1920x1200 vs 1920x1080: The differences for everyday use

[twicksisted]

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.

Lol what? I've never had any issues with my Samsung 245B 24" 16:10 monitor when playing HD video or games at 1920X1200, not sure what youre on about, infact i have more vertical view in 16:10 1920x1200.

1080p HD televisions are 16:9 aspect ratio but most movies are filmed in 2.35:1 ratio meaning that you will still likely get black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

 

[Lordi]

Lol what? I've never had any issues with my Samsung 245B 24" 16:10 monitor when playing HD video or games at 1920X1200, not sure what youre on about.

Well, if you havent noticed the letterbox you are just not aware of that you get smaller field of view with your 16:10 245BW. Not something you have to notice but it is a great disadvantage which you would notice if you would have a 16:9 display next to the 16:10.

In 2011 all games are made for 16:9 and works best in that aspect ratio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games


Please get the facts next time before speaking.

1080p HD televisions are 16:9 aspect ratio but most movies are filmed in 2.35:1 ratio meaning that you will still likely get black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

Even 2.35:1 movies are more suitable for a 16:9 screen than a 16:10. 16:10 means bigger black bars in that example.

 

[ivicagmc]

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

I agree. It has became hard to find 16:10 monitors (especial 1650x1050). That standard is dying and very soon it will became exotic for those who really love 16:10...

 

[twicksisted]

Well, if you havent noticed the letterbox you are just not aware of that you get smaller field of view with your 16:10 245BW. Not something you have to notice but it is a great disadvantage which you would notice if you would have a 16:9 display next to the 16:10.

http://img7.abload.de/img/sc2_fov36k6.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games


Please get the facts next time before speaking.



Even 2.35:1 movies are more suitable for a 16:9 screen than a 16:10. 16:10 means bigger black bars in that example.

I dont know what youre on about...if you change a games graphics setting to 1920X1200 @ 16:10... the game will take up the whole screen, no black bars or stretching, dont believe me, try it. Also I did not mention anything about FOV I said that I have more vertical space on the screen as my vertical resolution is greater.

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

You wrong again TV is 4:3 or 16:9 and as i mentioned earlier movies are 2.35:1, 2.40:1 usually, good luck finding a 16:9 one in HD.

Looks like you have your facts wrong

Please get the facts next time before speaking.

Its your 2nd post here, dont be a douche'

 

[Lordi]

16:9 or 16:10 has nothing to do with resolution size.

16:9 means bigger Field of view in games. You see more which is really improtant in gaming. Games are made for 16:9.

To buy a 16:10 for gaming is like buying a 4:3 TV for movies.

 

[Lordi]

I agree. It has became hard to find 16:10 monitors (especial 1650x1050). That standard is dying and very soon it will became exotic for those who really love 16:10...

Yes, you can like it or not but 16:10 will not come back.

In the future 1.85:1 or possibly 21:9 might start to compete with 16:9.

but 16:10? No, it belongs to the history just as you say.

 

[Red_Machine]

I dont know what youre on about...if you change a games graphics setting to 1920X1200 @ 16:10... the game will take up the whole screen, no black bars or stretching, dont believe me, try it.

That's not really what you see, just like you don't see black bars when gaming @ 1024x768 on a 4:3 monitor. The black bars are just for comparitive purpouses.

 

[twicksisted]

Why are all the most expensive monitors 16:10 1920x1200/2560x1440 panels then? Because they use them for design etc...PC gaming is a relatively small market as proven by the decline in PC only titles & the rise of consoles.

 

[Lordi]

Why are all the most expensive monitors 16:10 1920x1200/2560x1440 panels then?

2560x1440 is 16:9!

I would say that of the monitors sold in laptops and displays 90 percent are 16:9 in 2011.

16:10 is allready a nichemarket. Most newer professional monitors are 16:9 as well. Not just the consumer products.

 

[twicksisted]

typo... was meant to be 2560x1600 (16:10)
Anyways you seem to only be interested in gaming and FOV... PC gaming does not dictate the whole market trend as people need large format monitors for many other uses which is why a said format will not just die.

Im pretty sure new formats will be released in future as we are already capable of recording HD video in much higher res than 1080p

 

[Lordi]

Why are all the most expensive monitors 16:10 1920x1200/2560x1440 panels then? Because they use them for design etc

As I said. 16:9 holds around 90 percent of the market for computer displays and laptops.

