I know it seems trivial, but I think the extra 120px at the bottom of the screen makes a huge difference. Why do people have such a problem with letterboxed video? I'll never understand that...
The thing is that they're not taking away vertical space and adding horizontal space, they're just taking away vertical space and trying to sell it as a "feature." I could see 16:9 being better for notebooks but not desktops.
16:10 is more useful for doing work, in my view I like having the little extra vertical space. But since the vast majority of lcds are going to be 16:9, I guess that's where the movement is headed!
I just went out and bought myself a new monitor, you have no idea how hard it is becoming to find a 16:10 monitor these days. I refuse to buy a 16:9 monitor, as I need the extra vertical space for toolbars, and I never watch movies (and if I did, I think I could keep my mouth shut and suck up the fact there there are bars on the top and bottom). 16:9 means I need to dedicate more desk space to the monitor, whereas vertical space is virtually unlimited. 16:9 means I need to turn my head further from side to side to see either edge of the screen. 16:10 nicely fills my vision, even with my 28" display.
In addition, there is no real advantage to having 16:9 in a notebook, especially not with a Mac. All they'd do with the extra horizontal space on the bottom section is add a larger speaker grille, they're never going to add a numeric keypad. Also, due to the decreased vertical space, Apple wouldn't be able to add the large trackpads that they have (especially problematic on 13" models).
My guess is Apple is moving their iMac line to 16:9, nothing more. They only recently came out with their 16:10 24" display, and they know professionals still prefer 16:10... at least, I hope they know this. The way they're going with Expresscard omissions/glossy/nonworking Mini DisplayPort to Dual Link adapters, I'm not so sure anymore.
I think the big problem with wide screen aspect ratios (16:9) in the past has been the editing of document pages, e.g. in MS Word. With these apps one naturally prefers vertical real estate. However, since Apple has gone to very large screens (27") on their iMac, you actually get back the vertical real estate that you wanted. Now of course one has the benefit of being able to edit 2 pages side by side.
I can edit 2 Word pages side by side on my 24" iMac, which is great.
Let's face it, for most people, a screen with 1440 vertical pixel count is huge.
I know why 16x9 was created but I don't understand why it still exists. 2.4:1 should be the new standard. The human eye is less likely to be bothered by pillar-boxing and the 2.4 will give the end user a beautiful cinematic image.
The whole 16:9 thing is stupid, because it isn't a standard for movies anyway. It's a contrived standard for television. Only some movies are 16:9. Anyone who watches DVD/BRD on a standard 16:9 TV knows that 2.35:1 (and so on) movies still get letterboxed. Of course the idiots that don't get it then put their TV in zoom mode to fill the top and bottom.
I prefer 16:10 for the extra vertical space. I don't watch TV or movies on my computers.
Lawrence of Arabia is 2.55:1 and it looks fantastic.
The thing is, I don't watch movies on my computer. I do work on my computer. And I like having the Dock on the bottom. So 16:9 is a stupid ratio for computers. But I guess there are more important things to complain about.
Like most thins in life, it depends. For smaller screens, taller displays make the most sense. I would argue that 4x3 is far better than widescreen for a 12" laptop, because pretty much all applications are height constrained, not width constrained, and you don't really have enough room to run side by side apps on a 12" widescreen anyway. The bigger the display gets though, the more apps you can run side by side. Also, moving you head side to side is less tiring than moving it up, so the top of the display should not be out of sight when your head is level, which can be a problem for bigger monitors. So for them, wide is better. Movie aspect ratios are a red herring that I wish the tech community for just forget about. There is nothing even approaching a universal ratio for video. tons are in 4x3. Tons in 3x2. Tons in 16x9. tons in 21x9. So saying that a wider display is better for video is at best wrong, and at worst utterly meaningless. Ergonomics and workflow are what is meaningfully measurable.
Like most thins in life, it depends. For smaller screens, taller displays make the most sense. I would argue that 4x3 is far better than widescreen for a 12" laptop, because pretty much all applications are height constrained, not width constrained, and you don't really have enough room to run side by side apps on a 12" widescreen anyway. The bigger the display gets though, the more apps you can run side by side. Also, moving you head side to side is less tiring than moving it up, so the top of the display should not be out of sight when your head is level, which can be a problem for bigger monitors. So for them, wide is better. Movie aspect ratios are a red herring that I wish the tech community for just forget about. There is nothing even approaching a universal ratio for video. tons are in 4x3. Tons in 3x2. Tons in 16x9. tons in 21x9. So saying that a wider display is better for video is at best wrong, and at worst utterly meaningless. Ergonomics and workflow are what is meaningfully measurable.
you forgot 5:4, the exciting ratio for 17" and 19" which is non wide. I kind of like it, even more height which is great for most applications. There's a reason for that pivot feature any many displays.
