# 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200????



## codyjansen (Apr 11, 2010)

i am thinking about getting a new monitor and i was wondering what resolution would look best for gaming and movies

i know both are widescreen but 1920x1080 looks more rectangular which is what i like but i dont know how gaming and movies would look on both resolutions so if anyone can help it would be lots of help.


----------



## mlee49 (Apr 11, 2010)

For gaming I like 1200p it's truly HD. It will stress your hardware, so your 3870 will not be able to handle much eye candy.  

If your going just for movies then 1080 is great.  It looks great from a distance greater than 3 feet so you may want to keep that in mind.

Also, if your going HD or HD+ it's best to understand what your primary use will be.  Gaming on a 1920 is pretty but stressful.  Watching a 1080 movie on a 1920 screen does look a bit pixelated no matter the distance. So gaming on  1080 screen and movies on a 1080 screen is good, but again stressful on your 3870, definately going to need something more powerful.


----------



## codyjansen (Apr 11, 2010)

mlee49 said:


> For gaming I like 1200p it's truly HD. It will stress your hardware, so your 3870 will not be able to handle much eye candy.
> 
> If your going just for movies then 1080 is great.  It looks great from a distance greater than 3 feet so you may want to keep that in mind.
> 
> Also, if your going HD or HD+ it's best to understand what your primary use will be.  Gaming on a 1920 is pretty but stressful.  Watching a 1080 movie on a 1920 screen does look a bit pixelated no matter the distance. So gaming on  1080 screen and movies on a 1080 screen is good, but again stressful on your 3870, definately going to need something more powerful.



i am also going to be getting an ati 5000 series card either before or after the monitor upgrade


i only watch movies occasionally so gaming will be the main thing i will do.


----------



## Kursah (Apr 11, 2010)

I use a 1920x1080 screen for mostly gaming, with some movies and multimedia and really have enjoyed it thus far. I have an Asus VW246H, and it's been top notch for me. 1920x1200 is great too...but I got too good of a deal on this Asus, and 1080P is plenty for me! Games really do look great on either resolution, though I really do like the 16:9 ratio on the 1080...maybe I've just become accustomed to it.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 11, 2010)

i like 1920x1080 but since I'm only 2 foot away from my monitor i use 1680x1050
for my HTPC I prefer 1920x1080

1920x1200 is not used enough IMO to be practical


----------



## mlee49 (Apr 11, 2010)

Kursah said:


> I use a 1920x1080 screen for mostly gaming, with some movies and multimedia and really have enjoyed it thus far. I have an Asus VW246H, and it's been top notch for me. 1920x1200 is great too...but I got too good of a deal on this Asus, and 1080P is plenty for me! Games really do look great on either resolution, though I really do like the 16:9 ratio on the 1080...maybe I've just become accustomed to it.



Double vote for the Asus VW series, I have the 25.5" version. This to be exact:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236047


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Apr 11, 2010)

Have you tried the search? This topic has been beaten to death... 1080p tends to be best for movies, hd vids like tv, youtube stuff, 360/ps3 games if you're using it for a console as well, and pc games that are multi-platform as they often don't properly do the 16:10 aspect ratio, they stretch it from 16:9. The only draw back is less vertical space for browsing and other apps. Which is why I recommend anyone with a widescreen move the taskbar to the left or right side of the screen.

Of course it all changes if you don't mind black bars on the side of your screen, but that just drives me nuts, and it's not a an efficient use of screen size.


----------



## n-ster (Apr 11, 2010)

People make it as if 1920x1080 ans 1920x1200 is a big difference... It is NOT!

I myself prefer 1080p because movies are more practical on it and it is easier with the PS3... And I prefer having a wider monitor vs a more square one

It is more practical to use 1920x1080 IMO. Where 1920x1200 has a SLIGHT advantage, is for a webpage or office work, but the difference is minimal (more vertical view that's it)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 11, 2010)

1920x1080 is an ATSC/PAL standard (TV/film industry).
1920x1200 is a VESA standard (monitor/computer display industry).

Therefore...
HTPC (will be plugged into a HDTV w/ ATSC/PAL tuner), get 1920x1080.
Everything else, get 1920x1200.

