EPTHere is what I will be doing with the monitor
I will be playing Starcraft, playing xbox, watch youtube/justin.tv/movies, doing homework, surfing the web.
So which one would you recommend to me ?
16:9 or 16:10 Monitor?
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
D3ath3nat0r
United States163 Posts
Here is what I will be doing with the monitor I will be playing Starcraft, playing xbox, watch youtube/justin.tv/movies, doing homework, surfing the web. So which one would you recommend to me ? | ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
Anyway, for SC2, 16 : 9 provides a wider viewing angle (in fact, it's the same in nearly every game, since 16 : 9 IS wider). This means more screen viewing in comparison to 16 : 10. Browsing can benefit from 16 : 10 since you need less scrolling, but at normal monitor sizes (as opposed to, say, laptop sizes), you probably won't care too much about that. I would have to recommend 16 : 9, unless you're used to/prefer 16 : 10. Really just preference. | ||
|
D3ath3nat0r
United States163 Posts
yeah I use my laptop which has a 15.6 inch widescreen 16  atm, and i like it, not sure if i would like it any bigger | ||
|
LoveSponge
Australia237 Posts
It's fine for everything + if you're playing xbox you will want the 1080p. | ||
|
[N3O]r3d33m3r
Germany673 Posts
of course, all games of today and all movies are tailored for 16.there are many haters though who swear on 16:10, but they don't realize that 16 is the only appropriate for entertainment.16:10 is better for people who only browse and/or photoshop, but since we are gamers, 16 is the way to go | ||
|
enemy2010
Germany1972 Posts
![[image loading]](http://h-6.abload.de/img/sc2_fov36k6.gif) 16 : 9  | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On May 18 2011 14:16 enemy2010 wrote: 16 : 9 But you can run a 16 ratio on a 16:10 screen (thus not losing SC viewing advantage), just requires some black bars on top/bottom. If it's between say a 24" 1920x1200 or 24" 1920x1080, I'd go for the x1200 16:10 one, just for the extra resolution in general. That would have a larger pixel density though. | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
i like 16 : 10 myself, widescreen with a larger area per inch of screen size also 16 : 10 should be cheaper | ||
|
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On May 18 2011 14:25 Cyber_Cheese wrote: that pictures biased, try that from a horizontal comparison and its inversed The picture is not biased. 16 : 9 aspect ratios show more of the map. That's an indisputable fact of the render engine that is currently used in SC2. | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On May 18 2011 13:51 r3d33m3r wrote: 16 of course, all games of today and all movies are tailored for 16.there are many haters though who swear on 16:10, but they don't realize that 16 is the only appropriate for entertainment.16:10 is better for people who only browse and/or photoshop, but since we are gamers, 16 is the way to goMovies don't appear any differently. The traditional movie ratio is going to get black bars on either resolution; 16: 9 movies will get black bars on the 16:10 and it doesn't really matter because the GPU is smart enough to not stretch the video. Neither do games with proper engines. You get more viewing space with 16:10 than you do with 16: 9. Starcraft 2 is one of the exceptions I can think of, who knows what Blizzard was thinking because basically every other game handles these two ratios correctly. If you plug a Xbox or PS3 into a Dell 16:10 monitor, the internal scaler automatically adjusts it so it doesn't stretch. High end professional monitors (we're talking $2,000+ stuff like HP Dreamcolours or Eizos) generally don't have internal scalers but they're professional monitor for a reason. If they were actually the same price, I don't think there is any real reason to not get 16:10. But they're not, unfortunately and the 16:10 is nearly always going to be more expensive than the 16: 9 monitor. | ||
|
Beardfish
United States525 Posts
The wrong way is to keep the horizontal fov locked while shrinking the vertical fov. In this case, a 4:3 monitor will display a larger fov than a 16:10 monitor, which will display a larger fov than a 16: 9 monitor. Obviously users with widescreen monitors should see a larger in-game area than users with 4:3 monitors. This is why the first method is the right way to handle widescreen support. | ||
MasterOfChaos
Germany2896 Posts
I'd go with 16:10 since it most likely offers higher vertical resolution. In my experience vertical resolution is much more useful than horizontal resolution for almost everything(excluding movies). Personally I like 4:3 most, but you rarely get those anymore. "Obviously users with widescreen monitors should see a larger in-game area than users with 4:3 monitors." Absolutely not obvious to me. You could simply lock fovX*fovY, that way any aspect ratio gets about the same view are. Or simply allow the user to choose zoom and set the AR like they want. That screenshot isn't biased, it just shows that blizzard is too lazy to implement good support for different aspect ratios. | ||
|
JaxDaniels
United States29 Posts
