![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why 16:10?
- Thread starter Caleb
- Start date
HardwareGuru
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,772
Someone brought up this question or a similar question on this before. I think basically as a PC monitor, it would be more beneficial to have the extra height when viewing a webpage or spreadsheet. The extra height would help display more information. Especially on smaller WS LCD with lower resolutions. I guess the people who make the LCDs view it as mainly being used for PC use primarily and secondary use for other applications such as watching DVD and playing video games. However, some of us feel that if it's widescreen then keep it 16:9 aspect ratio. If you want the extra height for spreadsheets or web browsing then get a non WS LCD. But, now there is 16:9 LCD screens in the 17" size. I wonder if they will do the same for other sizes such as 19", 20", 24" etc LCD panels?
young wing
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,552
Probably because it is easier to view photos/documents etc with 16:10.
RaiseR RoofeR
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 164
Remember 16:10 is not more height; it's less width.
How exactly do you figure that?
I thought it was setup to be able to have toolbars above video editing...
Yea can you explain this?
An explanation would be nice, this just doesn't seem accurate... But I appreciate further enlightenment on your part, please.
germanjulian
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2004
- Messages
- 58
wiiikiiipediiaaa has the awnser
Did you fail primary school maths? We're not talking about physical height because that has nothing to do with how much a screen can resolve. And even if we were talking about physical height, it also depends on how you're looking at the shape and your side of reference - 16:10 can be either more height or more width.
Resolutions are determined with a height of either 1080 or 1200 - and 1080 being 16:9 (1900x1080).
Sinister Crayon
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 668
Um no. Its not. Both are 16 wide, one is 9 tall, the other is 10 tall. (this is in ratios, not actual measurements.)
Ryom
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 1,854
Proportionally a 16:9 screen is wider than 16:10 screen of the same vertical height, which is wider than a 4:3 screen of the same vertical height.
Sinister Crayon
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 668
But the point is, you aren't losing part of the picture with 16:10, he said that you did.
Well sure -- but, by the same logic, a 16:10 screen is taller than 16:9 screen of the same width. Hence why it doesn't make sense to talk about which is "taller" or "wider" when you're only dealing with ratios, since it's all relative.
Ryom
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 1,854
Makes perfect sense to me. Given a common height, width, or diagonal size; 16:9 is always wider than 16:10. You have to use a common measurement somewhere when comparing distinct aspect ratios. So saying that 16:9 is a wider aspect than 16:10 is pefectly sensible.
Zepher
[H]ipster Replacement
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2001
- Messages
- 21,016
does pixel shape fall into the equation as well?
TV uses rectangular pixels while PC's use square pixels.
TV uses rectangular pixels while PC's use square pixels.
1440x900 and 2560x1600 are also both 16:10 though. I don't understand where you bring in the word "determined" here?
16/9=1.777
16/10=1.6
One is 1.777x wider than its height, the other is 1.6x wider than its height...
(yes, the ratio describes its width...)
(if you understand percentages, one is 11.1% wider than the other...)
I doubt you'll understand this though, as 1900/1080 (your definition of 16:9) <> 16/9...
It's close, but you'd still fail that math test...
Er, given a common width, a 16:9 screen is certainly not wider than a 16:10 screen. In fact, given a common width, the only thing you can say is that one is taller than the other, since their widths are equal! This is all I was trying to say. Whenever you say one is "taller" or "wider", you're making an implicit assumption about some measurement being equal, but unless you specify which measurement you're talking about, the statement is ambiguous -- like this post:
This statement is only true if you think about two screens which have the same height. Otherwise, the statement doesn't make much sense. That's the point I was trying to make -- you can't say a ratio is "taller" or "wider" than another unless you explicitly specify some common measurement, as you said.
In fact, in the case of 16:9 vs. 16:10, I would disagree with the above poster and claim that, for many people at least, it's more natural to think of 16:10 as being taller than 16:9. The reason? HDTV is an industry standard, broadcast at 16:9. When thinking of 16:10 resolutions, it seems to be more natural to start with the HDTV standard and think of padding it with extra horizontal lines. This is reinforced with standard 16:9 and 16:10 resolutions (e.g. 1920 by 1080 vs. 1920 by 1200 -- notice the horizontal resolution is equal). So, in my mind, at least, I think it's more natural to think of 16:10 as being "taller" than 16:9 -- but that certainly doesn't mean that it's incorrect to think of it the other way, as 16:9 being wider than 16:10.
It describes the width relative to the height -- a ratio always relates two quantities.