1920x1200 has been around much longer than 1920x1080 so if you use older software, more likely the 8:5 (16:10) aspect ratio will be available compared to the 16:9 aspect ratio.


----------



## n-ster (Apr 11, 2010)

games have adapted to 1080p now... actually, practically everything that was 8:5 has adapted to 16:9... 16:9 is the future


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 11, 2010)

If it has 16:9, it has 8:5.  I've never encountered a game that didn't.

The most common problem is games only supporting 4:3.  In which case, 1920x1200 is better because it fits the 1600x1200 resolution perfectly.  The perfect monitor for gaming is one that is 1920x1200 and automatically adjusts according to aspect ratio: that is, it can seemlessly jump between 1920x1200, 1920x1080, and 1600x1200 (placing the black bars where necessary).  The aspect ratio is extremely important because if it isn't correct, you'll likely encounter issues with moving the mouse left and right (it will be exagerated compared to up and down due to stretching).

720p is the here and now for console gaming.  1280x1024 (5:4, 19.10%) is the most popular PC gaming resolution followed by 1680x1050 (16:10, 18.23%), and 1440x900 (16:10, 10.53%).


----------



## n-ster (Apr 11, 2010)

obviously, because the previous standard was 8:5

If you don't care much about the 120 vertical pixels, IMO, it is nicer to use 16:9... I doubt many games that support 16:10, do not support 16:9. The black bars are SO annoying to me... at first you are fine with them... then you start getting pissed off lol. And besides, I prefer a wider feel.

If you will watch movies occasionally and/or use a gaming console on your screen, the 16:9 seems like a must to me. Especially if you prefer the wider feel.

Others prefer to have the extra vertical space, find the feel wide enough, and sometimes even don't mind the black bars, for them the 16:10 is an obvious choice


All in all, IMO you have to experience it yourself, try it out. See which you prefer, if black bars are an issue/annoyance, if you miss the vertical space, if you don't care about the SLIGHTLY wider feel of the 1080p etc.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 11, 2010)

I played Freelancer at 1600x1200 for tens of hours and never notice the black on either side unless I'm looking for it.  It helps that my monitor has a black cabinet, the brightness is turned down a bit, dynamic contrast is enabled, and my room isn't very well lit.  Because of all that, the black is black like it isn't even there.  The same goes for my 42" Samsung TV.

As long as the 1920x1200 doesn't stretch on smaller resolutions, they can seamlessly emulate 1920x1080.


If you watch TV anymore, there's a good chance there's a lot more black bar buffering going on than you notice.  480i always has the black bars on 16:9 TVs and even widescreen movies often have black bars on top and bottom because the film is a wider resolution than 16:9.  Hell, even most ads are still 480i even on 1080i channels.  Buffering for different aspect ratios is a fact of life now.


...videos and cutscenes in games are often buffered as well--multiple times (original video was 16:9, buffered to 4:3, and buffered again to 16:9/8:5).  I noticed that C&C4...

Fable main menu is 4:3.  The game itself will do whatever resolution you tell it to (16:9 and 8:5 are available).


----------



## n-ster (Apr 11, 2010)

I actually download my favorite TV shows lol xD or wait till they get to DVD

I understand your points about 16:10, but IMO there is no real winner. It all depends on you and your use... I prefer the 1080p res after I tried both resolutions, I advise whoever needs to choose to try both, while checking on the points that FordGT and I have pointed out. I know some people who despise 16:9 and vice-versa, both for acceptable reasons, and you will really know once you try... Just go to your local best buy or computer shop and test out a couple of models and see what suits you best.

I do think that 16:9 is the future though


----------



## Super XP (Apr 11, 2010)

Stick with simplicity, 1920x1080p is awesome. Looks great for movies and games. And it won't kill your hardware, just jack up the eye candy to MAX and enjoy


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 11, 2010)

See... 1080*p* is an ATSC/PAL moniker.  It has no relevance to monitors/VESA, only TVs due to the limitations of long-distance broadcasting of digital signals.  And again, most decent 1920x1200 monitors can do 1920x1080 flawlessly (just change the resolution in the game)--not the other way around.


