apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time


Survey: Widescreen Aspect Ratios, 16:10 or 16:9?

050409_an_survey_aspect_ratio_dell_24.jpgWhile many of us have come to accept the strange resolutions provided with the 16:10 aspect ratio seen on most widescreen LCD monitors over the years, we're starting to notice a slow push towards the 16:9 HDTV standard over the past few months. Are we comfortable with this? Well, it kinda makes sense. Who doesn't enjoy some added immersion by means of expanded horizontal screen estate?

 
 

Here's what the advocates for 16:9 have to say about this:

When a traditional 16:10 LCD monitor handles 16:9 signals in generating Full HD image, there are usually two ways to get it done. The first way would be to stretch the image which results in picture distortions. Another way would be to cover up the surplus image using horizontal black bars. Either way - stretching the image by 10% or covering 10% of the image - would cause a seriously impact to quality of your visual entertainment.

And as for us, the 16:10 supporters, we believe:

As a computer monitor, it should act like one. When monitors first came out, they were 4:3 ratio for reason. People need to be able to type documents with a comfortable and maximized work area. The introduction of widescreen monitors made this slightly more difficult, but was ultimately accepted due to its improved aesthetic. However, these monitors stuck to the 16:10 aspect ratio for that very reason. Shrinking it even more will only cause users to lose precious vertical screen estate that they're already running very low on, even on 20" monitors.

Of course, these are all opinions. The best part is that there's always room for more. Let us know yours in the comments below.

(Image: Flickr member pablokdc licensed for use under Creative Commons)

Tags

Surveys, apple, dell, monitor, lcd, screens, cinema, aspect ratio

Related Links

Share

Comments (2)

Why would you want to give up 120 pixels in the vertical direction? On a WUXGA monitor, that's over 230,000 total pixels. When watching a 16:9 movie, there's no stretching or covering up involved, you just get 60 pixels at the top and bottom that are black. Is that so bad that it's worth giving up 10% of your screen real estate?

posted by charmac on May 4th 2009 at 3:04pm
view charmac's profile

Yeah, i don't understand the argument for 16:9, unless you're stretching to fullscreen there's just some black bars on the top and bottom.
I'd rather have the extra vertical space for normal computer work.

posted by peshue on May 4th 2009 at 3:23pm
view peshue's profile