Is 16:10 being phased out?

[Helltech]

I've always preferred 16:10 to 16:9, but it seems most monitors being made are 1920x1080 as opposed to 1920x1200 anymore. I did plan on getting some 3D monitors in the future, but now I don't know.... Kind of sucks, thoughts?

 

[jryan388]

There have always been fewer 1920x1200 monitors haven't there?

 

[cjl]

Nope. Several years ago, the standard sizes were all 16:10 - 1680x1050 was popular, and 1920x1200 was the next step up. 1920x1080 was pretty rare.

Oh, and I agree that it sucks. I significantly prefer 16:10. Fortunately, a lot of the high end monitors are still 16:10, but even in that segment, there are some 16:9 sneaking in.

 

[Helltech]

There have always been fewer 1920x1200 monitors haven't there?

Yeah but it is getting rediculous. Is there even ONE 16:10 3D monitor abvailable yet?

 

[randomizer]

16:9 is cheaper to produce and that's important when shaving $10 off the price of a cheap monitor can make or break your sales (especially considering how saturated the low-end market is). Naturally, it will replace 16:10 in time, or at least make 16:10 a niche aspect ratio only for high-end monitors where cut-throat pricing isn't important.

 

[Helltech]

16:9 is cheaper to produce and that's important when shaving $10 off the price of a cheap monitor can make or break your sales (especially considering how saturated the low-end market is). Naturally, it will replace 16:10 in time, or at least make 16:10 a niche aspect ratio only for high-end monitors where cut-throat pricing isn't important.

Yeah that what seems like is happening, it sucks really, I guess I'm spoiled but 16:10 seems soo much better to me.

 

[bystander]

It's mostly only the 1200p due to being so similar in size to the 1080p. The larger resolution monitors will likely stay 16:10 until TV's start to use those resolutions (not likely anytime soon).

 

[cjl]

Yeah but it is getting rediculous. Is there even ONE 16:10 3D monitor abvailable yet?

Part of the problem with that is that I think 1920x1080 120Hz is about the upper limit for dual link DVI. I think 1920x1200 120Hz is slightly too high (dual link DVI can't quite pull it off).

 

[cjl]

It's mostly only the 1200p due to being so similar in size to the 1080p. The larger resolution monitors will likely stay 16:10 until TV's start to use those resolutions (not likely anytime soon).

Not really...

Consider the new 27 inch 2560x1440 monitors that are starting to show up...

 

[randomizer]

Yea, unfortunately people are already sold on 1080p being some amazingly high resolution when a 1st generation point-and-shoot digital camera could take higher resolution photos. There's no incentive for TVs to be any better even though some are enormous and should be 2-3x higher res.

 

[Helltech]

Yea, unfortunately people are already sold on 1080p being some amazingly high resolution when a 1st generation point-and-shoot digital camera could take higher resolution photos. There's no incentive for TVs to be any better even though some are enormous and should be 2-3x higher res.

Yeah like I see people using 30+ inch TV's as PC gaming monitors and it just looks silly running games in 1080p at that size.

 

[randomizer]

It's the 50-inchers that make me want to puke.

 

[Crashman]

I've always preferred 16:10 to 16:9, but it seems most monitors being made are 1920x1080 as opposed to 1920x1200 anymore. I did plan on getting some 3D monitors in the future, but now I don't know.... Kind of sucks, thoughts?

Manufacturers are using the hype over 1080P TV's to push cheaper monitors as "True HD". End of story really, as a customer you're outnumbered by neophytes.

 

[amnotanoobie]

It's probably also easier for manufacturers to consolidate product lines instead of having 2 similar sized (in diagonal inches) which only differ in screen resolution.

 

[varis]

I suppose we'll be stuck with 1920×1080 being the new de facto standard for a while. That is listed as the largest resolution for blueray: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Video and I gather the next few years will see the mainstream migrating from DVD to blueray.

Even the many professionals that currently use 1920x1200 screens might be satisfied with their new 2560x1440s as that's still more pixels also in the vertical direction.

 

[JohnnyLucky]

I definitely remember when the 16:10 aspect ratio was the standard. I still prefer having the extra height when working on mainstream projects.

cjl - I ran across several mainstream technical reviews of the Dell Ultrsharp u3011 which suggested that at a resolution of 2560 x 1600 a DisplayPort produced slightly better results than dual link DVI.

