It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)16:9 support??(29 posts)(29 posts)
(29 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 22, 2011
avatar
Kabuto: How do you figure? Screen size is the diagonal. A 16:10 screen is less wide but taller. A 16:9 is wider but less tall. Viewable area is identical.
It's more to do with cost across the board. Manufacturers can use the same panels in their monitors as they can in their televisions, they can't do that with 16:10. By making their factories only make one size (16:9) they cut down on waste.
Posted April 22, 2011
avatar
Kabuto: I don't know why you think it's letter box looking. The vast majority of films aspect ratio is 16:9. If anything, it's a natural aspect ratio. More screens are becoming 16:9 across the board to enjoy HD content who's original aspect ratio is 16:9. Now that's applying more and more to games.
avatar
cogadh: Actually, all movies are either 1.85:1 or 2.39:1, not 16:9. The 16:9 aspect ratio is only used by TV shows broadcast in HD and console video games. That's why movies that are presented in their original aspect ratio on HDTVs do still have letterboxing.
There's less letterboxing with 16:9 screen for a 2:39.1 movie than with a 16:10 screen.
Posted April 22, 2011
avatar
Kabuto: I don't know why you think it's letter box looking. The vast majority of films aspect ratio is 16:9. If anything, it's a natural aspect ratio. More screens are becoming 16:9 across the board to enjoy HD content who's original aspect ratio is 16:9. Now that's applying more and more to games.
avatar
cogadh: Actually, all movies are either 1.85:1 or 2.39:1, not 16:9. The 16:9 aspect ratio is only used by TV shows broadcast in HD and console video games. That's why movies that are presented in their original aspect ratio on HDTVs do still have letterboxing.
Uh, you realise that 1.85:1 = 16.65:9 right?

Or, for easier comparison you could render it as 16:8.65. The amount of letterboxing is tiny on a 16:9 screen.

I heard that 16:9 was originally chosen for ease of transition from 4:3. Something to do with the fact that it's 4:3 squared, in that 4 squared = 16 and 3 squared = 9.
Post edited April 22, 2011 by eyeball226
Posted April 22, 2011
avatar
Kabuto: There's less letterboxing with 16:9 screen for a 2:39.1 movie than with a 16:10 screen.
But there is still letterboxing and movies are definitely not in 16:9 aspect ratio at all.

avatar
eyeball226: Uh, you realise that 1.85:1 = 16.65:9 right?

Or, for easier comparison you could render it as 16:8.65. The amount of letterboxing is tiny on a 16:9 screen.

I heard that 16:9 was originally chosen for ease of transition from 4:3. Something to do with the fact that it's 4:3 squared, in that 4 squared = 16 and 3 squared = 9.
Of course I realize that, that's pretty much what I said. You could also say that 16:9 is actually 1.77:1 in comparison to the 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 aspect ratio of normal movies. Yes the letterboxing is less on a 16:9 screen as compared to a 16:10 screen, but that wasn't the point. Kabuto was trying to say that the majority of movies are already in 16:9 aspect ratio and don't letterbox at all on 16:9 screens, when that is simply not true.
Post edited April 22, 2011 by cogadh
Posted April 22, 2011
To be honest, at some point the letterboxing ends up not being noticeable. With the extra pixels that you get with 16:10, at 1080p the ones that go to letterboxing are above and beyond what the source provides for anyways.

Personally, I'd get the 16:10 as the future proofing aspect is kind of silly. Video cards aren't likely to have any trouble with it anytime soon, and by that time the monitor won't be working anyways. Sure you'll get a bit of stretch or letter boxing, but it's not like you're likely to notice, it's just not that significant a deviation for most people.

It's just a shame that the standards makers opted for 16:9 for TVs rather than 16:10, but in either case it's a more natural ratio than the older ones we've used.
Posted April 23, 2011
avatar
Navagon: The reason for the move to 16:9 is because they're cheaper to produce. A 22" 16:10 monitor has a larger viewable area than a 22" 16:9. Although I'm sure they're happy that people think that 16:9 is better.
avatar
Kabuto: How do you figure? Screen size is the diagonal. A 16:10 screen is less wide but taller. A 16:9 is wider but less tall.
16:9 and 16:10 are ratios, not widths. A 16:9 aspect ratio at 1920 wide is exactly the same width as a 1920 wide 16:10, the difference is the vertical which will be 1080 in the former and 1200 in the latter. The latter will have more diagonal and will most certainly not be "less wide".
Posted April 23, 2011
No, he's quite right. As far as physical dimensions of the monitor, discounting the bevel size, a 22" screen at 16:10 would have dimensions of 11.66x18.66 inches. A 22" screen at 16:9 would be 10.79x19.17. Given scaling being equal, a 16:9 image on a 22" 16:10 display is actually 0.6th of an inch smaller than the same 16:9 image displayed on a 22" 16:9 display.
Post edited April 23, 2011 by Gremmi
Posted April 23, 2011
As for media - it is correct that films are not usually in 16:9 aspect ratio anyway - however Blu-Rays (and DVDs) -are-, the source itself includes letterboxing, meaning there is no additional scaling needed, presuming the display is at 1080p. The display and output are perfectly matched.

With a 16:10 monitor at1680x1200, there would be scaling involved regardless.Either the GPU or monitor itself would scale the image to the correct ratio, meaning the output is different to the original source. 1080 horizontal pixels on a display designed for 1200 horizontal (though some monitors at this resolution do have displays that allow perfect pixel reproduction of a 1080 image by simply discarding the extra lines, it depends on how decent a monitor it is. Many cheap models don't discard the pixels and scale the image instead).