even though 4:3 is the classic XD | ||
|
Ruscour
5233 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 101379
4849 Posts
Interesting, i didn't know that Blizzard didn't care to adapt to different aspect ratios. I have 16:10 and except for that gif, i never have seen anything where it really mattered. 16/9 (d*mn that smiley) monitors just look physically a little too stretched to me, but maybe thats because i grew up with 4:3. | ||
|
G_Wen
Canada525 Posts
On May 18 2011 15:47 MasterOfChaos wrote: You forgot the most important numbers in your OP: The resolution of the monitors. I'd go with 16:10 since it most likely offers higher vertical resolution. In my experience vertical resolution is much more useful than horizontal resolution for almost everything(excluding movies). Personally I like 4:3 most, but you rarely get those anymore. "Obviously users with widescreen monitors should see a larger in-game area than users with 4:3 monitors." Absolutely not obvious to me. You could simply lock fovX*fovY, that way any aspect ratio gets about the same view are. Or simply allow the user to choose zoom and set the AR like they want. That screenshot isn't biased, it just shows that blizzard is too lazy to implement good support for different aspect ratios. To elaborate many of the websites you view limit their use of horizontal space for example TL. In for every day browsing a 16:10 resolution would be better than a 16 due to the extra vertical space. A 16:10 resolution allows your to comfortably have 2 pages open in Word 2010 (97% of actual size with standard task bar 98% with smaller task bar icons). From a mathematical perspective 16:10 is closer to the golden ratio . | ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
you get more pixels than 16: 9 you're not going to become a progamer, so the wider screen that 16: 9 gives for SC2 isn't that important imo | ||
|
Crazyseal
United Kingdom259 Posts
does a bigger screen give u more viewing space on the screen ingame? From the Gif above it seems that way but i thought the way resolutions work is that is standardises the amount space you can see depending on your screen? | ||
|
bluesoup
Macedonia107 Posts
Bigger vertical resolution is better for almost everything. I really don't mind tiny black bars top and bottom on the 16 : 9 movies and yet movies are often even wider than 16 : 9 and you will see black bars anyway... What I can't seem to understand is the moronic 1366x768 "HD" resolution on almost all notebook displays these days. It is good for nothing. If you watch 720p video (1280x720) it gets scaled (bad for image quality). If you watch 1080p it gets scaled anyway but it does not have good 3:2 scaling ratio like i.e. 1280x800. Not to mention that 768px vertical resolution is really small, i.e. a lot of scrolling. Only Apple these days seems to be using 1280x800 for notebooks and 4:3 for tablets, but sadly i am no Apple fan... Anyway you should not have scaling problems at 1920xAnything but few more pixels in vertical resolution really doesn't hurt. And all 16:10 monitors will let you i.e. play SC2 at 16 : 9 ratio which is not the case in reverse. | ||
|
DERPDERP
Kyrgyzstan189 Posts
| ||
|
Agh
United States899 Posts
sc2 supports 16:10 resolutions and the game will fill up your screen just fine. 16:10 is the clear winner in my eyes. The only thing I've ever encountered that would may a 16 better was FME/FMLE (adobe's video encoder for streaming) didn't have support for 16:10. but thats more a fault on their part[It may have been added now, this was months ago). and It's also fixed by using an alternative streaming program such as xsplit. | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
No problems for me at all. | ||
|
Kr1pos
Norway67 Posts
On May 18 2011 17:23 Agh wrote: uh the .gif that was posted is NOT how your game would look at 16:10. sc2 supports 16:10 resolutions and the game will fill up your screen just fine. The point of the gif is not the black bars but rather how you can see more of the map with 16 : 9 over 16 : 10 (and 4:3). The reason you see black bars in the gif is because the gif-frame is 16 : 9. | ||
|
Chocobo
United States1108 Posts
On May 18 2011 17:23 Agh wrote: uh the .gif that was posted is NOT how your game would look at 16:10. sc2 supports 16:10 resolutions and the game will fill up your screen just fine. That gif is EXACTLY how your game would look at 16:10. It has nothing to do with the screen being "filled up", it's about how much of the map you can see at one time on a single screen. If you have an old 4:3 monitor and play SC2, you will get to see much less at once than a person using a 16 : 9 monitor. The 16 : 9 player will get to see and control things on the edges of his screen that would not be visible on-screen if you're using a 4:3 monitor. The same is true for a 16:10 monitor. You will get to see slightly less on screen than someone using 16 : 9. This slight difference is important to pro gamers, but probably not important at all to the vast majority of players. I personally have a 16:10 monitor, it's great for most games and better for web browsing since there's more vertical real estate. I use a 16 : 9 resolution for SC2 and have black bars on my screen (and the same is true for TV shows and movies), but this is really only a small drawback to me. | ||
