Personally, I'd rather have 1920x1200 (because then at least you don't lose any vertical pixels to 1600x1200). Why didn't 1920x1200 make the grade? For instance, it doesn't seem like there are any G-sync or Freesync displays in 1920x1200 and very few 1920x1200 monitors at all.
8051
My best guess would be that manufacturers wanted to have less product lines and that TV resolutions move more units. I don't think the average buyer cares about vertical resolution much if at all. Given a choice between 16:9 and 16:10 I'd take the latter every time and I'd take 4:3 or 5:4 over that.
It's a shame 16:10 basically died. I used to run a 1920x1200 panel and really enjoyed it. Was hoping to go up to 2560x1600 but had to settle for 2560x1440.
After 4:3 went out of fashion, 16:10 was pretty common. Then 16:9 TV's started becoming more common. All the "full HD" marketing for 1080p pared with manufactures wanting to reduce product lines killed 16:10.
After 4:3 went out of fashion, 16:10 was pretty common. Then 16:9 TV's started becoming more common. All the "full HD" marketing for 1080p pared with manufactures wanting to reduce product lines killed 16:10.
I don't think the masses knew about resolution differences and since their TV was 1080p, they just gravitated towards that standard.
TV mass standards/1080p cheaper to make (much higher sales).
Still love my 1200p being used with The Hawaiian Heat Have (in sig).
TV mass standards/1080p cheaper to make (much higher sales).
Still love my 1200p being used with The Hawaiian Heat Have (in sig).
I'm surprised that more 1920x1200 panels or just about any 16:10 aspect ratio isn't more predominate in offices everywhere. Unless you are working with really wide spreadsheets, I would rather have to scroll down / up less when reading documents, web pages, emails, etc.
Simply, the TV and movie industry wanted 16:9 and that drove the industry to that aspect ratio. They were so close, it didn't make sense to continue producing a different panel for TV vs monitors in most cases.
There are a few reasons. You could have a second monitor in portrait. Also, resolution has went up a good bit since then. What you'd need 1200/1600 vertical pixels for is now 2160 soon to be doubled again when 8k drops. Can't think of a time where I needed more vertical room with a 4k monitor. It's more than enough.
Plus, you run into letterboxing on 16:9 content (youtube, whatever.mkv,), and ultrawide content is even more letterboxed.
Plus, you run into letterboxing on 16:9 content (youtube, whatever.mkv,), and ultrawide content is even more letterboxed.
I was one of the first in my office to do a second monitor in portrait mode. Everyone thought I was a genius... lol.
1920x1080 was used in order to achieve a wider aspect for what most people would consider better viewing, as many TV shows are filmed for the 16:9 aspect.
I'm quite fond of the 1920x1200 screen. I bought a Hanns-G 28" in that resolution and loved it. Now I have a 30" 2560 x 1600, and again love the 16:10 resolution. Probably going to have to go to a 2560x1440 screen in the future though, so I can get freesync and higher refresh, etc.
They do exist and 16:10 is nice, had it on laptop 1280x800px and monitor 1920x1200px. But as probably others have already guessed this is more of a "professional"/business aspect ratio for office oriented displays. Especially nowadays many displays are in the "movie" aspect ratio of 16:9, only mobile phones (if they can still even be called that since that's probably their last use case) recently are moving into weirder aspect ratios, even more wide which on a phone I find annoying as then the long dimension tends to be way too large to reach.
2560x1440px is OK on a large size but on a smaller size you would probably want 1600px height.
Profit $$$ really is the reason 16:10 is so rare.
Movies are not even 16:9, only the more "backward" made content still is and many have moved to 1.85:1.0 or ultrawide 2.35-2.4:1.0 and there are old movies made on great cameras and lenses that are even beyond that (2.67 I think).
I don't mind black bars bottom and top, it's normal, what I don't like though are black bars left and right.
Sadly a lot of the 1.85 and wider content these days is done by cropping 16:9 or similar source = they cut off a lot of the scene up and down and it looks a bit too much zoomed in after they cut it as they should have used a wider angle lens if they plan to crop like that.
2560x1440px is OK on a large size but on a smaller size you would probably want 1600px height.
Profit $$$ really is the reason 16:10 is so rare.
Movies are not even 16:9, only the more "backward" made content still is and many have moved to 1.85:1.0 or ultrawide 2.35-2.4:1.0 and there are old movies made on great cameras and lenses that are even beyond that (2.67 I think).
I don't mind black bars bottom and top, it's normal, what I don't like though are black bars left and right.
Sadly a lot of the 1.85 and wider content these days is done by cropping 16:9 or similar source = they cut off a lot of the scene up and down and it looks a bit too much zoomed in after they cut it as they should have used a wider angle lens if they plan to crop like that.
Dr. Kerns H. Powers, a member of the SMPTE Working Group on High-Definition Electronic Production, first proposed the 16:9 (1.77:1) aspect ratio in 1984,[1] when nobody was creating 16:9 videos. The popular choices in 1980 were: 1.33:1 (based on television standard's ratio at the time), 1.66:1 (the European "flat" ratio), 1.85:1 (the American "flat" ratio), 2.20:1 (the ratio of 70 mm films and Panavision) and 2.35:1 (the CinemaScope ratio for anamorphic widescreen films).
