" monitor for the reason that it is easy for me to get after service. The price of those are 500 usd compared to 300-350 usd for the 1440p 27" so for the price of 2 1600p, I could get 3x1440p here. But I still chose the 1600p because 3 (eyefinity or sorround) doesnt seem to be too wide due to additional height compared to 3x 1440p. I saw 3x1440p and it is too wide for my vision.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

There's also less choice in 16:10. You can find a 27-inch 2560x1440 monitor easily but there's no 27-inch 2560x1600 monitor; they only start at 30-inch.

Out of curiousity:
2560x1440 27" = 108.79 PPI
2560x1600 30" = 100.63 PPI
The 30" has lower pixel density. It should be closer to 28" to match.

I'm a bit surprised that there is alot who wants or prefer 16:10. Even the price is abit high compared to 16:9.

Most people want 8:5 but end up buying 16:9 because it is so much cheaper. If the prices were within a reasonable amount of each other, only people that believe the "HD" marketing will buy the inferior monitor...but that's crazy thoughts because 1920x1200 is as good as dead for the consumer market. There may be hope for higher resolutions yet.

 

[nexus_a]

I'm a bit surprised that there is alot who wants or prefer 16:10. Even the price is abit high compared to 16:9.

For example, here in korea, I bought the korean 1600p 30" monitor for the reason that it is easy for me to get after service. The price of those are 500 usd compared to 300-350 usd for the 1440p 27" so for the price of 2 1600p, I could get 3x1440p here. But I still chose the 1600p because 3 (eyefinity or sorround) doesnt seem to be too wide due to additional height compared to 3x 1440p. I saw 3x1440p and it is too wide for my vision.

Ah, so you are from S Korea, no wonder. Samsung and LG make so many TVs that they barely make monitors other than 16:9 and 21:9 ones (which is a shame, since I loved Samsung's 16:10 Syncmaster). When people talk about 16:10 I only think of HP, Dell, Asus, Apple and Eizo (which I am glad to pay a premium price for).

 

[Mussels]

i'd be shocked about the poll saying 16:10, except this is TPU where the diehards who cant abandon their odd aspect ratio just. wont. give. up!

 

[Ja.KooLit]

Ah, so you are from S Korea, no wonder. Samsung and LG make so many TVs that they barely make monitors other than 16:9 and 21:9 ones (which is a shame, since I loved Samsung's 16:10 Syncmaster). When people talk about 16:10 I only think of HP, Dell, Asus, Apple and Eizo (which I am glad to pay a premium price for).

Well, I live in S Korea but I am not korean. My wife is korean. You'd be surprised here the availability of 1600p monitors. Although they are A- panels, I bought it cause like I said, its easy for me to get service since I dont have to worry about huge shipping fee for service. My crossover monitors are still alive for almost 3 years now and 1 year for the other 2 and I never have problem yet. (hopefully it will last for long) well my old 1050p 24" korean (joyoontech) is still alive even it is already 8 years and I am still using it from time to time.

i'd be shocked about the poll saying 16:10, except this is TPU where the diehards who cant abandon their odd aspect ratio just. wont. give. up!

Its not about giving up. I think. Its about getting used to it. I mean I have 1600p wherein I could change to any 16:9 res (except 1440p for the reason I dont know). So yeah why should I give up? Sure thing HD movies are optimized for 16:9 res but I never use my monitor to watch movie anyway. I have a big 65" Smart TV in my living room to watch those HD movies.

 

[nexus_a]

i'd be shocked about the poll saying 16:10, except this is TPU where the diehards who cant abandon their odd aspect ratio just. wont. give. up!

I am actually a bit shocked too, since I expect 70% of people voting 16:9, but maybe it's just a preference, not what people will buy exactly. I have had many 16:9 monitors. It's this time I really want to settle down and invest in a good 16:10 one.

 

[Peter1986C]

If 8/4.5 is going to be better supported than 8/5 then the former would be preferable.

 

[ZoneDymo]

See less? im sorry but I dont think you know exactly how aspect ratio's work.
Hell used to be with 2 games (think one of them was Bioshock) that 16:9/10 was just 4:3 with the top and bottom cut off so with 4:3 you actually saw more.
The aspect ratio has little to do with the content visible, that is all up the the maker.
Resolution also has a lot to do with visible content.

Personal opinion, I dont know why we have 16:9 and not just went for 16:8 right away, a 2 to 1 ratio, seems to make more sense in my opinion and it would not be that much wider.

 

[xorbe]

Some websites are such a pain on 4:2.25, even after Firefox hid the status bar and menu bar in an attempt to free up vertical pixels. Even the tab bar and url box are optionally hidden to free up vertical pixels.

 

[SK-1]

People are "Shocked" that a monitor with more pixels is favored lol. Shocked has lost a lot of its UMPH!