Getting a Monitor - To go 16:9 or 16:10?

[jwei]

Depending on the pricing, I'm looking to get a new monitor soon.

My current dilemma is to decide between a 16:9 or 16:10.

I'll be running dual monitors now, keeping my original Viewsonic VA1930wm (1440x900, 16:10).

The second monitor will be mainly used with my TV Tuner (Hauppauge DVR-1600, coming soon), PS3, and movies.

I'm leaning towards getting a 16:10 simply because of the use above stated points (I'll mainly use my current Viewsonic to do all my word processing/regular computer tasks).

Now I just have a few questions

a) Is 16:9 simply just a phase thing? I.e, the trend is going to run out soon?

b) Are there any suggestions for monitors?
I'm looking at the BenQ E2200HD for $214 (I need HDMI for my PS3), however I might wait for Dell to sell something bigger for a little extra cash (I saw they had a 24' for $250?). My price range is ideally <250

c) Should I not go 16:9 and stick with 16:10 (then of course I'd get a 22')?

[evanx]

a) 16:9 is the result of pressure from the movie studios on the pc industry.

b) Any Samsung

c) I would try to go 16:9, just to "remove" the black bars from most of the videos I watch.

[rabbit]

I wouldn't care either way if it were 16:10 or 16:9. Even if you were watching videos on your computer all the time, there's so many movies that are 2.35:1 that you're going to get black bars regardless. It's nice to have the dead space there for the times when you want to call up the software interface, anyways .


edit// Added the missing word (care).

[Seiphas]

I prefer 16x10, because it's an excuse to get more pixels. Not to mention that it's easier to find wallpapers for

^ is right though, you get black bars anyways. Any cinematic sized movie is 1920x800, so you still get 400 or 280px of nothing

[ah802]

If you have 'other' video sources... WDTV media player, TV receiver, DVD player etc... you'll appreciate the 16:9 format. I find my 16:10 monitor (Samsung) converts all video stand alone to a stretched 16:10 aspect and in the process massages the signal (this is were you lose the pop); but drive the video through the PC and it's 1:1 pixel mapping. I suspect the industry has done this on purpose to ensure monitors stick with PC's and TV's (that don't have 1:1 pixel mapping) use standardized sources.

16:9 is an industry standard set when the HD widescreen format was created. In a few years the industry will bring forth cinema screen formats proportioned for film sizes for film buffs.

[Emancipated]

a) 16:9 is the result of pressure from the movie studios on the pc industry.

b) Any Samsung

c) I would try to go 16:9, just to "remove" the black bars from most of the videos I watch.

You can easily mitigate any problems of black bars with VLC or any player of choice as they should all have stretching capabilities. If it's for computer use, I would recommend 16:10 for the greater resolution and conformity.

[board123]

The recent 16:10 -> 16:9 movement is completely ********, in my opinion.

Vertical space is a good thing on a computer monitor. When you have documents and applications open on your screen, wouldn't it be nice to have as much usable space as possible? 1920x1200 has 11% more vertical height than 1920x1080, and that is significant in any productivity environment.

Black bars on your videos? Nobody complained when 4:3 was the most common aspect ratio.

[tep]

Go with 16:10! Why would you settle for less vertical pixels? Especially when the web was designed vertically.

[jwei]

Yeah but the only difference is that I'll already have my main monitor for web browsing, word processing, etc.

This new monitor will be used primarily for TV Tuning, PS3, Movies, etc.

Still 16:10 though right? I guess the long run will be better.

[macuser]

The recent 16:10 -> 16:9 movement is completely ********, in my opinion.

Vertical space is a good thing on a computer monitor. When you have documents and applications open on your screen, wouldn't it be nice to have as much usable space as possible? 1920x1200 has 11% more vertical height than 1920x1080, and that is significant in any productivity environment.

Black bars on your videos? Nobody complained when 4:3 was the most common aspect ratio.

+1

However, I still bought my Dell S2209W because it's physically more or less the same size as 22" 1680x1050 but offers 1920x1080 instead. It's fine for gaming or movie viewing, but certainly quite stupid for productivity. That said, I can fit 3 Word documents side by side... but that's pretty much beyond useless.

I still miss the days of 14" SXGA+ (1400x1050) though.

[Jon Lai]

The recent 16:10 -> 16:9 movement is completely ********, in my opinion.

Vertical space is a good thing on a computer monitor. When you have documents and applications open on your screen, wouldn't it be nice to have as much usable space as possible? 1920x1200 has 11% more vertical height than 1920x1080, and that is significant in any productivity environment.

Black bars on your videos? Nobody complained when 4:3 was the most common aspect ratio.

+1

Hell to the studios for forcing 16:9 to computer monitors. These things are for computers, not friggin movies, and anyone who watches movies on a computer screen isn't much of a fanatic anyways, so why would they care about resolution?

No, I'm not being sarcastic. If anyone cared about movies they would play it on a proper TV, not a friggin LCD monitor.

I hope 16:10 doesn't get phased out otherwise I'm going to cry.

[ppl4golf]

16:10 is the smartest resolution and a good balance between productivity and entertainment for both 4:3 and 16:9. Ability to do 1:1 for a 16:9 source is a bonus for those who needs to connect such source in addition to a PC source.
The native 1920x1080 is the clear winner when connecting a 16:9 source like Blu-ray player, etc.

I bought the $169 1920x1080 16:9 Dell S2309W and it is just sitting in the basement cloning with the 50" 1080p. It did not replace the good old 22" Acer 1680x1050 on my office desk, as I find the 16:10 better for day to day use.

Also note anything smaller than that 23" 1920x1080 is going to end up way too small in the pixel pitch department.

[board123]

+1

However, I still bought my Dell S2209W because it's physically more or less the same size as 22" 1680x1050 but offers 1920x1080 instead. It's fine for gaming or movie viewing, but certainly quite stupid for productivity. That said, I can fit 3 Word documents side by side... but that's pretty much beyond useless.

I still miss the days of 14" SXGA+ (1400x1050) though.

1920x1080 is perfectly fine on a 22" monitor simply due to the resolution alone. 1920x1080 on a 24" is NOT okay, since 24" has traditionally been reserved 1920x1200. You're losing pixels.

With that said, the S2209W is a pretty solid monitor. I just ordered the $125 E2009W from DOD. It was too tempting.

[xwar]

16:10 ftw

[Jon Lai]

1920x1080 is perfectly fine on a 22" monitor simply due to the resolution alone. 1920x1080 on a 24" is NOT okay, since 24" has traditionally been reserved 1920x1200. You're losing pixels.

With that said, the S2209W is a pretty solid monitor. I just ordered the $125 E2009W from DOD. It was too tempting.

That monitor's too small to be tempting