----------



## kid41212003 (Apr 11, 2010)

I'm using 1920x1200 for my PS3, there will be black bar, but that doesn't mean it looks smaller than 1080p screen. More spaces on my screen is always better.

I have 2 monitors one is 22" another is 24", and both of them are 16:10.

Highly recommended for a monitor. I would buy a TV instead if I want 1080p.


----------



## Super XP (Apr 11, 2010)

Good point Ford 
Though it all depends on how good of a deal you can get with a monitor.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 11, 2010)

1920 x 1200. It gives you everything 1080p does, plus additional vertical pixels (useful with web-browsing and documents, especially since Windows 7 default taskbar eats more vertical pixels). 1920 x 1200 gives you a better field of view than 1920 x 1080 when gaming.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 11, 2010)

i swear we need a sticky on this.

1920x1200 gives you slightly more vertical resolution. This results in more image sometimes (always in 2D), black bars with 16:9 movies/apps/equipment, or a stretched/cropped image (many, MANY games 'cut off' top and bottom to 'zoom' on 16:10 screens*).


There are ups and downs between the two standards, it comes down to personal preference. Myself, i watch tons of TV shows and movies - and i hate black bars, so the choice is obvious for me.



*Not many people are aware of this one. Just like in early widescreen games where they'd make a 4:3 game 16:9 by chopping the top and bottom off, 16:10 does the same thing. You still get a "full" image on the screen (no distortion, no black bars) - you just get a bit LESS of it - its more zoomed in.  This is more common in console ports for some reason (GTA IV is the one i always remember)


Oh its also commonly stated that "1920x1200 monitors always support 1920x1080 resolution" - technically true, but remember - if your monitor (or video cards) doesnt support scaling, you end up with a stretched/distorted image. And even if they DO, you get black bars. its upto you if you're ok with that or not.


----------



## kid41212003 (Apr 11, 2010)

The actually screensize of 1080p is always smaller than 16:10 monitors (if both are same size). So, even if there's black bar, no images are loss. I've seen more cases of images being display with blackbar (no quality loss) than zoom-in to FILL the screen.

For a monitor, pick 16:10.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 11, 2010)

kid41212003 said:


> The actually screensize of 1080p is always smaller than 16:10 monitors (if both are same size). So, even if there's black bar, no images are loss. I've seen more cases of images being display with blackbar (no quality loss) than zoom-in to FILL the screen.
> 
> For a monitor, pick 16:10.



you definitely dont understand all of it.

1. not everyone likes black bars.

2. in 2D apps (desktop) you never get black bars. With movies you get the black bars for sure - in GAMES however, they zoom to fit. its related to the aspect ratio, not the resolution.

3. 24" is 1920x1200. 23.6" is 1920x1080. i lose 0.4" for better image quality in 3D apps/1080p only equipment. - easy choice for me.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 11, 2010)

No, you don't get black bars in desktop 2D apps, at all.  Scaling 16:9 video to 16:10 doesn't make a noticeable difference to video quality. And it's certainly not that games' FoV "zooms in" with 16:10. Any game that supports 16:10 (every 3D game since 2006 does), it increases FoV vertically, not zooms into the FoV programmed for 16:9. The merits of 16:10 outweigh its demerits against 16:9 by a very long shot.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 11, 2010)

btarunr said:


> No, you don't get black bars in desktop 2D apps, at all.  Scaling 16:9 video to 16:10 doesn't make a noticeable difference to video quality. And it's certainly not that games' FoV "zooms in" with 16:10. Any game that supports 16:10 (every 3D game since 2006 does), it increases FoV vertically, not zooms into the FoV programmed for 16:9.



ack, i screwed up. i meant in MOVIES. half a sentence went AWOL - edit complete

since you're the 1920x1200 fan i'll assume you have a monitor that supports it. Please fire up GTAIV or dragon age origins, aim at a specific object and take screenies at 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 and post them here. Those are the two i was shown examples of previously.


----------



## kid41212003 (Apr 11, 2010)

Most of my bluray or dvd are so wide that not even 1080p screen can display without blackbar. (lol)

Even old games like SC1 and FF8 have mods that make the game display in any res you want, and there's ZERO loss in images quality. Only bad port like GTA IV would do such a thing as zoooooom-in to fit.