Even if the monitor does scale perfectly, you'll end up with visible letterboxes on top of letterboxes this way, which is quite distracting to watch.

Of course, the differences of scaling probably aren't detectable by the human eye, so this is a moot point. I just like the maths and figures involved in the discussion!


EDIT: Oh, and of course, this particular sidenote only applies to blu-rays and media with letterboxing already added. If you're watching an .avi or similar that has already had the letterboxes cropped off, you wouldn't get the double letterboxing effect.
Post edited April 23, 2011 by Gremmi
Posted April 23, 2011
avatar
hedwards: I'd personally go 16:10 instead of 16:9 for the extra vertical pixels. I've personally had good luck with Samsung monitors. I'm using a SyncMaster T240HD, which includes a digital tuner, it's a couple years old, but it's still working as well as ever.

As for the PS3, as long as it has HDMI inputs you should be fine. I'd recommend getting a monitor that uses DVI input instead of RGB from the computer, but that'll depend upon what your video card supports.
Damn...
You have the same monitor I have. Do you have a PS3 or an xbox360??
If you do, can you please check how it look's because that's the reason I'm buying the new monitor.


avatar
orcishgamer: If you're paying for 16:10, you'd might as well pony up for a IPS panel as well. You won't believe how much better they are until you have one, but only you know if your wallet can take the hit.
Yes I am planing on getting an IPS panel monitor.

Thank's guys you have been extremely helpfull to me so far.
The reason I need a new monitor is because my current (Samsung T240HD) runs ps3 like crap, and yes I did switch to 16:9 in the monitor but it's still bad. I don't even mind those black bars as long as the image is good, but it's not.
That's why I'm going after 16:9 because ps3 supports it and pc can ajust to any resolution.
So it seem's as a safe bet.
Posted April 23, 2011
If your using the monitor for game consoles, you should go with 16:9. I used to have my Xbox 360 on my 16:10 monitor. It still looked good, but the image was a little fuzzy because of the scaling. Now I have my PC hooked up to my 42 inch HDTV. With a wireless keyboard and and one of the Logitech trackball mice where the trackball is thumb operated, Its the best thing ever for gaming. Not so hot for general use though.

Edit:
Oops, for some reason I missed the last post. My post is pretty much useless after that one )-:
Post edited April 23, 2011 by MobiusArcher
Posted April 23, 2011
avatar
hedwards: I'm using a SyncMaster T240HD,
Ah, that's a beauty. :)
Posted April 23, 2011
avatar
Gremmi: As for media - it is correct that films are not usually in 16:9 aspect ratio anyway - however Blu-Rays (and DVDs) -are-, the source itself includes letterboxing, meaning there is no additional scaling needed, presuming the display is at 1080p. The display and output are perfectly matched.

With a 16:10 monitor at1680x1200, there would be scaling involved regardless.Either the GPU or monitor itself would scale the image to the correct ratio, meaning the output is different to the original source. 1080 horizontal pixels on a display designed for 1200 horizontal (though some monitors at this resolution do have displays that allow perfect pixel reproduction of a 1080 image by simply discarding the extra lines, it depends on how decent a monitor it is. Many cheap models don't discard the pixels and scale the image instead).

Even if the monitor does scale perfectly, you'll end up with visible letterboxes on top of letterboxes this way, which is quite distracting to watch.

Of course, the differences of scaling probably aren't detectable by the human eye, so this is a moot point. I just like the maths and figures involved in the discussion!


EDIT: Oh, and of course, this particular sidenote only applies to blu-rays and media with letterboxing already added. If you're watching an .avi or similar that has already had the letterboxes cropped off, you wouldn't get the double letterboxing effect.
Yeah I meant to say that originally. No seriously, I was a little lazy and didn't feel like writing all that. The people at blu-ray.com would kill me if they found out I cheaped out and tried to pull a fast one lol.
Post edited April 23, 2011 by Kabuto
Posted April 23, 2011
So, specifically, what do you think about Dell U2311H. It's IPS, 1920x1080(16:9) res and it's got some decent reviews.
Posted April 23, 2011
avatar
hedwards: I'd personally go 16:10 instead of 16:9 for the extra vertical pixels. I've personally had good luck with Samsung monitors. I'm using a SyncMaster T240HD, which includes a digital tuner, it's a couple years old, but it's still working as well as ever.

As for the PS3, as long as it has HDMI inputs you should be fine. I'd recommend getting a monitor that uses DVI input instead of RGB from the computer, but that'll depend upon what your video card supports.
avatar
TheEvilAlex: Damn...
You have the same monitor I have. Do you have a PS3 or an xbox360??
If you do, can you please check how it look's because that's the reason I'm buying the new monitor.
I have a PS3, and it works perfectly. Theoretically the same should go for any other console that takes HDMI.

I said RGB, but that should have been VGA. This monitor does take component input.
avatar
hedwards: I'm using a SyncMaster T240HD,
avatar
KavazovAngel: Ah, that's a beauty. :)
I forget what I paid, but I apparently got a really good deal. The few I was able to find on froogle, were about double what I paid for mine a few years back.
Post edited April 23, 2011 by hedwards
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)16:9 support??(29 posts)(29 posts)
(29 posts)