All it says is that the ratio of width to height for 16:9 is 11.1% greater than the ratio of width to height for 16:10. When you say one is wider than the other, you're making an assumption that the heights are equal. This isn't necessarily wrong, but you could also say that 16:10 is taller than 16:9, given equal widths. Both statements are completely equivalent.
Yes, but it is common when doing a ratio of x:y to describe x as it relates to y, not y as it relates to x...
For instance, show a movie in 2.35:1, then one in 1.85:1, I am certain you'll get more "2.35 is wider" than "1.85 is taller" responses... (the curtains opening wider to display the 2.35 movie might bias this response though...) (I'd imagine even if you kept the actual display width of the image the same both times, and just had no image at the top and bottom, the perception will still be "wider"...)
Or, even simpler: show someone a 16:12 (4:3) typical tv (though my capture card captures in 3:2 ratio, go figure...), then a 16:9 tv, you are going to get the "16:9 is wider" response. There's a reason they called it widescreen vs. less tall screen, no? Y relative to X shrunk, yet it is still not called "less tall screen"? As Y decreases, X is seen as "wider"...
(If you're prepared to market your "less tall" screen, be my guest...)
Then again, considering the number of people who never understood the WS vs. P&S debate, I'm not certain some even notice that there are different ratios...
(For instance, I can just imagine selling someone a 16:10 monitor, then having them complain their 1080p source, assuming properly scaled, has those black bars at the top and bottom...)
All in all, I'd rather have the 16:10 monitor for my 1080p viewing... Then I could have my taskbar and media player progress/info bar displayed while still showing the 1080p image at proper 1:1 scale still...
(and, off topic a bit, but I found it very weird to watch a 2.35:1 movie in HDTV on cable, and instead of getting an image with top/bottom black bars, I got a 2.35:1 movie P&Sed into a 16:9 display! They really want to avoid the "black bars" issue that bad? It's takes more effort to do a proper P&S (if P&S is ever proper...) from one ratio into another than just keep the ratio intact... And it was silly to watch Law & Order (4:3 source) P&S into 16:9... Yes, 25% of vertical was gone... who thought of this??? I dropped HDTV over this...)
(But, ummm, you do realize that was my attempt to comfort the insecurities raised by the 1080p crowd when it is obvious their screen will have less pixels...? We'd all rather go "I have more girth!" then go "Sigh, I am indeed less tall..." when comparing 16:9 vs. 16:10)
(with CompUSSR closing, I am practicing my obfuscation skills for my Best Buy interview!
)
Ryom
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 1,854
"Er", let me clear that up for you: Or at least as physically wide when including horizontal. Or even more succinct and clear, NEVER less wide. My fault.
Answer me this: When you keep something a constant height, but increase its horizontal, is it not getting wider? Thats why people call it widescreen. Take a 4:3 screen, nail the top and bottom in place and grab the left and right sides and stretch it. Soon you have a 16:10 screen, keep stretching it wider and soon you have a 16:9 screen. Key word is wider. 16:9 is WIDER ratio than 16:10. Nobody means the physical dimensions when saying wider with regards to aspect ratio. Thats why people are getting on you about being so pedantic about it. When you say 16:9 is wider than 16:10, everyone understands what is meant.
billyloner
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2007
- Messages
- 5
actually i would disagree and say bootstrap's statement made more sense. you are not comparing physical measurements, so 16:9 is not wider than 16:10. you can make a statement that for equal height, 16:9 is indeed wider. i can make a statement that for equal width, 16:10 is taller. so why even bother? but, for what it is worth, a ratio of 16:10 seems taller to me because you have fixed the horizontal component of the aspect ratio at 16 in both cases
Ryom
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 1,854
I concede defeat. 16:9 is not wider than 16:10. This isn't really worth arguing about.
Edit: I simply said that given any one constant dimension, 16:9 is always wider. If the constant is width, then the screen is shorter, so by definition wider. 16:9 is a wider aspect ratio that 16:10. Why is this statement an issue? I was supporting Raiser Roofers assertion that 16:10 is less width given any one constant. His post may have been nearly pointless, but it was technically correct.
I'm done, we've ruined this poor guys topic enough with pointless bickering over semantics.
Edit: I simply said that given any one constant dimension, 16:9 is always wider. If the constant is width, then the screen is shorter, so by definition wider. 16:9 is a wider aspect ratio that 16:10. Why is this statement an issue? I was supporting Raiser Roofers assertion that 16:10 is less width given any one constant. His post may have been nearly pointless, but it was technically correct.
I'm done, we've ruined this poor guys topic enough with pointless bickering over semantics.
But the thing is, the LENGTH IS FIXED for our purposes - 1920 pixels wide. So tell me, how does a 16:9 monitor display more length-wise than a 16:10?