RE3 actually have res up to 1920x1200.

I got GTAIV on PS3, and Dragon Origin was just too boring for me. And I assume both are bad port.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 11, 2010)

Maybe you forgot to set "Aspect Ratio".


----------



## Mussels (Apr 11, 2010)

kid41212003 said:


> Most of my bluray or dvd are so wide that not even 1080p screen can display without blackbar. (lol)
> 
> Even old games like SC1 and FF8 have mods that make the game display in any res you want, and there's ZERO loss in images quality. Only bad port like GTA IV would do such a thing as zoooooom-in to fit.
> 
> ...



you'd be surprised just how many games zoom in/crop. pretty much all EA games do it, for example. every RTS game i've played seems to do it as well - the 3D elements change just fine, but the 2D elements (HUD etc) just stretch - circles become eggs, and so on.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 11, 2010)

btarunr said:


> Maybe you forgot to set "Aspect Ratio".



i'm not the one who took the shots, i dont have a 16:10 screen. Thats why i'm asking you to do it, for proof.

From what was shown, i believe changing the aspect ratio is where it goes wrong - you set 16:9 and you still get 1920x1200, but everything slightly stretched vertically (and it would be slight), or you set it to 16x10 and you get the cropping.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 11, 2010)

I don't have GTA4 installed, I won't go through its extremely gay install process followed by even more gay mandatory update for the game and GFW process again. I can certainly use other games to back my point, just as you're using the isolated case of GTA4/ DA:O. brb.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 11, 2010)

btarunr said:


> I don't have GTA4 installed, I won't go through its extremely gay install process followed by even more gay mandatory update for the game and GFW process again. I can certainly use other games to back my point, just as you're using the isolated case of GTA4/ DA:O. brb.



those two are the games that were used as examples. I cant say for sure what other games have this problem, because i dont have a monitor that allows me to test it!


regardless of what specific games show the issue, the point is - modern games DO exist with this issue. Its a point to be noted that some games have issues with 16:10.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 11, 2010)

mlee49 said:


> For gaming I like 1200p it's truly HD. It will stress your hardware, so your 3870 will not be able to handle much eye candy.
> 
> If your going just for movies then 1080 is great.  It looks great from a distance greater than 3 feet so you may want to keep that in mind.
> 
> Also, if your going HD or HD+ it's best to understand what your primary use will be.  Gaming on a 1920 is pretty but stressful.  Watching a 1080 movie on a 1920 screen does look a bit pixelated no matter the distance. So gaming on  1080 screen and movies on a 1080 screen is good, but again stressful on your 3870, definately going to need something more powerful.



1080p is 1920 wide natively. It isn't pixelated at all. If you have some sort of pixelation, it's the monitor you are using.



Mussels said:


> i swear we need a sticky on this.
> 
> 1920x1200 gives you slightly more vertical resolution. This results in more image sometimes (always in 2D), black bars with 16:9 movies/apps/equipment, or a stretched/cropped image (many, MANY games 'cut off' top and bottom to 'zoom' on 16:10 screens*).
> 
> ...


Every single 1920x1200 monitor on the market right now does 1080p without scaling or stretching, unless you specifically want it to. It just adds black bars at the top and bottom. 

As for those tiny little bars bothering you, I just don't get it. It's no different than watching a widescreen DVD on an old SD set. It's not like it takes away from image quality or anything. Just pretend it's a screen with a large bezel. Same basic principle. Hell, most BluRay movies have black bars on a 1080p screen anyway, what's the difference there is an extra 60 pixels on the top and bottom?



Mussels said:


> you definitely dont understand all of it.
> 
> 1. not everyone likes black bars.
> 
> ...


Wrong. All 1920x1200 monitors do 1080p natively, PERIOD. Image quality is identical.

You just have some weird OCD about the black bars.

Summary: 

1920x1200 is ALWAYS better for a computer vs 1080p. It does everything a 1080p monitor does, plus some extra. 1080p CAN NOT do everything that a 1200p monitor can. If the price of both the 1200 and 1080p are in your budget, it's a total no-brainer, go for the one that does it all.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 11, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Wrong. All 1920x1200 monitors do 1080p natively, PERIOD. Image quality is identical.



with black bars or stretching, as i said. its not 'native' if it has workarounds for it. and then theres the FOV/zooming issues.