I can't believe so many people picked 16:9 displays. They give you less real estate for the same price. Sure, you get black bars at the top or bottom if you're watching widescreen video with 16:10. But in 16:9 displays, instead of black bars you have NOTHING, which means when you're working, you've lost that space.
It is unfortunate, but we won't see 16:10 displays for much longer. The LCD industry is moving toward a 16:9 world, and there's not a whole lot to be done. I remember when display manufacturers stopped making 4:3 displays in favor of 16:10 displays. That was a step forward, moving to 16:9 is a step back.
I had a 16:10 display on my Mac mini at work, resolution was 1440x900. Got a new 16:9 display, resolution was 1600x900. I *gained* 160 pixels on the side, with the *exact same* vertical resolution.
You guys need to be looking at pixel counts, not proportions, for your arguments to be valid.
I am looking at pixel counts. A 16:9 display has 10% fewer pixels than a 16:10. It's simple. Nobody disagrees that bigger monitors with more pixels have more real estate than smaller monitors with fewer pixels. But you can't argue the fact that a 16:10 ratio on a new iMac would have more vertical real estate.
Wed, 10/21/2009 - 2:40pm — Warwick Brown (not verified)
68
16:9 isn't perfect for watching movies, as monitor companies would try and have us believe. Most films are made using 2.35:1 which is far wider than 16:9 so there will still be letterboxing (just not quite as much).
The move to 16:9 is a cost-cutting measure, nothing more. Companies worked out they could save a few bucks by moving from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080. I sincerely hope Apple will update the 30" with 2560x1600 at 16:10.
16:9 is perfect for watching HDTV, but funnily enough computers don't come with TV cards out of the box. 16:10 is just better.
Wed, 10/21/2009 - 6:23pm — tim glasgow (not verified)
48
16:9 is a bit of a pain for an arbitrary standard that leaves me grabbing for my calculator every time i want to scale something and keep the aspect ratio right. Why the hell couldn't they just use 16:8 instead, better known as 2:1. That's simply twice as many pixels across as there are down. Wouldn't that be easy?
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 12:28am — Matt Agnello (not verified)
67
I just bought an Apple LED Cinema Display for my MBP. It's a 16:10 display, resolution is 1920x1200. I'm getting an extra 120 pixels vertical room. That's a tangible benefit over a 16:9 display with only 1080 vertical. There might be bars while I'm watching a movie, but I'm still seeing the same pixels light up that a 16:9 screen does, but with more space to work with when not watching a movie.
is everyone only watching movies on their computers now a days? if you want to watch a movie get a TV.. we want computers to work on not just play.. I also dislike Apple's disregarding professionals needs more and more and going mainstream instead (glossy screens, remove ExpressCard slots, etc).. don't get me wrong those iMacs have some great features but the glossy mirror like screen alone is a deal breaker for me, I'm just glad Apple listened to complaints about the anti-glare option for the MBPs.. it's always bit of a two steps forward, one step back with them..
All HD video is 16:9, YouTube is now 16:9. Webcams will migrate to 16:9. Home displays will be 16:9. Written documents and printed pages are no longer the main output - we're looking at screen based material and that's got to end up on a wide range of screens - again, 16:9. Even dreaded PowerPoint is migrating to 16:9. It's not about movies, it's not about television, but it is about screen based content and most of that is video.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Comments
I hate 16:9
I know it seems trivial, but I think the extra 120px at the bottom of the screen makes a huge difference. Why do people have such a problem with letterboxed video? I'll never understand that...
Let's Settle on 16:9
I wish every television manufacturer, monitor company, and movie/production company would just settle on 16:9. It's a standard, get used to it.
16:9 allow to have "more
16:9 allow to have "more compact" netbooks with large keyboard.
I often find myself needing
I often find myself needing more horizontal space than vertical.