|
iloveav
Poland1478 Posts
About the aspect ratio, id go for 16/10 i think. | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
I have done numerous printscreens to test this. It's not a giant difference like 4/3 to 16/9 but it's there. Here are my printscreens: 16:10 ![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/800r.png/) 16/9 ![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/863/720.png/) But like I said, I have a 16/10 monitor and play SC2 on 16/9. It all looks fine anyway, as you can see. | ||
|
FinBenton
Finland870 Posts
| ||
|
FeiLing
Germany428 Posts
On May 18 2011 18:05 Chocobo wrote: The same is true for a 16:10 monitor. You will get to see slightly less on screen than someone using 16 : 9. This slight difference is important to pro gamers, but probably not important at all to the vast majority of players. It's actually so important to progamers, that on the intel extreme world championship or whatever (event in germany some months ago) you could see a few progamers playing (filmed by a backstage guy). What you saw was: They only had 4:3 monitors there. Most pro's were playing in 4:3 resolution. Except for idra, who set the resolution on the 4:3 screen they had to 16 : 9. People probably were laughing at him for having half of the screen black, but he did the right thing, seeing more than anyone else. Most progamers don't seem to have much of a clue about computers  edit) more on topic: 16:10 for sure. Grab one before they extinct (16 : 9s are more profitable for manufacturers, which is why 16:10 screens are rare today). It's advantagous in absolutely every situation apart from SC2, where you just run it with a 16 : 9 resolutioon instead. The small black bars on top and bottom then (in SC2) don't matter at all... actually it kinda looks good/classy :D | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On May 18 2011 19:25 FeiLing wrote: It's actually so important to progamers, that on the intel extreme world championship or whatever (event in germany some months ago) you could see a few progamers playing (filmed by a backstage guy). What you saw was: They only had 4:3 monitors there. Most pro's were playing in 4:3 resolution. Except for idra, who set the resolution on the 4:3 screen they had to 16 . People probably were laughing at him for having half of the screen black, but he did the right thing, seeing more than anyone else. Most progamers don't seem to have much of a clue about computers Uhm, to be fair, it could have been a conscious decision made between having such a small viewing area throwing off their mousing vs having a slightly smaller visible area of the map as well. | ||
|
SlapMySalami
United States1060 Posts
i have a 16:10 monitor and i say get a 16 monitor. when i went to stream i had problems with a few programs that fed my screen to FMLE.. they had a 16 resolution but no 16:10.. i could ofc run my program at 16 but it wouldnt look as pretty and isnt optimized | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
How do you set 16/9 on a 16:10 monitor and having the black bars? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On May 18 2011 19:42 Psychobabas wrote: Question: How do you set 16/9 on a 16:10 monitor and having the black bars? Change resolution to a 16: 9 resolution. A chart. | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
| ||
|
FinBenton
Finland870 Posts
| ||
|
Phayze
Canada2029 Posts
On May 18 2011 17:23 Agh wrote: uh the .gif that was posted is NOT how your game would look at 16:10. sc2 supports 16:10 resolutions and the game will fill up your screen just fine. 16:10 is the clear winner in my eyes. The only thing I've ever encountered that would may a 16 better was FME/FMLE (adobe's video encoder for streaming) didn't have support for 16:10. but thats more a fault on their part[It may have been added now, this was months ago). and It's also fixed by using an alternative streaming program such as xsplit.You're wrong. Yes, it does support it, yes it will be fullscreen, that GIF shows the viewing angle of each resolution. You SEE more with 16 : 9 over 16 : 10 . OP, I would buy a 16 : 10 monitor, and just run a scaling mode from your drivers when playing starcraft (nvidia scaling on nvidia). This will cause resolutions in 16 : 9 to run in 16 : 9 and not stretch, leaving small black bars at the top and bottom. Allowing you to have a large PC resolution, which is nice for things like internet browsing, but still get the viewing angle in starcraft without any stretching or distortions. | ||
|
Hrwa
Croatia147 Posts
On May 18 2011 19:42 Psychobabas wrote: Question: How do you set 16/9 on a 16:10 monitor and having the black bars? On my ATI card I had to enable GPU image scaling and set it to maintain aspect ratio. Then just select 16/9 resolution in SC2. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11548 Posts
is much cheaperunless you are buying an IPS panel for actual productive work, 16 is the way to go. | ||
|
Dugrok
Canada377 Posts