I'm not saying they dont support the resolution, they do - it just has the potential to go wrong.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 11, 2010)

Mussels said:


> with black bars or stretching, as i said. its not 'native' if it has workarounds for it. and then theres the FOV/zooming issues.
> 
> I'm not saying they dont support the resolution, they do - it just has the potential to go wrong.



It only has the potential to go wrong if the user does not know how to use their monitor. 

And a 1080p image on a 1200p screen is fully equal to native. No scaling or stretching at all.

As for FOV/Zooming issues in game for 1200p, the fix is very simple for that, set it to 1080p. There, problem solved.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Apr 11, 2010)

Funny how everyone for or against is making the same sets of arguments... which is the exact same sets of arguments made in all previous 1080p vs 1200p discussions. I guess I'm saying this shit is getting a little redundant.


----------



## wiak (Apr 11, 2010)

kid41212003 said:


> Most of my bluray or dvd are so wide that not even 1080p screen can display without blackbar. (lol)
> 
> Even old games like SC1 and FF8 have mods that make the game display in any res you want, and there's ZERO loss in images quality. Only bad port like GTA IV would do such a thing as zoooooom-in to fit.
> 
> ...


most tv and movies use 16:9 aka 1.85:1 but most big budget movies use the 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 aspect ratio, so you will get black bars on any screen unless its a projector

i got a 40" HDTV 1080p screen in the living room, i love using it as a pc monitor lol


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 11, 2010)

I game at 1200 and watch movies at 1080, I figure that I am getting a better resolution with my gaming, I go 1080 for movies as 16:9 just feels more natural lol.


----------



## CounterZeus (Apr 11, 2010)

I have both and I don't notice big differences.

It's more a matter of taste. It's nice to watch movies without black bars on a 1080p monitor, but then again, the screen is mostly a little smaller. Like my 24" inch is actually only 23.6", or a 22" 1080p is only 21.5" I think. (I see above posts already mention that ^^)

I don't think you can go wrong with any of those two resolutions, all modern games offer both 

I only have probs with warcraft 3, as that game does not offer widescreen support and I lose a lot of monitor space on both, but more on the 16:9.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Apr 11, 2010)

I switched from a 16:10 22" 1650x1080 screen to a 16:9 21.5" 1920x1080 screen,but the 21.5" was a bit too small even though the rez was bigger.I have now swapped the 21.5" for a 23" 16:9 HD and the differance is good for me.I dont really care either way 16:9 or 16:10 its just nice to have a bigger monitor.Games look fine to me on 16:9 1080 so its all fine for me.

Basically,you pays yer money,you makes yer choice.


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 11, 2010)

I would go for 1920X1200, a the "right" resolution until 1080p corrupted it and the manufacturers think "Hey, since everyone uses 1080p only, so why not cut 120 pixels and save some cash?"


----------



## claylomax (Apr 11, 2010)

1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels
1920 x 1200 = 2304000 pixels


----------



## Agility (Apr 11, 2010)

Also if you notice, the price of 1920X1200 monitors with the same inch always costs more then 1920X1080. It's due to the screen being manufactured if i remembered. As always, 1920X1200 was the original. It's due to consumers that 1080 start appearing in the computer market and it was also cheaper to produce.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 11, 2010)

1080 didn't show up until HDTV standards did and, due to component sharing, the HDTV market bled into the monitor market.  The main reason why 1080 is selling better is because of all the money put into marketing "1080p."  When people ask for a monitor, they ask for a 1080p monitor, they don't ask for 1920x1200.  Similarly, when they see 1080 on a monitor that is for sell, they simply overlook 1200 because they don't know that 1200 is better (because it is not "1080p").

Yes, 1080 monitors are slightly cheaper to produce than 1200 but I doubt that slight price difference is the main reason 1080 sells better.


----------



## Agility (Apr 11, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 1080 didn't show up until HDTV standards did and, due to component sharing, the HDTV market bled into the monitor market.  The main reason why 1080 is selling better is because of all the money put into marketing "1080p."  When people ask for a monitor, they ask for a 1080p monitor, they don't ask for 1920x1200.  Similarly, when they see 1080 on a monitor that is for sell, they simply overlook 1200 because they don't know that 1200 is better (because it is not "1080p").