The thing is that they're not
The thing is that they're not taking away vertical space and adding horizontal space, they're just taking away vertical space and trying to sell it as a "feature." I could see 16:9 being better for notebooks but not desktops.
I use 16:9 on my Mac and
I use 16:9 on my Mac and Windows.
16:10 is more useful for
16:10 is more useful for doing work, in my view I like having the little extra vertical space. But since the vast majority of lcds are going to be 16:9, I guess that's where the movement is headed!
I just went out and bought
I just went out and bought myself a new monitor, you have no idea how hard it is becoming to find a 16:10 monitor these days. I refuse to buy a 16:9 monitor, as I need the extra vertical space for toolbars, and I never watch movies (and if I did, I think I could keep my mouth shut and suck up the fact there there are bars on the top and bottom). 16:9 means I need to dedicate more desk space to the monitor, whereas vertical space is virtually unlimited. 16:9 means I need to turn my head further from side to side to see either edge of the screen. 16:10 nicely fills my vision, even with my 28" display.
In addition, there is no real advantage to having 16:9 in a notebook, especially not with a Mac. All they'd do with the extra horizontal space on the bottom section is add a larger speaker grille, they're never going to add a numeric keypad. Also, due to the decreased vertical space, Apple wouldn't be able to add the large trackpads that they have (especially problematic on 13" models).
My guess is Apple is moving their iMac line to 16:9, nothing more. They only recently came out with their 16:10 24" display, and they know professionals still prefer 16:10... at least, I hope they know this. The way they're going with Expresscard omissions/glossy/nonworking Mini DisplayPort to Dual Link adapters, I'm not so sure anymore.
Screen aspect ratio
I think the big problem with wide screen aspect ratios (16:9) in the past has been the editing of document pages, e.g. in MS Word. With these apps one naturally prefers vertical real estate. However, since Apple has gone to very large screens (27") on their iMac, you actually get back the vertical real estate that you wanted. Now of course one has the benefit of being able to edit 2 pages side by side.
I can edit 2 Word pages side by side on my 24" iMac, which is great.
Let's face it, for most people, a screen with 1440 vertical pixel count is huge.
Cinewide
I know why 16x9 was created but I don't understand why it still exists. 2.4:1 should be the new standard. The human eye is less likely to be bothered by pillar-boxing and the 2.4 will give the end user a beautiful cinematic image.
16:9 is a standard that isn't
The whole 16:9 thing is stupid, because it isn't a standard for movies anyway. It's a contrived standard for television. Only some movies are 16:9. Anyone who watches DVD/BRD on a standard 16:9 TV knows that 2.35:1 (and so on) movies still get letterboxed. Of course the idiots that don't get it then put their TV in zoom mode to fill the top and bottom.
I prefer 16:10 for the extra vertical space. I don't watch TV or movies on my computers.
2.35
Lawrence of Arabia is 2.55:1 and it looks fantastic.
The thing is, I don't watch movies on my computer. I do work on my computer. And I like having the Dock on the bottom. So 16:9 is a stupid ratio for computers. But I guess there are more important things to complain about.
Like most thins in life, it
Like most thins in life, it depends. For smaller screens, taller displays make the most sense. I would argue that 4x3 is far better than widescreen for a 12" laptop, because pretty much all applications are height constrained, not width constrained, and you don't really have enough room to run side by side apps on a 12" widescreen anyway. The bigger the display gets though, the more apps you can run side by side. Also, moving you head side to side is less tiring than moving it up, so the top of the display should not be out of sight when your head is level, which can be a problem for bigger monitors. So for them, wide is better. Movie aspect ratios are a red herring that I wish the tech community for just forget about. There is nothing even approaching a universal ratio for video. tons are in 4x3. Tons in 3x2. Tons in 16x9. tons in 21x9. So saying that a wider display is better for video is at best wrong, and at worst utterly meaningless. Ergonomics and workflow are what is meaningfully measurable.
