1920x1200 vs 1920x1080: The differences for everyday use

[EastCoasthandle]

I found this in another forum but if anyone ever wondered what the differences are between 16:10 vs 16:9 the pics above gives a pretty good idea.

Note: The thick boarder around the 16:9 pics are from the bezel of the monitor.

[Crap Daddy]

That's one of the reasons I still use a 22" 1680x1050 monitor.

[claylomax]

Well do the maths ... 1900 x 1080 = 2052000; 1900 x 1200 = 2280000. More real estate.

[Jstn7477]

*yawns* The 16:10 monitor has a hidden taskbar, so the test is flawed.

I never really understood why people get so fussy over aspect ratios, but to each his own, I guess. If you need a larger workspace, get a higher resolution monitor if you're so concerned with the 10% vertical difference. We all moved away from 4:3, so how is this much different? I don't really see the need to be so resistant to change when we no longer have CRT monitors and such, but I guess the 10% is still an issue for some people.

[EastCoasthandle]

Originally Posted by claylomax

Well do the maths ... 1900 x 1080 = 2052000; 1900 x 1200 = 2280000. More real estate.

Yeah, I think we all know the math but it still an eye opener when you actually see it in action. I've not seen this kind of example in some time though.

[claylomax]

I thought that the 1080 resolution was for TV's not for monitors; and many hardware websites are using 1080 in their graphics cards reviews now. Thanks Eastcoasthandle, I'm even happier with my monitor now.

[Maban]

I for one will not buy a 16:9 monitor unless I were to do a three-wide portrait setup.

[EastCoasthandle]

Originally Posted by claylomax

I thought that the 1080 resolution was for TV's not for monitors; and many hardware websites are using 1080 in their graphics cards reviews now. Thanks Eastcoasthandle, I'm even happier with my monitor now.

No problem. Yeah, 1080 monitors have been out for a while now. But it's been a while that a visual representation was made regarding what everyone was saying about them. And it allows you to visually see what you are getting when you decide which of the two you prefer when web browsing, etc.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by Jstn7477

*yawns* The 16:10 monitor has a hidden taskbar, so the test is flawed.

I never really understood why people get so fussy over aspect ratios, but to each his own, I guess. If you need a larger workspace, get a higher resolution monitor if you're so concerned with the 10% vertical difference. We all moved away from 4:3, so how is this much different? I don't really see the need to be so resistant to change when we no longer have CRT monitors and such, but I guess the 10% is still an issue for some people.

8:5 is from the same group that brought you 4:3 (VESA). Most 8:5 resolutions are widescreen versions of 4:3 (e.g. 1920x1200 is the widescreen version of 1600x1200).

Ehm, it's really simple:
8:5 = computer display (VESA) resolution
16:9 = "HDTV" (PAL, SECAM, ATSC) resolution

[Altered]

Either I am missing something or someone doesn't know where the "Scaling Option" is in CCC. I have a 25" and it looks just like the 1920x1080P photos (the boarder) until I adjust the scaling.

[Makaveli]

While I totally agree with this thread I won't use a 16:9 monitor unless you pay me. Those pictures are abit misleading and gives a bigger advantage to the 16:10 monitor which is already superior to begin with.

1. Auto hiding task bar on the latter
2. The document photo looks like its one zoom level closer or farther however you look at it.

You are basically losing an inch of vertical space on the "HD TV wanna be computer monitor" :P

16:10 FTW!

[LordJummy]

Originally Posted by Altered

Either I am missing something or someone doesn't know where the "Scaling Option" is in CCC. I have a 25" and it looks just like the 1920x1080P photos (the boarder) until I adjust the scaling.

That's the monitor bezel bro.

[EastCoasthandle]

Originally Posted by Makaveli

While I totally agree with this thread I won't use a 16:9 monitor unless you pay me. Those pictures are abit misleading and gives a bigger advantage to the 16:10 monitor which is already superior to begin with.

1. Auto hiding task bar on the latter
2. The document photo looks like its one zoom level closer or farther however you look at it.

You are basically losing an inch of vertical space on the "HD TV wanna be computer monitor" :P

16:10 FTW!

I think you need to consider the actual diameter of the monitors themselves. Look at the top of the monitor on the left (black bezel). Now look at the one on the right. It becomes pretty obvious once you see it. The real estate is really there.

[FordGT90Concept]

25% scaled shown. Click for actual size.

[Easy Rhino]

so what?

[FordGT90Concept]

That's the difference. The gray part is 1920x1080 and the gray + blue is 1920x1200. It's not a huge difference, but it isn't small either.

