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

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

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

yeah u r right. the manufacturers were bought by the entertainment industries and produced all these 16:9 mons that are useless for work.

i have purchased "outdated" used 5:4 (the 1280x1024) monitors and found them to use so very suitable for work, that I practically put aside my 21.5" samsung 16:9 units, and do most of my productive work on it. can u imagine that?

now i own two 24" 16:10 (one at home, one at work), i can lay all these useless units at rest forever already...

but see, in the whole process, i have wasted so much $ on not ideal monitors, and finally save enough $ to buy the more costly 16:10, if i was given the choice in the beginning, much precious $$ would be saved. That's why i write all these so that ppl won't repeat my mistake.

This post has been edited by chopin: Sep 19 2012, 08:27 PM

the only reason is because they focus all their production lines to 16:9 unit, otherwise, here is no reason why 16:10 sell at so high prices.

if 16:9 is good for you, then good. but in the future, if you need a better/bigger screen, should seriously consider 16:10.

---

Added on September 21, 2012, 1:30 pmyeah, we can put a 16:9 and a 16:10 side by side, both 24" units, and immediately can see the advantage of the latter.

This post has been edited by chopin: Sep 21 2012, 01:30 PM

Well we don't oppose 16:9 or 21:9.

Actually it is a good thing to have more choices for consumers, so 21:9 is good for ppl who want to watch lots of movies, and perhaps, gaming the whole day. what is sad is that, they make too many models that are obviously entertainment-oriented, and leave the rest of us who are using the monitor more for work with very little choices. in so doing, for example, to find a 24" in 16:10, the cheapest model is perhaps Dell U2412M with a high price tag of rm899, whereas the 16:9 Dell 2312 is only at 599 - the difference is just too big isn't it? this would be totally avoidable if they make more production of 16:10 units and models.

i think those of us who use 16:10 wouldn't give a damn if we can have more choices in models and the prices are lower than the present ones, then by all means, go ahead and make 16:9, 21:9, and hack even 99:9, we don't give a damn, as long as we can have reasonably priced 16:10 and 5:4 to buy. Really, we wouldn't give a DAMN!

yes, agreed, but since i don't have the $ and the desk space for 3 monitors, i purchased a 24" 16:10 mon, which can handle all 3 functions and then some...

hmm, current in the market, dell 2412 seems to be the most available one, HP might have but it's IPS and costly. or the 2 following:

NEC EA243WM
or Asus PA248Q
from http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/366002-3...0x1200-monitors

if $ is a problem, try hunting for a used one in the garage sale section, i bought a hp 24" 16:10 from there too, sometimes got good stuff if you can wait...

---

Added on November 14, 2012, 2:49 pmgreat to know u r using this set up too. do you read pdf files a lot? for me i use the free pdf program call Foxit Reader, i set it to dis[play a pdf in the continuous facing mode to read two pages in 1 screen, and if i press F11 to full screen mode, wow, it's as good as reading the actual paper.

about the 23" model, yeah the 1080 is just a bit shorter making the height not high enuf - what a waste - it is movie friendly but not perfect for documents.

---

Added on November 14, 2012, 2:53 pm wuh, this will only be found on 27" or above, at least dell has. sure want it if i can afford it
but now 24" 16:10 is just nice for me.

This post has been edited by chopin: Nov 14 2012, 02:53 PM

yeah it is LG's EA93 21:9:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/30/lgs-ea9...splay-hands-on/

while i have no issue with the width, i just feel sad that the is limited to 1080 (2560*1080), again on the short side, so not that useful for documents. ok this is only designed for entertainment, that's all.

interesting to read the readers' comments here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/monitors/disp..._9_Display.html

This post has been edited by chopin: Nov 14 2012, 03:08 PM

that dell is 27" or 30"?

yeah, isn't sad?!

Actually bro, i have no objection to 16:9, just that I'm pissed off by the market situation where almost ALL new monitors now are availble in only the 16:9 format, but those of us who want other dimensions are so lacking of choices, and, if found, we are left with few models at much higher prices than it should have been.

Strictly speaking, those who complain about the black bars on 16:10 are pointless too, because if you are using your 16:9 monitors to view downloaded movies, quite many of them are made in 2:35:1 format, then you will have black bars too, so how? And seriously, I have been using my 16:10 monitors to watch all sorts of movies of various aspect ratios, and, those black bars have never bothered me at all, because after a few seconds, my eyes got used to them and just focus on the movie itself, never distracted by the bars at all.

To add my points of the strengths of 16:10, I will show the following photos. The conclusion is that 16:9 sucks at productivity, it is perhaps only best for entertainment like movies and games. Whereas 16:10 and older formats like 5:4 are better for doing serious work. When you are working on documents, you would enjoy more on any mon that is taller than shorter, trust me. In addition also, the 16:10 format is so close to 16:9 making it quite fine to watch movies, and with added height making document-viewing a joy too, it is a winner is I only have $ for just one mon.

I just hope that the industry will produce more monitors in the formats that are good for work, and, at the same time, continue to made monitors for play. They all have their own demands!

Photo 1: (16:10, 24")
See how the monitor can open two facing pages of document in FULL size!


Photo 2: (16:10, 24")
The same mon as in 1, see the height of it even longer than the actual A4 size paper!

Photo 3: (16:10, 22")
This size has the exact height of the A4 paper. Still quite acceptable.

Photo 4: (16:9, 22")
See how much the monitor is shorter than the height of the A4 paper. I have put this mon aside just as a spare for quite some time already. Almost useless.



Attached thumbnail(s)

bro, yes the 2213 is 1680x1050, the height is the same as my 22" Lenovo shown in Photo 3. Don't get 22" with 1920x1080, because in this res, it is not 22" but only 21.5", and the height is much lower than your 22" 16:10 unit (compare Photos 3 and 4 above).

You can refer to my opening post of this thread, you will see the measurement of those various ratios and sizes, hope it will help you in future upgrade.

yeah, agreed. mons with 16:9 ratio will have to be at least 26" to match the height of a 16:10 24" mon, and the price would be too high for average users.

Actually manufacturers can go ahead to make 29" or larger mons for all I care, but they would be useless for work if the vertical reso is only limited at 1080 - it is too short to be productive - what a waste! From two years ago, my minimum requirement for a new mon is that its height must be at least same or more than the height of an A4 paper - 11.66".

i'm not sure about samsung's quality, but I can say for sure that those big units from Dell and HP are quite good as I'm currently having 3 of them.

can you comment on your sammy T240?