What people use for desing doesnt drive the the development. They buy what is offered. The kind of people you talk about usually prefer 4:3 over 16:10.

Im pretty sure new formats will be released in future as we are already capable of recording HD video in much higher res than 1080p

Yes, obviously but it wont be 16:10.

The industry seems to want to go over to 4096x2160 (1.85:1)


btw. Actually 2560x1440 is more common than 2560x1600 in newer monitors.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

In 2011 all games are made for 16:9 and works best in that aspect ratio.

Not. All Games for Windows Live games are required to support 4:3, 16:9, and 8:5. All games I played this year supported 8:5 fine with the exception of a few indie games that were 4:3 but still work perfectly fine on a 8:5 monitor.

There might be a few games that are buggy at 16:9 and a few that are buggy at 16:10. Ultimately, it depends on what resolution the developers used when making the games and therefore, gets the most heavily tested.

16:9 means bigger Field of view in games. You see more which is really improtant in gaming. Games are made for 16:9.

Horizontally, not vertically. Vertically = easier to hit something far away because everything is bigger (a zoomed effect). 16:9 is better for close quarters combat and 8:5 is better for medium-long distance combat. Most games are medium/long distance so...the advantage goes to 8:5.

Why are all the most expensive monitors 16:10 1920x1200/2560x1440 panels then?

1920x1200 = maximum resolution of DVI-D single-link (at 60 Hz)
2560x1600 = maximum resolution of DVI-D double-link (at 60 Hz)

As I said. 16:9 holds around 90 percent of the market for computer displays and laptops.

Far from it. According to Steam's hardware survey, top 5:
1920 x 1080 (16:9) = 21.78%
1680 x 1050 (8:5) = 18.01%
1280 x 1024 (5:4) = 11.80%
1440 x 900 (8:5) = 9.20%
1920 x 1200 (8:5) = 7.80%

The only reason why 1920x1080 is more common than 1920x1200 is because it is substantially cheaper (TV OEMs putting the same cheap 1920x1080 LCD-TN panels in TVs and monitors).

 

[repman244]

What people use for desing doesnt drive the the development. They buy what is offered. The kind of people you talk about usually prefer 4:3 over 16:10.

They prefer 4:3?! Sorry but no. I do quite a lot stuff in Solidworks and even a thought of using 4:3 monitor makes me sick.
What people use for design is usually only high-end which actually does drive the development but only in the high-end tier.
And I've been to many companies which do a lot of 3D design and not once did I see a 16:9 panel or a shitty TN panel (I'm talking about more serious companies here)


My personal preference is 16:10 because to me it's more natural if I can describe it like that.

 

[Lordi]

Far from it. According to Steam's hardware survey, top 5:
1920 x 1080 (16:9) = 21.78%
1680 x 1050 (8:5) = 18.01%
1280 x 1024 (5:4) = 11.80%
1440 x 900 (8:5) = 9.20%
1920 x 1200 (8:5) = 7.80%

What people use is not the same as the market.

Most people have a monitor that isnt brand new.

Before 2008 16:9 was nearly nonexistent.

16:9 holds 90 percent of the market in 2011!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Reputable sources or it didn't happen.

 

[Lordi]

Reputable sources or it didn't happen.

I have no need to source obvious facts.

If you believe that 16:9 has not the absolute majority of the market in 2011 then thats your problem. It just show that you dont know what you are talking about.

 

[repman244]

Facts are based on research and numbers not personal assumptions.

Probably 16:9 is the majority but you just can't say it's 90% out of the blue.

And was the last sentence really necessary?

 

[Lordi]

Facts are based on research and numbers not personal assumptions.

Probably 16:9 is the majority but you just can't say it's 90% out of the blue.

85 or 95 doesnt matter. Which way the market is heading is pretty obvious for anyone intrested in laptops and computer displays.

 

[repman244]

Hmm I went for a short hunt for forum poll's about what people prefer:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2159137
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1508064
http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?/topic/24045-poll-169-vs-1610/
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/pc-build-upgrade-forum/1415307-16-9-vs-16-10-gaming.html
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33965450
http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?t=345778
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=152594
etc.

I think the industry WANTS us to use 16:9 but people seem to prefer 16:10 (not all of course).