[Easy Rhino]

sorry, the 'so what' wasn't directed at you. it was directed in general. so what if their are two different resolutions? i dont get the point of this thread.

[EastCoasthandle]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

sorry, the 'so what' wasn't directed at you. it was directed in general. so what if their are two different resolutions? i dont get the point of this thread.

From the OP:

I found this in another forum but if anyone ever wondered what the differences are between 16:10 vs 16:9 the pics above gives a pretty good idea.

That basically sums it up. As a result a discussion was formed.

[FordGT90Concept]

The biggest advantages of 1920x1200 are seen when displaying 1920x1080 content. For example, in Windows Media Center, the menus don't cover up the content being displayed. They mostly appear in the black fillers at the bottom and top of the screen. Example (WMC showing live ATSC HDTV--ABC's Wipeout--at 720p stretched to 1080):

25% scaled shown. Click for full size.

1920x1200 has room for menus which computers have in abundance.

[Altered]

I realize the different resolutions but the pics used for comparison are really imo deceptive.

[Makaveli]

Originally Posted by EastCoasthandle

I think you need to consider the actual diameter of the monitors themselves. Look at the top of the monitor on the left (black bezel). Now look at the one on the right. It becomes pretty obvious once you see it. The real estate is really there.

I'm well aware of the size differences as my work monitor is a 24' 16:9 and my home screen is 24' 16:10 the latter monitor is physically taller, I switch between these on a daily basis!

I still however believe that comparison is not even with identical settings.

[Jstn7477]

What do we always seem to complain about games being these days: console ports. What aspect ratio does a current generation console typically use: 16:9, because of 720p/1080p televisions. Thus, many games (at least the console ports) are likely developed to best suit an aspect ratio of 16:9. Even though WMC's menu system *partially* takes advantage of the extra space, you still have to live with the black bars on 16:10 screens displaying 16:9 content, and I'm sure you'll be watching the content (with black bars) longer than you will be fiddling with the menu system that you use to justify the usefulness of 16:10.

All the iMacs are 16:9 (2560*1440) and the typical userbase typically includes graphic artists (since they all have IPS displays). Since half of the OP's screenshots deal with media editing, I just thought I'd throw that in there. Haven't seen an iMac user complain about their aspect ratio.

IMO, I'd rather have a 10% higher framerate in my games than draw an extra 1920*120 strip on my screen, which probably isn't too noticeable or worth caring about in a game. If you are unwilling to buy a newer 1080p IPS panel, for instance, just because it doesn't have the same aspect ratio as your couple year old 1200p TN panel, it seems like a reluctance to change.

*NOTE: This is just my 2 cents, and I don't want anyone to get pissed off about it.*

[FordGT90Concept]

Older games support 8:5 better than 16:9 (1600x1200 with boxing, if necessary). On newer games, if they support 16:9, they also support 8:5. 8:5 is always more likely to be available than 16:9 and when it isn't available, there is always a suitable alternative (1280x960, 1024x768, 800x600, and 640x480 work just as well too). 8:5 specs extend 4:3. 16:9 is completely nonsensical.

I never notice the black bars unless I look for them. Doesn't matter if I'm watching a widescreen movie or playing a 4:3 game (like Freelancer).

1920x1200 is also the maximum supported by DVI-D single link.

[Mussels]

pity its all 2D windowed stuff, would be nice if the comparison wasnt so biased and included fullscreen movies and games.


it's all been said a million times in other threads, but my problems with 16:10 are as follows:

1. black bars on movies. i can live with them, but i'd rather not. this is personal choice and not a flaw of either screen size.

2. lots of games fuck up the 16:10 aspect ratio in subtle ways. company of heroes for example, the 2D hud stretches so the circular mini map is now an egg shape. GTA IV and many console ports actually 'zoom in' your view showing LESS of the game world, instead of giving you more vertical like it should.

3. 1080p is a standard everything supports. 1200p isnt. i've got mobile phones, games consoles, set top media players, the whole kit and caboodle - and its damn convenient when i can use those on a PC monitor as well as a TV, without having to worry about black borders (rare on anything but the best screens, they always stretch) or as i just said - stretching. i can instantly notice a fucked up aspect ratio when it stretches especially on text, so imo its a serious flaw compatibility wise.

[Lordi]

16:9 is far better than 16:10.

With 16:9 you get more field of view in games, no stretched stuff and no ugly black bars. 16:10 means problems.

Games, TV and basically everything is 16:9 so it is foolish to use 16:10.

16:10 belongs to the past. 16:9 is present and future. No one will miss 16:10 in 5 years.