Like most thins in life, it
Like most thins in life, it depends. For smaller screens, taller displays make the most sense. I would argue that 4x3 is far better than widescreen for a 12" laptop, because pretty much all applications are height constrained, not width constrained, and you don't really have enough room to run side by side apps on a 12" widescreen anyway. The bigger the display gets though, the more apps you can run side by side. Also, moving you head side to side is less tiring than moving it up, so the top of the display should not be out of sight when your head is level, which can be a problem for bigger monitors. So for them, wide is better. Movie aspect ratios are a red herring that I wish the tech community for just forget about. There is nothing even approaching a universal ratio for video. tons are in 4x3. Tons in 3x2. Tons in 16x9. tons in 21x9. So saying that a wider display is better for video is at best wrong, and at worst utterly meaningless. Ergonomics and workflow are what is meaningfully measurable.
you forgot 5:4, the exciting
you forgot 5:4, the exciting ratio for 17" and 19" which is non wide. I kind of like it, even more height which is great for most applications. There's a reason for that pivot feature any many displays.
Round, baby, round!
http://www.bunkerofdoom.com/crt10sp4/index.html
16:10, more bang for your buck
I can't believe so many people picked 16:9 displays. They give you less real estate for the same price. Sure, you get black bars at the top or bottom if you're watching widescreen video with 16:10. But in 16:9 displays, instead of black bars you have NOTHING, which means when you're working, you've lost that space.
It is unfortunate, but we won't see 16:10 displays for much longer. The LCD industry is moving toward a 16:9 world, and there's not a whole lot to be done. I remember when display manufacturers stopped making 4:3 displays in favor of 16:10 displays. That was a step forward, moving to 16:9 is a step back.
"16:9 loses space" argument is BULLCRAP!
I had a 16:10 display on my Mac mini at work, resolution was 1440x900. Got a new 16:9 display, resolution was 1600x900. I *gained* 160 pixels on the side, with the *exact same* vertical resolution.
You guys need to be looking at pixel counts, not proportions, for your arguments to be valid.
Thank you!
Thank you!
I am looking at pixel counts.
I am looking at pixel counts. A 16:9 display has 10% fewer pixels than a 16:10. It's simple. Nobody disagrees that bigger monitors with more pixels have more real estate than smaller monitors with fewer pixels. But you can't argue the fact that a 16:10 ratio on a new iMac would have more vertical real estate.
16:9 isn't perfect for
16:9 isn't perfect for watching movies, as monitor companies would try and have us believe. Most films are made using 2.35:1 which is far wider than 16:9 so there will still be letterboxing (just not quite as much).
The move to 16:9 is a cost-cutting measure, nothing more. Companies worked out they could save a few bucks by moving from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080. I sincerely hope Apple will update the 30" with 2560x1600 at 16:10.
16:9 is perfect for watching HDTV, but funnily enough computers don't come with TV cards out of the box. 16:10 is just better.
How is it that more people
How is it that more people voted "Comments!" then there are actual comments?
16:9 is a bit of a pain for
16:9 is a bit of a pain for an arbitrary standard that leaves me grabbing for my calculator every time i want to scale something and keep the aspect ratio right. Why the hell couldn't they just use 16:8 instead, better known as 2:1. That's simply twice as many pixels across as there are down. Wouldn't that be easy?
Losing pixels
I just bought an Apple LED Cinema Display for my MBP. It's a 16:10 display, resolution is 1920x1200. I'm getting an extra 120 pixels vertical room. That's a tangible benefit over a 16:9 display with only 1080 vertical. There might be bars while I'm watching a movie, but I'm still seeing the same pixels light up that a 16:9 screen does, but with more space to work with when not watching a movie.
is everyone only watching
is everyone only watching movies on their computers now a days? if you want to watch a movie get a TV.. we want computers to work on not just play.. I also dislike Apple's disregarding professionals needs more and more and going mainstream instead (glossy screens, remove ExpressCard slots, etc).. don't get me wrong those iMacs have some great features but the glossy mirror like screen alone is a deal breaker for me, I'm just glad Apple listened to complaints about the anti-glare option for the MBPs.. it's always bit of a two steps forward, one step back with them..
Universally HD
16:9 seems to be the best for adapting video, as HDTV is also shot in 16:9; leaves the door open for forward compatability...
If you want convergence, video as datatype, 16:9 is future.
All HD video is 16:9, YouTube is now 16:9. Webcams will migrate to 16:9. Home displays will be 16:9. Written documents and printed pages are no longer the main output - we're looking at screen based material and that's got to end up on a wide range of screens - again, 16:9. Even dreaded PowerPoint is migrating to 16:9. It's not about movies, it's not about television, but it is about screen based content and most of that is video.
Post new comment