It's an excellent monitor, LCDs are generally very expensive in India, but we don't have any choice.
Check out reviews about this monitor, its great. Earlier I was planing to get Dell Ultra Sharp 2410WFP. But, I'll be doing something really big by the end of this year, hence this monitor is just for the time being. But I like it so much even being a TN panel it is excellent, more to add it have RED color menu options so I might not replace it with Dell Ultra Sharp later on, or lets see how things go.
Michael C (34292) said on Jul 06, 2010 at 05:51am PDT:
16:9 is just something you have to get used to, but you'll love it after you do.
F**k 16:9 (for monitors). 16:10 is perfect. Luckily a few manufacturers still realize this.
G. G. (24435) said on Jul 06, 2010 at 11:16pm PDT:
but personally I like 16:10 for computer use.
Nice upgrade though, Suprizzle. But ... XP?
Tell me five good reasons why choose 16:10 over 16:9 monitor. Though I have future plans I might upgrade to Dell UltraSharp 2410WFP, which is 16:10. But first of all tell me the reasons why 16:10 instead of 16:9.
Supreet Virdi (24355) said on Jul 07, 2010 at 05:55am PDT:
Tell me five good reasons why choose 16:10 over 16:9 monitor.
I don't need 5, I only need one: it's a better ratio.
Michael C (34292) said on Jul 07, 2010 at 07:24am PDT:
Yeah, really. I've had more monitors than I can count and I can't really say 16:10 is better. Actually I'd say 16:9 is better because it doesn't squash 1080p images(blu-rays).
If it's 'squashing' anything, you're doing it wrong. 1080p on a 16:10 monitor at 1920x1200 should show as letterbox, with two 60px black bars.
That's great that you watch movies on your computer all day (I have no idea why, that's what TV's are for), but for people who actually use their computer for something other than playing games and watching movies while eating pizza pockets (design, programming, etc.), making everything ridiculously wide serves no purpose.
So you're saying 16:10 is(much)better for doing things other than playing games and watching movies? Using programs like Microsoft Office, programming and web browsing appear better on 16:10 for example? How is that possible? What advantages are you getting by having 16:10 over 16:9? After you look at the screen long enough you can't notice the difference anyways.
I use my PS3 on my monitor sometimes and it generally scales better on 16:9 for everything, and you can't change the way PS3 games scale.
I had a 16:10 monitor for months and didn't find any advantages over 16:9. I love 16:9 now. I'd have to say that the difference between the two is very small and there's no reason not to get one or the other.
Michael C (34292) said on Jul 07, 2010 at 08:35am PDT:
How is that possible?
Now, with 16:10 and 16:9, the difference isn't that much, but I suppose I was referring more to the general trend of making everything about computers designed for multimedia, at the expense of productivity. (I'm still p**sed about HP trying to turn their EliteBook line into MacBooks). Sorry.
Michael C (34292) said on Jul 07, 2010 at 08:35am PDT:
I'd have to say that the difference between the two is very small and there's no reason not to get one or the other.
Maybe ... maybe not. Either way, in the end, given the choice, I'd take an otherwise-equal 16:10 over 16:9 every time.
I suspect you guys will be the first to jump on board and advocate the new 16:5 screen ratio in a few years.
Do you guys even have a clue about 16:10? I'm sorry for being sarcastic, but not offense please. It "hardly" makes any difference in real life.
Check out this post:
A 16:10 monitor of any size will permit you more vertical space, so if the web-pages you tend to visit are long, there will be less scrolling. If you're looking at a 24" monitor, then a 16:10 display is wide enough to hold two full size word documents with a bit to spare, so unless you need anything wider than that, 16:10 is plenty wide. On small monitors, though, the added width of 16:9 could be helpful in viewing multiple open windows.
and in both cases, the 16:9 ratio tends to be better for modern media, however if you watch old TV shows much (4:3) there will be quiet a bit of black space on the two sides,
and a hardcore gamer should decide if it's PC gaming or console gaming. PC Games will be able to use the extra resolution of a 16:10 (1920x1200) on a 24" monitor but consoles only 16:9 aspect ratios. Not all games currently have 16:9 support, though many do. and if that's your priority and you plan on playing on both PC and console, 16:9 may be more beneficial.
No offense Supreet, but "hardly makes a difference" isn't the same as "doesn't make a difference."
Obviously it a personal preference, but as you yourself just posted, 16:9 is mostly beneficial for games and movies. 16:9 was designed for movies, so obviously it works well there, but it offers a disadvantage when doing desktop work, in the form of less vertical resolution (you might consider it a smaller disadvantage than others do).
On the converse, 16:10 offers the disadvantage when watching movies, in the form of two 60px black bars at 1080p, or two 40px black bars at 720p. I consider the black bars much less of a nuisance than the decreased desktop space, so I choose 16:10.
And let's not forget that you lose 10% of your raw pixel count with 16:9 relative to the corresponding 16:10 resolution.
when it comes to 16:10 or 16:9, it boils down to ones preferrence or what you are used to.
me personally I like 16:10 when it comes to computer viewing. It gives me a little bit more vertical space and for my eyes, imo, seems more proportionally even when it comes to working with everything else other than movies. When I am on a monitor that is a 16:9..... everything seems squished vertically.. The image is not actually squished but my eyes can tell there is less space to view i.e. desktop and within applications. Now if someone was using 16:9 from the get go or that is their promident use of monitors, then they would not have an issue with it. When it comes to movies, 16:9 is better fitted .... just as long as you dont change the players aspect ratio to i.e. zoom, pan, vertical fit, horizontal fit, etc..... you still get the little black bars above and below, just not as big as on a 16:10. It's when you start to change the viewing type that can get distorted in different ways.
So if you want a monitor that is either 16:10 or 16:9, dont let one or the other stop you.
As mentioned, computer monitors are heading towards the 16:9 ratio due to multimedia... but 16:10 is the ratio for computers when "widescreen" started in the beginning coming from the norm 4:3 ratio.
oh by the way... with less vertical space in a 16:9 format vs 16:10, the space loss is more effected with smaller screen size than with larger screen.
movies, yes, 16:9 works better.... but for everything else it just seems there is a loss in real estate that is noticable. well for me that is.... and that is coming from working on 16:10 much longer than 16:9 monitors.
As McFly mentioned, larger bars in movies is much more of a lesser evil over loosing real estate within desktop and application.