 

[Benetanegia]

Well, if you havent noticed the letterbox you are just not aware of that you get smaller field of view with your 16:10 245BW. Not something you have to notice but it is a great disadvantage which you would notice if you would have a 16:9 display next to the 16:10.

In 2011 all games are made for 16:9 and works best in that aspect ratio.

http://img7.abload.de/img/sc2_fov36k6.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games


Please get the facts next time before speaking.



Even 2.35:1 movies are more suitable for a 16:9 screen than a 16:10. 16:10 means bigger black bars in that example.

That image is missleading. It's not comparing real resolutions on real screens. The way it's doing it, it's comparing 1920x1080 to 1728x1080 to 1440x1080, so real state and the screen size is amaller every time, so of course you are seing less. But that's a false proposition because the thread is about 1080p vs 1200p. Comparing similarly sized screens, with 1200p you get more pixels no matter how you look at it and you see more (and in 4/3 you'd actually see more even, 1:1 more again). If you are seing less, zoom out until the object is the same size and you'll see more, far more. In FPS change POV and you'll see more (same horizontally, more vertically).

EDIT: Also the HUD would be a lot smaller in 1200p.

Which way the market is heading is pretty obvious¡...

I had to reply to this statement too because I find it hilarious. I mean, yeah and the market of PC games is heading towards crappy console ports, or idiotically dumbed down games. Is that what PC gamers want or what is better too?

People are buying more 1080p now for a very simple reason, display manufacturers are releasing more 1080p displays, not because all consumers think 16:9 is better.

And manufacturers are not doing 16:9 because they think it's better either, they do it because a) it's cheaper b) out of convenience because TVs are 16:9, which again affects a).

 

[Lordi]

@repman
People usually prefer what they use. It is pretty intresting that the percentage that use 16:9 and 16:10 is pretty even with the popularity. Thats also why if you look at those polls you see that 16:9 gradually increase in popularity. I am sure that if you ask that question 3 years from now the absolute majority will prefer 16:9.

Also it must be considered that those kind of polls draws people to them that actually care. Most people dont care about 16:9 and 16:10. Most people wouldnt even be able to say whether a monitor is 16:9 or 16:10.

It also must be said that most people dont know what they are voting for. People dont understand what aspect ratio means.

 

[Tatty_Two]

To be honest, the way i see it is there is little difference subject to personal feelings about movies/black bars etc etc, in gaming terms @ 1080p/16:9 you may have a slightly bigger FoV however in turn you are sacrificing resolution, therefore detail and clairity, it's easy to carefully select your wording to counter an argument for or against but to only say that 1080 gives an increased FoV is being just a little too subjective IMO simply because if that was the be all and end all, why are we not just forcing 1920 x 600 to get an even bigger field, simply because everything in that field would look like sh*t.

Having said all that, 1080/16:9 seems to be the standard now and for good reason, it has a good balance between FoV and quality and is more movie friendly and therefore is more things to more people.... and of course more is good right? well it is until quality is sacrificed.....

 

[scooper22]

I'll never trade my 120*1920 extra pixels for anything.
What you see on an 16:9 is the same as on 16:10 but you gain additional vertical pixels.
The horizontal resolution is the same, so you see the same width. Saying "with 16:9 you see more to the sides" is simply wrong as 16:10 has the same numer of horizontal pixels (plus an 25% more vertical for taskbar, hud or chance to see tripwires and less need to look up and down in games)

 

[Fourstaff]

This 16:9 and 16:10 topic has been discussed to death, and I think its time to lock this thread up.

Fact: 16:9 1080p is good for marketing (omg 1080p good screen <-- your average noob which makes up of 90+% of the market)
Fact: 16:9 1080p is cheaper to manufacture (save 120p? ok, deal!) and therefore costs less to the end user.
Fact: You average user is an el-cheapo so between a 1080p screen and a screen which is more expensive but comes with extra 120p people tend to choose 1080p (why would I need more?)

Result: 16:9 will be the standard, and 1200p will die out, or at least go into the niche pro market. Regardless of whether you like it or not.

 

[Lordi]

People clearly dont understand what 16:9 and 16:10 means.

16:10 does not mean higher resolution.
16:9 does not mean higher resolution.

16:10 is a higher aspect ratio than 16:9
16:9 is wider aspect ratio than 16:10

Thats all!