16:9 > 16:10 tbf..Sup wrote:
You're gonna get flamed cos its a 16:9 monitor.
I agree but I posted news of a first 16:9 Dell monitor and people disagreed.Cheez wrote:
16:9 > 16:10 tbf..Sup wrote:
You're gonna get flamed cos its a 16:9 monitor.
Letterbox ftl.
No. Way. Desktop area, yes please. a WUXGA 16:9 24" barely has more height to it than an old 17".Cheez wrote:
16:9 > 16:10 tbf..Sup wrote:
You're gonna get flamed cos its a 16:9 monitor.
Letterbox ftl.
ehhh, I don't care either way....Sup wrote:
For movies 16:9 will own since they are not recorded in 16:10 format so the black lines on the top and bottom will be thiner or wont be there at all.
I'm talking pixels. The standard res for an 17" 5:4 TFT is 1280x1024, 1920x1080 is a mere 56 pixels, or a little under two XP taskbars taller, compared to 1920x1200, which is 176 pixels, or six XP taskbars. A certain difference.Cheez wrote:
Lies.
A 22" 16:10 has about an inch on a 17" 4:3.
I can do a side-by-side if you really want to bitch about it.
Any movie format for that matter. All movies look nicer on 16:9 since you will see less black thingy on the bottom and top.VicktorVauhn wrote:
ehhh, I don't care either way....Sup wrote:
For movies 16:9 will own since they are not recorded in 16:10 format so the black lines on the top and bottom will be thiner or wont be there at all.
But as far as that argument goes... I doubt most people spend at least 50% of their time on the computer watching HD movies. For a TV its a good argument, but if desktop/screen space is important to you it doesn't make sense to sacrifice that space the majority of the time just to get rid of a small strip of black when you finally do watch a movie.
I suppose that's why we have options though, so that you can choose what is important to you and buy accordingly.
Last edited by .Sup (2008-09-10 01:33:54)
I prefer seeing 10% less, over seeing huge black lines above and under, reminding you of how poor blacks your monitor can produceVicktorVauhn wrote:
Cropping movies makes you no better then the terrorists. (so does stretching)
You are so right.Freezer7Pro wrote:
I'm talking pixels. The standard res for an 17" 5:4 TFT is 1280x1024, 1920x1080 is a mere 56 pixels, or a little under two XP taskbars taller, compared to 1920x1200, which is 176 pixels, or six XP taskbars. A certain difference.Cheez wrote:
Lies.
A 22" 16:10 has about an inch on a 17" 4:3.
I can do a side-by-side if you really want to bitch about it.
As for movies, most movies are in 221:100, for which neither 16:10 or 16:9 will make a big difference. Plus, letterboxes are easily conquered by cropping, unless it's a 221:100 movie, for which you loose too much to crop it to 16:X.
You're probably one of those people who were skeptic when 16:10 was introduced for PC monitors.Bertster7 wrote:
You are so right.Freezer7Pro wrote:
I'm talking pixels. The standard res for an 17" 5:4 TFT is 1280x1024, 1920x1080 is a mere 56 pixels, or a little under two XP taskbars taller, compared to 1920x1200, which is 176 pixels, or six XP taskbars. A certain difference.Cheez wrote:
Lies.
A 22" 16:10 has about an inch on a 17" 4:3.
I can do a side-by-side if you really want to bitch about it.
As for movies, most movies are in 221:100, for which neither 16:10 or 16:9 will make a big difference. Plus, letterboxes are easily conquered by cropping, unless it's a 221:100 movie, for which you loose too much to crop it to 16:X.
16:9 for TVs.
16:10 for monitors.
Gaming in 16:9 will be awkward. You'll get poor optimisation at those resolutions.
Quite the opposite..Sup wrote:
You're probably one of those people who were skeptic when 16:10 was introduced for PC monitors.Bertster7 wrote:
You are so right.Freezer7Pro wrote:
I'm talking pixels. The standard res for an 17" 5:4 TFT is 1280x1024, 1920x1080 is a mere 56 pixels, or a little under two XP taskbars taller, compared to 1920x1200, which is 176 pixels, or six XP taskbars. A certain difference.
As for movies, most movies are in 221:100, for which neither 16:10 or 16:9 will make a big difference. Plus, letterboxes are easily conquered by cropping, unless it's a 221:100 movie, for which you loose too much to crop it to 16:X.
16:9 for TVs.
16:10 for monitors.
Gaming in 16:9 will be awkward. You'll get poor optimisation at those resolutions.
But watching hi-def movies will be more enjoyable from now on.Bertster7 wrote:
Quite the opposite..Sup wrote:
You're probably one of those people who were skeptic when 16:10 was introduced for PC monitors.Bertster7 wrote:
You are so right.
16:9 for TVs.
16:10 for monitors.
Gaming in 16:9 will be awkward. You'll get poor optimisation at those resolutions.
In fact when 16:10 monitors came out, I bought one almost immediately.
16:9 for monitors is rubbish. You get less desktop space for a start. 1920x1080 < 1920x1200.
It's a 24" display. It's totally inadequate for watching movies anyway. If you want to watch movies get a 16:9 TV. If you want to use the computer for general apps, web browsing and gaming, get a 16:10 monitor. Ideally, get both..Sup wrote:
But watching hi-def movies will be more enjoyable from now on.Bertster7 wrote:
Quite the opposite..Sup wrote:
You're probably one of those people who were skeptic when 16:10 was introduced for PC monitors.
In fact when 16:10 monitors came out, I bought one almost immediately.
16:9 for monitors is rubbish. You get less desktop space for a start. 1920x1080 < 1920x1200.
Yeah I have both but still prefer watching xvids on my monitor.Bertster7 wrote:
It's a 24" display. It's totally inadequate for watching movies anyway. If you want to watch movies get a 16:9 TV. If you want to use the computer for general apps, web browsing and gaming, get a 16:10 monitor. Ideally, get both..Sup wrote:
But watching hi-def movies will be more enjoyable from now on.Bertster7 wrote:
Quite the opposite.
In fact when 16:10 monitors came out, I bought one almost immediately.
16:9 for monitors is rubbish. You get less desktop space for a start. 1920x1080 < 1920x1200.