My intention: to alert other would be buyers on the option and advantages of 16:10 over 16:9. so that those ppl who share my similar profile & preferences, won't have to go through the buy-16:9-then-found-not-useful-then-sell-then-spend-more-$-buy-16:10-at-last cycle, in other words, don't repeat my mistake and burn $ in the process. those samsung etc marketing guys won't tell us these things.

originally posted: http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...&#entry54630054

-----------------------------

just bought Dell u2412m, brand new! wow blows me away!!

guys u might regret taking 16:9 if in future if u plan to use it for more productive things like programming, graphics design, spreadsheets, or documents etc. for these kinds of tasks, 16:10 is clearly much better - the extra 120 pixels in height can let you open 2 pages of A4 in full side-by-side (in Word or in pdf) and you still can read all words clearly. the slightly more $$ paid for these extra pixels is completely worthy.

I have compared and found that: a 22" @16:10 will have a height of 11.66", and a 24" @16:9 is only at 11.77" - means that to me the usefulness of a 22" (16:10) is the same as a 24" (16:9).

if i still can't convince you, just consider this simple fact: if you start by taking 16:9, and then regret it, you can't do anything to increase it to 16:10, other than selling it. but if u take 16:10 first, u can view all 16:9 contents without any problem, just ignore the thin black bars on top and bottom la, what's the big deal?

honestly, i really hate those forces behind the industry (samsung maybe?) to push 16:9 to such prominence now. this ratio is only good for watching movies (that still not considering that a lot of big budget movies are made in 2.35:1, so even 16:9 will still give you black bars!), it is rubbish in all other kinds of usage. if 16:10 remains in mass production, their costs will be as low as those 16:9 now. what a waste!

---------------------------------
no i'm not a purist, neither am i a casual user - i use my computer daily for a living. I have been hunting hard to find monitors that are more for practical and productive use, other than those just good for watching movies. and what i can see in the market are loads of 16:9 in all sizes, with prices getting lower and lower, but just not a single one in 16:10 - well, except a few IPS models from Dell, and Asus, and due to the low production numbers, their prices are so high! I bought Dell u2412m at ~800 even though i don't really need an IPS, because of the limited choices out there. hence my frustation expressed above.

---------------------------------
below is my own research during the process of monitor hunting (H: monitor height):

16:10
====

20" - H = 10.56"
22" - H = 11.66"
24" - H = 12.72"
27" - H = 14.31"

1680 x 1050 : dell 2209, sam 226BW
1920 x 1200 : dell U2410, dell U2412m, Dell 2407WFP-HC
2560 x 1600

-----------------

16:9
===

21.5"- H = 10.56" (not 22" & 10.79" as previously stated)
23" - H = 11.28"
24" - H = 11.77"
27" - H = 13.24"

1920 x 1080 : dell ST2420L, ST2410, s2408w, Viewsonic IPS VX2336S, sam B2230H
2048 x 1152 : sam 2343BWX,
2560 x 1440 : dell U2711,

Thanks for viewing, and welcome any discussion - no offense to anyone. These are just my personal opinion.

This post has been edited by chopin: May 27 2014, 06:44 PM

@chopin, 22-inch is incorrect for 16:9 monitors as they are actually 21.5-inch only. Many still mentioned them as "22-inch" even though they are not.

This post has been edited by lex: Sep 15 2012, 05:07 PM

well that makes them even shorter. what abt those 22" in 16:10? do they cheat us by 0.5" too?

For 16:10 monitors, 22-inch is 22-inch...

Might be good for work, might not be good for gaming/movies as they are usually optimized at 1080p, if you were to watch a full 1080p movie on a 1200p monitor, it stretches the whole movie and makes the moving looks weird.

Most games nowadays that support widescreen formats have no problems with 16:10 monitors. That's because 16:10 is the original widescreen standard before 16:9 came along. As for your movies, very much depends on your player settings. If you had used "keep aspect ratio" then the movies will not be stretched...

mmhmm, forgotten about that, thanks for pointing out lol.

lex, u r right, i just measured my samsung b2230h that is now replaced by my new dell—its 21.5" diagonal, and the actual height is down to 10.6"—hmm i have gotta rewrite my findings up there...

on the other hand, Dell U2412M's actual diagonal is exactly 24", and the height is 12.8", almost like my own trigonometry calculation result.

I remember reading last time that the TV industry in US imposed a regulation that manufacturers have to advertise their TV's diagonal exactly, so that the consumers won't get cheated. But later the computer mons are not covered by this as they are not TVs, so the manufacturers take the advantage to mislead (or cheat) the consumers by 0.5" in their measurement.

---

Added on September 15, 2012, 6:22 pmin addition to what lex said, i will have to add that NOT all movies are made in 16:9 anyway, so when you want to watch a movie that is, let's say, in the popular 2.35:1, on a 16:9 mon, you will still see black bars.

Therefore, to sum up, 16:10 is good for both movie AND also for work, at least as compared with 16:9.

This post has been edited by chopin: Sep 15 2012, 07:22 PM

Been looking for 16:10 myself for the last couple of years but hell, those 16:10 is always so much expensive compare to the 16:9 counterparts.
Dell U2312HM and U2412M is the most obvious example, both using the very same panel, well maybe slightly different (DPI slightly different), the later cost so much more, nearly RM300 extra, I'm still holding my breath on this, or probably just wait till budget can get the 27", more space, darn... 27" is 16:9 only... oh well...

How I was hoping laptop manufacturer release 16:10 ratio screen

Thats why i still stick to my old 226BW. Prefer 16:10 rather then the awkward 16:9

From my point of view, it is very cheap. After spending 2.4k on a U2407WFP and 1.7k on a U2410 (being addicted to large screen resolutions is the worst! ) I wouldn't think too hard about buying a U2412M at RM900. You should go for it.

This post has been edited by everling: Sep 17 2012, 01:22 PM

This was long before LED backlit displays got onto the market. Prices back then was a lot higher. The U2411 is a direct successor to the U2407WFP, and it was much cheaper. Unlike the U2412M, which is a parallel product to the U2411.

16:10 was the standard for computing displays long before 16:9 came along. 16:9 is an invader from the TV market.

1080p is also not suitable very for actual work, because it is too short when compared to 1200p displays. I have both 1080p and 1200p displays and working on the 1200p is a lot less stressful than working on the 1080p.

As for a 1440p 16:9 display, it does avoid the downside of 1080p display, by simply being larger than a 1200p display in all respects. I suppose I could accept such displays, if the 16:9 aspect ratio doesn't bother me at that screen resolution and if they weren't so expensive.

My laptop is Dell Inspiron 1420..

I'd love to have a 4:3 laptop screen better for word processing and web browsing

4:3 looks kinda square to me.
Well, all is up to personal preferences

how bout 24" with 16:9 with 1920 x 1080 reso? any good?

i like big screen tho for gaming

It doesn't matter if it is 23", 24", 40", or even 96". 1080p (1920x1080) is not as suitable for work as a 1200p (1920x1200) display is.

2048 x 1536

---

Added on September 18, 2012, 5:17 pm2048 x 1536

This post has been edited by Skylinestar: Sep 18 2012, 05:17 PM

either 4:3 5:4 or 16:10 are for professionals & enthusiasts
16:9 is for n00bs