Last week I watched a review of the LG gram and the reviewer said he liked the new 16:10 screens more, because they are higher and this new [sic] trend was promising.
Meanwhile I'm using one of the last reasonably priced 16:10 screens I could get 10 years ago before the whole industry decided people only want 16:9.
Same goes with glare and non-glare
It's like display creators lost their minds in 2005.
3 years later the situation is even worse. Not only has 4:3 disappeared entirely, 16:10 is going away too in favor of 16:9 (apparently, I hear, this is because the 16:9 form factor allows better yields in the lcd manufacturing process).
This wouldn't be much of a problem in 17" screens or above but below - which is where most portable devices fall - the 16:9 form factor feels like peeking at the world through a slit.
When I got a new 15" laptop last year I picked an older model that had just been discontinued, because it's successor moved from 16:10 to 16:9. Of course what I really wanted was a 14" 4:3 but you can't have that for any amount of money.
re chopping the top off: LCD manufacturers appear to be transitioning from 16:10 displays to true 16:9 (which i guess is for better movie displays?)... This seems stupid to me as well.
Agreed. I got very used to 16:10 when I bought my monitors as a teenager. A couple of years ago I finally decided the 19" screens weren't cutting it anymore after 10 years of service and wanted to move to 24". Spent some time looking for 16:10 but ended up with 16:9 unfortunately. 16:10 monitors were way less common and way more expensive. And 144hz 16:10 monitors just don't even seem to exist. 16:9 feels so much more cramped than it should given the screen size.
Back when 16:10 and 16:9 displays became common, I remember they weren't received particularly fondly by many of the developers I knew. Non-technical people seemed to like them more. More hardcore developers rather had to somewhat begrudgingly accept them.
Maybe the 3:2 aficionados aren't the same people who started disliking 4:3 displays when widescreen became popular?
I think it started with Dell (besides Mac of course!) and now all vendors are going with 16:10 for last 3-4 years or so.
I understand supply chain might have been optimized for this display ratio now but what caused this change instead of just continuing with 16:9 remains unknown to me.
It's nice to see large manufacturers break out of the 16:9 mold, although I think 4:3, 3:2, or 5:4 would be better for most users.
Unfortunately, LG is letting the supply chain dictate panel size for their product team, instead of the other way around. This is no doubt a byproduct of their decision to stop building their own panels in 2020.
I don't care so much about pixel density; it's the ratio that bothers me.
16:9 is ridiculous for anything except watching HD television. (It also now works well for gaming, but only because developers decided to cater to widescreen.)
16:10 is the widest that makes sense for any day-to-day computing tasks, yet it's getting harder and harder to find; forget reasonable 4:3 types.
In most cases that I've seen, a 16:10 vs 16:9 display has the same pixel width (the 16 part) part and more vertical pixels. So you were never actually sacrificing width as you claim.
I've had 3 16:10 panels in the last 10 years and this was the case each time: 1920x1200 (vs 1920x1080), 2560x1600 (vs 2560x1440) and now a 3840x2400 (vs 3840x2160).
16:10 monitors were out of fashion for most of the last 10 years, but are making a comeback lately.. They were hard to find for a while but worth the effort imo.
Actually for typical (cheap), large consumer displays 16:9 seems to be taking over. It's increasingly hard to find 16:10 24"+ monitors that aren't >$600. I'm not sure whether this is due to demand, the economics of larger displays, or the rise of HD television (720p, 1080p are both 16:9).
There was certainly a transition from 5:4 to widescreen displays in the 2000s, with nearly everyone but Apple opting for 16:9. I don't recall any mass adoption of 16:10 followed by a mass migration to 16:9 in the last decade, which is what you're stating happened.
If Apple is moving from 16:10 to 16:9, then that would indeed be a very recent development. If this is the case, it would be kind of sad to me (I prefer a bit more vertical space), but understandable given the economics of the panel business.
I used to prefer 16:10 too, but increasing ppi/size makes using 16:9 displays a non-problem for me (24" 1200 -> 27" 4k). 16:10 / 2:3 still matters a lot at laptop sizes though.
I am still mad that all display vendors went 16:9. The black bars are fine when watching movies if you mostly use the display for productive work, whereas 4:3->16:9 was a shitty transition for someone like me working mostly with text and written music. It was as if the world had decided that the use case for computer screens was something else than what I was using them for. Although I do costume some video content on my computer today, I would switch to a high-res 4:3 display instantly.
A 27" 4000x3000 display would be a dream come true.
16:9 can't be equated to and is significantly worse than 16:10, which is worse than 3:2, which is worse than 4:3 (which is coming back on tablets). There were even 5:4 displays at one point (early days of desktop LCD, I still have my 1280x1024 19" ViewSonic VP191b).
Assuming 15" diagonals on all of them:
* a 16:9 display is 96 sq in and 7.4" high
* a 16:10 display is 101 sq in and 7.9" high
* a 3:2 display is 104 sq in and 8.3" high
* a 4:3 display is 108 sq in and 9" high
* a 5:4 display is 110 sq in and 9.4" high
As you can see, 16:10 -> 16:9 is actually the largest loss in surface area and second-largest loss of height (largest being 4:3 -> 3:2).
However if you're watching a movie, the 16:9 has 100% coverage for 16:9 and 75% coverage for Cinemascope, every other format gets lower in both relative and absolute coverage, down to 70% (77 sq in) and 53% (58 sq in) for a 5:4.
> How the hell did people think it was a good idea?
Black bars on movies, better view angles in FPS, and cheaper.
I completely disagree. I'm sorry, but I find it impossible to believe that enterprise IT departments and businesses were jumping up and down for 16:9 displays. Maybe all the stupid consumers wanted them, but consumers are not the target customer for enterprise laptops.
I think it's much more likely that the laptop makers saw an opportunity to save money by going to 16:9 because of the massive growth in 16:9 LCD screens thanks to TVs, because the LCD factories were pushing them for economies of scale.
Definitely agree that widescreen has become common due to customer preference. But is 16:9 over 16:10 really a selling point (or even noticeable) to the average laptop buyer?
It probably has been used as a gimmick competitive advantage ("even more widescreen than before!") but I bet the 16:10->16:9 move was predominantly due to screen supply and cost.
Last week I watched a review of the LG gram and the reviewer said he liked the new 16:10 screens more, because they are higher and this new [sic] trend was promising.
Meanwhile I'm using one of the last reasonably priced 16:10 screens I could get 10 years ago before the whole industry decided people only want 16:9.
Same goes with glare and non-glare
It's like display creators lost their minds in 2005.
reply