On May 18 2011 14:22 cz wrote: But you can run a 16 ratio on a 16:10 screen (thus not losing SC viewing advantage), just requires some black bars on top/bottom. If it's between say a 24" 1920x1200 or 24" 1920x1080, I'd go for the x1200 16:10 one, just for the extra resolution in general. That would have a larger pixel density though.So you're basically saying to buy a 16: 10 but not make use it as a 16: 9? Doesn't sound very useful to me... | ||
|
Poobah
England91 Posts
| ||
|
OldBamboo
United States42 Posts
SC2 runs fine, full screen. I don't have those black bars on the side, as depicted in the GIF on the first page. If I watch a widescreen video, I have black bars at the top and bottom of my screen. I don't see any advantage in having a 16 : 10 monitor. I'm probably going to buy a 16 : 9 monitor next time around, just because I prefer not to have the black bars framing my screen when I'm watching video. Edit: those emoticons are annoying. | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On May 18 2011 20:02 FragKrag wrote: 16 is much cheaperunless you are buying an IPS panel for actual productive work, 16 is the way to go.I don't even think 16:10 monitors even exist outside PVA/IPS. | ||
|
MyNameIsAlex
Greece827 Posts
Its alot cheaper. You dont sound like you need a 16:10 (almost all 16:10 are IPS/IPV) Im perfectly fine with my 27" 16 : 9 | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
smiley in this sub-forum. | ||
|
bluesoup
Macedonia107 Posts
On May 18 2011 22:51 MyNameIsAlex wrote: go mainstream, go 16 : 9 Its alot cheaper. You dont sound like you need a 16:10 (almost all 16:10 are IPS/IPV) Im perfectly fine with my 27" 16 : 9 Today... possibly. One year ago it was not so... My 26" 16/10 (1920x1200) T260HD is just TN and it was not significantly more expensive than rest 16/9 on the market at the time of similar size... So do shop around, if you find cheap old stock of TN 16/10 monitors they are great. Newer is not necessarily better at least in displays, it might be just cheaper... Entry level LED backlighting (although definitely thinner) is not superior to CCFL, etc... And once again, 16/10 displays can display letterboxed 16/9 image with small black bars (i.e. for SC2). 16/9 monitors will newer have 1200+ vertical resolution of 16/10 displays for general usage... My PC is hooked up to 16/10 display and 16/9 LCD TV (in another room). When I want to mirror the image (i.e. watch GOM on big screen), monitor switches to 1080p 16/9. Boy, the picture does look noticeably smaller.... And since id doubles as TV sometimes, with 16/10 i use bigger portion of the screen if I watch 4/3 program, etc... Considering the current results of the poll, i am surprised... But than again now I understand the manufacturers going for 16/9 which is cheaper to produce (they are smaller) for the same amount of inches your *think* you are buying... | ||
|
NPHarris
91 Posts
| ||
|
quentel
349 Posts
emoticon trolling the entirety of this thread ;D | ||
|
Beardfish
United States525 Posts
On May 18 2011 15:47 MasterOfChaos wrote: Absolutely not obvious to me. You could simply lock fovX*fovY, that way any aspect ratio gets about the same view are. Or simply allow the user to choose zoom and set the AR like they want. That screenshot isn't biased, it just shows that blizzard is too lazy to implement good support for different aspect ratios. You are right, the best solution would be to allow the user to select the FoV they want. Do any games implement something like this? I've personally never seen it before. | ||
|
MyNameIsAlex
Greece827 Posts
On May 19 2011 00:59 bluesoup wrote: Today... possibly. One year ago it was not so... My 26" 16/10 (1920x1200) T260HD is just TN and it was not significantly more expensive than rest 16/9 on the market at the time of similar size... So do shop around, if you find cheap old stock of TN 16/10 monitors they are great. Newer is not necessarily better at least in displays, it might be just cheaper... Entry level LED backlighting (although definitely thinner) is not superior to CCFL, etc... And once again, 16/10 displays can display letterboxed 16/9 image with small black bars (i.e. for SC2). 16/9 monitors will newer have 1200+ vertical resolution of 16/10 displays for general usage... My PC is hooked up to 16/10 display and 16/9 LCD TV (in another room). When I want to mirror the image (i.e. watch GOM on big screen), monitor switches to 1080p 16/9. Boy, the picture does look noticeably smaller.... And since id doubles as TV sometimes, with 16/10 i use bigger portion of the screen if I watch 4/3 program, etc... Considering the current results of the poll, i am surprised... But than again now I understand the manufacturers going for 16/9 which is cheaper to produce (they are smaller) for the same amount of inches your *think* you are buying... 16 : 10 is better for everything outside of gaming, and thats because gaming standards are decided by console games (16 : 9 hdtvs) 16 : 9 is cheaper because of the mass production of panels (they use the same panels at TVs thats why 16 is cheaper). | ||
|
Gryffes
United Kingdom763 Posts
I wish youtube would allow 1200p so I don't need to resize my gaming res for recording though t_t. | ||
| ||