Yeah. It's because of the advertisment on logo HD1080, it makes everyone think of buying any monitor with the word HD. As such the basic HD resoulution is acutally 1920X1080. In terms of PC monitors, it's just acutally an outdated crap. No matter the case, 1920X1200 FTW~~!!

I wonder how the future TV/PC monitor resolution will go. For PC, 2560X1600 is acutally a 16:10. Probably 2560X1360??


----------



## btarunr (Apr 11, 2010)

Agility said:


> I wonder how the future TV/PC monitor resolution will go. For PC, 2560X1600 is acutally a 16:10. Probably 2560X1360??



Oh Apple already made the start for the next "big" 16:9 display. The new 27" iMac has a resolution of 2560 x 1440 (16:9).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 11, 2010)

The reason why 1080p is the limit right now is because that's all MPEG-2 codecs can handle.  The next digital video format will dictate what comes next; however, equipment as is struggles with 1080p and the costs of producing even larger screens just goes up and up and up (cameras are more expensive, broadcasting equipment costs more, manufacturing displays costs more, etc.).  The trend towards higher resolutions will most likely be a very slow one unless something revolutionary happens.


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 11, 2010)

I think we have done quite well, moving from 480X320 all the way to 1920X1080, but this is a lengthy process and 1080 still have quite a bit of life left in it, so if we are lucky I think the next upgrade will be in about 5-10 years.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 11, 2010)

The reason why the shift from NTSC to ATSC was massive is because the technology progressed with computer displays.  All they did was translate it to TVs.  Note that in the last 10 years, maximum resolutions only went from 2048x1536 to 2560x1600.  The number of displays that can do either natively are few and far between.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Apr 11, 2010)

i prefer 1920x1080.. idk why.. i just like things to be spaced out on my screen, yeah the extra 120pixels would be worth it.  i only payed 180 on black friday for my samsung sm2494 monitors and they are beautiful, bright, and crisp looking.  

as far as games go, i have little issues finding things above or below me, the issue is things on the side, and the wider monitor with lower vertical high seems to help the best for me.  i think that it is all up to user perception though.


----------



## Goodman (Apr 11, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I played Freelancer at 1600x1200 for tens of hours and never notice the black on either side unless I'm looking for it.  It helps that my monitor has a black cabinet, the brightness is turned down a bit, dynamic contrast is enabled, and my room isn't very well lit.  Because of all that, the black is black like it isn't even there.  The same goes for my 42" Samsung TV.
> 
> As long as the 1920x1200 doesn't stretch on smaller resolutions, they can seamlessly emulate 1920x1080.



We all get your point ... but you're talking about a pretty old game (2003) you can't base your new buy on older games or softwares...

Anyhow i too was to buy 16:10 monitor but after some thinking & opinions from people here i went for an 16:9 as i first wanted as wide as possible , i got this monitor for a short while (24 hrs) but so far i like it pretty much

As for older games i don't see any problems what so ever on a 16:9 monitor in fact older games that doesn't support wide screen res. i use 1280x1024 which fit/full my screen with no black bars anywhere

Since a 16:9 monitor is "wider" it is great for gaming & movies


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 11, 2010)

Metro 2033 (2010), C&C4 (2010), Fable (2005), Freelancer (2003), Just Cause 2 (2010), Fallout 3(2009), Scarface (2006), Mass Effect (2008), on and on and on all work fantastic on my Samsung T240.


1280x1024 = 5:4
1920x1080 = 16:9

If there aren't black bars, it is being stretched both vertically (56 pixels) and horizontally (640 pixels).  What "older game" was this?


16:9 is not wider.  It is shorter.


----------



## 3870x2 (Apr 11, 2010)

hmm... how about this:

not enough difference to make it worth this post.
...
why am i posting in this thread?

why am i in this thread?