 

[cjl]

That's an interesting proposition - I don't notice any difference on mine, but it's difficult to compare, as my DisplayPort source is completely different than my dual link DVI source. I would think that dual link DVI should give exactly the same quality though, unless you're feeding it 10 bit color through displayport.

 

[Helltech]

I suppose we'll be stuck with 1920×1080 being the new de facto standard for a while. That is listed as the largest resolution for blueray: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Video and I gather the next few years will see the mainstream migrating from DVD to blueray.

Even the many professionals that currently use 1920x1200 screens might be satisfied with their new 2560x1440s as that's still more pixels also in the vertical direction.

Its not all about the workspace for me. I'd rather have a 16:10 2560x1600 if I was going to get a large monitor. From a gaming standpoint, and maybe its just how I look at the screen but 1920x1200 FOV looks so much better to me, it doesn't give me that "seasickness" feeling I get when looking at certain games in 1920x1080. This was extremely noticable when I was playing Singularity on a friend's computer as opposed to my own, there are obviously other examples but this was a more extreme case. Of course this really only matters in FPS games and I'm sure I'm in the minority when I can feel the difference, but it still matters to me.

So I'm sure when/if (probably never) I ended up getting a larger size screen I will still shoot for a 2560x1600. I'm sure my next upgrade will be 3D vision though, so I'm hoping eventually we will see some nice 16:10 3D monitors =].

 

[cjl]

Its not all about the workspace for me. I'd rather have a 16:10 2560x1600 if I was going to get a large monitor. From a gaming standpoint, and maybe its just how I look at the screen but 1920x1200 FOV looks so much better to me, it doesn't give me that "seasickness" feeling I get when looking at certain games in 1920x1080. This was extremely noticable when I was playing Singularity on a friend's computer as opposed to my own, there are obviously other examples but this was a more extreme case. Of course this really only matters in FPS games and I'm sure I'm in the minority when I can feel the difference, but it still matters to me.

So I'm sure when/if (probably never) I ended up getting a larger size screen I will still shoot for a 2560x1600. I'm sure my next upgrade will be 3D vision though, so I'm hoping eventually we will see some nice 16:10 3D monitors =].

I absolutely agree, which is why I have a U3011

 

[iam2thecrowe]

5:4 FTW!

but seriously, there should just be one aspect ratio standard so all my games work properly. 16:9 is the standard for TV's as it will be for computer monitors and im happy with that so long as it doesnt change all the time.

 

[randomizer]

Sadly even 30" monitors are shifting towards 16:9. Upgrading to Dell's latest offerings from one of their previous 30" monitors would mean a smaller desktop area :lol:

 

[cjl]

Sadly even 30" monitors are shifting towards 16:9. Upgrading to Dell's latest offerings from one of their previous 30" monitors would mean a smaller desktop area :lol:

Nope.

Dell's latest 30 is the U3011, which is still a 16:10 2560x1600 panel. You're probably thinking of the U2711, which is their new 27 inch 2560x1440.

 

[randomizer]

I probably am.

 

[Formata]

From a gaming standpoint, and maybe its just how I look at the screen but 1920x1200 FOV looks so much better to me, it doesn't give me that "seasickness" feeling I get when looking at certain games in 1920x1080. =].

Wow. I was amazed when I read this. Had this exact conversation recently. The majority of the guys who had done a lot of gaming on 16:10 and then for what ever reason now used a 16:9 screen, mentioned things like occasional dizziness/head spins/nausea. Of the guys who had only ever played majority on 16:9, none had these kind of symptoms. Wondering whether increased refresh rates and lowered response times etc adds to the problem.

I was gaming on an old 24" 16:10 for years, and recently 'upgraded' to the samsung bx2450 which of course 24" but at 16:9... and months down the track it still doesn't feel right.

 

[jedi940]

I am not happy with this transition. I am currently gaming on a 22" at 1680x1050 and I would like to upgrade but going to a 24" at 16:9 really isn't going to get me any more vertical space. It sucks I am stuck looking at the much less popular 16:10 models. Not many choices there.