Powers cut out rectangles with equal areas, shaped to match each of the popular aspect ratios. When overlapped with their center points aligned, he found that all of those aspect ratio rectangles fit within an outer rectangle with an aspect ratio of 1.77:1 and all of them also covered a smaller common inner rectangle with the same aspect ratio 1.77:1.[2] The value found by Powers is exactly the geometric mean of the extreme aspect ratios, 4:3 (1.33:1) and 2.35:1 (or 64:27, see also 21:9 aspect ratio for more information), √47/15≈ 1.770 which is coincidentally close to 16:9 (1.77:1). Applying the same geometric mean technique to 16:9 and 4:3 yields the 14:9 aspect ratio, which is likewise used as a compromise between these ratios.[3]
While 16:9 (1.77:1) was initially selected as a compromise format, the subsequent popularity of HDTV broadcast has solidified 16:9 as perhaps the most important video aspect ratio in use.[citation needed] Most 4:3 (1.33:1) and 2.39:1 video is now recorded using a "shoot and protect" technique[4] that keeps the main action within a 16:9 (1.77:1) inner rectangle to facilitate HD broadcast[citation needed]. Conversely it is quite common to use a technique known as center-cutting, to approach the challenge of presenting material shot (typically 16:9) to both an HD and legacy 4:3 audience simultaneously without having to compromise image size for either audience. Content creators frame critical content or graphics to fit within the 1.33 raster space.[citation needed] This has similarities to a filming technique called Open matte.
After the original 16:9 Action Plan of the early 1990s, the European Union has instituted the 16:9 Action Plan,[5] just to accelerate the development of the advanced television services in 16:9 aspect ratio, both in PAL and also in HDTV. The Community fund for the 16:9 Action Plan amounted to €228 million.
In 2008, the computer industry started switching to 16:9 from 4:3 and 16:10 as the standard aspect ratio for monitors and laptops. A 2008 report by DisplaySearch cited a number of reasons for this shift, including the ability for PC and monitor manufacturers to expand their product ranges by offering products with wider screens and higher resolutions, helping consumers to more easily adopt such products and "stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market".[6]
In 2011, Bennie Budler, product manager of IT products at Samsung South Africa, confirmed that monitors capable of 1920×1200 resolutions aren't being manufactured anymore. "It is all about reducing manufacturing costs. The new 16:9 aspect ratio panels are more cost-effective to manufacture locally than the previous 16:10 panels".[7] Since computer displays are advertised by their diagonal measure, for monitors with the same display area, a wide screen monitor will have a larger diagonal measure, thus sounding more impressive. Within limits, the amount of information that can be displayed, and the cost of the monitor depend more on area than on diagonal measure.
In March 2011, the 16:9 resolution 1920×1080 became the most common used resolution among Steam's users. The earlier most common resolution was 1680×1050 (16:10)
Powers cut out rectangles with equal areas, shaped to match each of the popular aspect ratios. When overlapped with their center points aligned, he found that all of those aspect ratio rectangles fit within an outer rectangle with an aspect ratio of 1.77:1 and all of them also covered a smaller common inner rectangle with the same aspect ratio 1.77:1.[2] The value found by Powers is exactly the geometric mean of the extreme aspect ratios, 4:3 (1.33:1) and 2.35:1 (or 64:27, see also 21:9 aspect ratio for more information), √47/15≈ 1.770 which is coincidentally close to 16:9 (1.77:1). Applying the same geometric mean technique to 16:9 and 4:3 yields the 14:9 aspect ratio, which is likewise used as a compromise between these ratios.[3]
While 16:9 (1.77:1) was initially selected as a compromise format, the subsequent popularity of HDTV broadcast has solidified 16:9 as perhaps the most important video aspect ratio in use.[citation needed] Most 4:3 (1.33:1) and 2.39:1 video is now recorded using a "shoot and protect" technique[4] that keeps the main action within a 16:9 (1.77:1) inner rectangle to facilitate HD broadcast[citation needed]. Conversely it is quite common to use a technique known as center-cutting, to approach the challenge of presenting material shot (typically 16:9) to both an HD and legacy 4:3 audience simultaneously without having to compromise image size for either audience. Content creators frame critical content or graphics to fit within the 1.33 raster space.[citation needed] This has similarities to a filming technique called Open matte.
After the original 16:9 Action Plan of the early 1990s, the European Union has instituted the 16:9 Action Plan,[5] just to accelerate the development of the advanced television services in 16:9 aspect ratio, both in PAL and also in HDTV. The Community fund for the 16:9 Action Plan amounted to €228 million.
In 2008, the computer industry started switching to 16:9 from 4:3 and 16:10 as the standard aspect ratio for monitors and laptops. A 2008 report by DisplaySearch cited a number of reasons for this shift, including the ability for PC and monitor manufacturers to expand their product ranges by offering products with wider screens and higher resolutions, helping consumers to more easily adopt such products and "stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market".[6]
In 2011, Bennie Budler, product manager of IT products at Samsung South Africa, confirmed that monitors capable of 1920×1200 resolutions aren't being manufactured anymore. "It is all about reducing manufacturing costs. The new 16:9 aspect ratio panels are more cost-effective to manufacture locally than the previous 16:10 panels".[7] Since computer displays are advertised by their diagonal measure, for monitors with the same display area, a wide screen monitor will have a larger diagonal measure, thus sounding more impressive. Within limits, the amount of information that can be displayed, and the cost of the monitor depend more on area than on diagonal measure.
In March 2011, the 16:9 resolution 1920×1080 became the most common used resolution among Steam's users. The earlier most common resolution was 1680×1050 (16:10)
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