Obviously, the 16:9 will have to have the 120 pixels on top and bottom 'chopped' off, hence the shorter display. I don't know if it occurred to you that we're talking about LCD displays (and their resolutions) and not ratios in general.
No, 16:10 is only less width if the constant is the height, which is not any one constant, as you stated. If the constant is the length, the the 16:10 monitor will have a bigger height.
Ryom
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 1,854
Exactly, so logically the 16:9 monitor is wider because the 16:10 is taller than the 16:9 given that fixed dimension. The very same thing I said except in reverse. A 16:10 will never be wider than a 16:9 given a constant dimension. The 16:10 can be the EXACT physical width of the 16:9 display, but once it is physically wider then none of the other dimensions will be constant with the 16:9. Therefore 16:9 is a wider format than 16:10. I'm not sure what we are arguing about.
The mods should roll this thread back to the post about the two A4 pages side by side as all posts afterward including mine are useless.
This thread is definitely one where people are just spouting out visual opinions... For what it is worth, Ryom's post which I quotes above makes plenty of sense to me. Its simple, if you have two 26 inch monitor's, and one is 16:9 and the other is 16:10 and compare the two, then take a ruler to them to measure the width, they will both have the same width. But the reason why the 16:9 is wider in format is because it displays less height, giving it a more narrow and yes by narrow I do mean wider view.
Eastcoasthandle
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,041
Does this help anyone?
Zepher
[H]ipster Replacement
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2001
- Messages
- 21,016
26" 16x9 monitor will be wider since it is measured diagonally from corner to corner..
After reading this thread, I don't think it's so obvious.Ryom said:
No, but I am prepared to market my 16:10 screen as being "taller" than an HDTV.Tolyngee said:
Ah, ok -- I see the confusion now. Some of you guys define "width" to mean "larger aspect ratio". I don't believe this is a standard use of the word -- as far as I've come across it, "width" has always meant "length in the horizontal direction" when talking about monitors. So in my usage, width is an absolute measure which is completely independent of the height, which means it doesn't make sense when talking about ratios. Under your definition, what you say makes sense -- the aspect ratio increases by either stretching the screen horizontally or squishing it vertically. So I do understand your logic -- I just disagree with your use of the term, since I don't believe everyone defines it this way. But, as you've said, this is all just semantics, so there's no point in arguing any further.
Agreed, although for what it's worth, I did find this discussion pretty interesting, as I never thought there would be such disagreement on this, and I now realize that lots of people use these terms in a very different way than I do. So if nothing else, I learned something.
But in any case, this will be my last post on this, with my apologies to the original poster.
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,826
That's correct.
Use Pythogorean theorem here:
A^2 + B^2 = C^2
FOR 16:9
a. 256+81 = 337
b. sqrt 337 = 18.35756 on the diagonal
26" DIAGIONAL 16:9 MONITOR
18.35756 / 26 = 0.70606
16 / 0.70606 = 22.66096" wide
9 / 0.70606 = 12.74679" tall
FOR 16:10
a. 256+100 = 356
b. sqrt 356 = 18.86796 on the diagonal
26" DIAGONAL 16:10 MONITOR
18.86796 / 26 = 0.72569
16 / 0.72569 = 22.04798" wide
10 / 0.72569 = 13.77998" tall
16:9 aspect 26" monitor will be about 0.5" wider.
Zepher
[H]ipster Replacement
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2001
- Messages
- 21,016
The main reason for the confusion is the 9 and 10.
If you bring it down to the basic ratio, 2.35:1, 1.85:1, 1.77:1, and 1.66:1, you will be able to see which is actually wider as the constant is now a 1.
If you bring it down to the basic ratio, 2.35:1, 1.85:1, 1.77:1, and 1.66:1, you will be able to see which is actually wider as the constant is now a 1.
I've heard that the real reason for the 16:10 monitors is the way the sheets of glass are utilized to create screens at LCD factories. A majority of the space on a glass sheet is first used to produce the larger, higher margin flat panels (TVs). The unused spaces after the larger 16:9 screens are cut out are ideal for 16:10 screen creation. As the size of the glass sheets and TVs has grown, the size of the borders has as well, making it possible to make larger 16:10 computer monitors from the borders. The glass sheets are a fixed size for an LCD factory, supplied at very high cost from a company like Dow-Corning, so it's imperative to use all the surface area of these glass sheets.
I'm pretty sure I read this in one of the semi-conductor weeklies or web sites, but it's been a while so I'm not sure how accurate this information is anymore.
I'm pretty sure I read this in one of the semi-conductor weeklies or web sites, but it's been a while so I'm not sure how accurate this information is anymore.