----------



## AhokZYashA (Apr 11, 2010)

i prefer the 1920x1200 even i dont have one..
because, it looks better on games, and also can do 1080
and NO 1080 screen can do 1920x1200

and if its for gaming, get the 1920x1200, if it's purely for movies, also get the 1920x1200.

and i prefer 2560x1600 no 2560x1440<its awkward...


----------



## Super XP (Apr 11, 2010)

Right now 1080p is awesome for me, I watch movies and play PC games. No problems, does what I want it to do, but obviously if you can get a 1200p for same price, the choice is obvious.


----------



## n-ster (Apr 12, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Metro 2033 (2010), C&C4 (2010), Fable (2005), Freelancer (2003), Just Cause 2 (2010), Fallout 3(2009), Scarface (2006), Mass Effect (2008), on and on and on all work fantastic on my Samsung T240.
> 
> 
> 1280x1024 = 5:4
> ...



a 16:9 monitor of the EXACT same DIAGONAL size is wider


----------



## Mussels (Apr 12, 2010)

1920x1200 was cheaper to produce actually, because they could re-use the equipment for making 1600x1200 panels.

16:10 was made up as a cost cutting measure in the first place.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 12, 2010)

n-ster said:


> a 16:9 monitor of the EXACT same DIAGONAL size is wider


Depends if you make the height or the width match:
1920x1200 (8:5) vs 1920x1080 (16:9) = 1920x1080 is shorter, diagonal length is shorter.
1920x1200 (8:5) vs 2133x1200 (16:9) = 2133x1200 is wider, diagonal length is longer.



Mussels said:


> 1920x1200 was cheaper to produce actually, because they could re-use the equipment for making 1600x1200 panels.
> 
> 16:10 was made up as a cost cutting measure in the first place.


Uh, no.  When they create the TFT panel, they have to make it as large as they are going to make it.  They can give a 1920x1080 resolution to a 1920x1200 TFT panel but they can't give a 1920x1080 resolution to anything larger.  The manufacturing tech for all TFT panels is effectively the same but the costs in material and tolerances goes up with greater size.  There is no cost-relationship between 1600x1200 and 1920x1200.  They have to make both from scratch.


----------



## Nemesis881 (Apr 12, 2010)

I'm sitting at 1440x960.  I'm content


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 12, 2010)

That's an odd resolution (3:2 ratio).


----------



## shevanel (Apr 12, 2010)

As far as movies on Blu ray it also matters on the format the movie is released in.

but as far as 1080p movies, I have a 40" 120hz HDTV extended from the hdmi out of my 5870 and hi def movies look incredible.


----------



## n-ster (Apr 12, 2010)

I like the 2048x1152 23" inch monitors  games look alot looks nicer with a higher res on the same size monitor  the wideness is nice too... I do wonder though, since it is the same aspect ratio as 1080p, how much quality loss is there between 1080p and stretched to 1152? Else I'd hate the black bars... though I could just stick to the TV for movies and ps3 lol

I like to have a low pixel pitch 

Now, I would like to point out that there is definitively some disadvantages going 16:10, most people they are NONE!!!! re-read the thread if you think this way

And I may be some weird guy but... I don't miss the 120 vertical pixels much when I compare 1080p to 1200p


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 12, 2010)

i prefer 4:3, 5:4 and 16:10.


----------



## n-ster (Apr 12, 2010)

I would you prefer 4:3 and 5:4 to 16:9?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 12, 2010)

n-ster said:


> I do wonder though, since it is the same aspect ratio as 1080p, how much quality loss is there between 1080p and stretched to 1152?


The original 1080p image is being stretched by 12.1% but because the monitor is only 23", the DPI is probably high enough you couldn't pick it out with a magnifying lens.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 12, 2010)

n-ster said:


> I would you prefer 4:3 and 5:4 to 16:9?



Only if Programing is in the format and only if the TVs match up to the ratios Properly, not stretched at all.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 12, 2010)

Mussels said:


> 1920x1200 was cheaper to produce actually, because they could re-use the equipment for making 1600x1200 panels.



Huh? 1600x1200 panels and bezels are 4:3, while 1920x1200 is 16:10. I don't see how it's "reusable" any more than making crappy 1080p panels. It's 1080p that's the crappy cost-cutting resolution, because it allows manufacturers to get away selling displays with high horizontal pixels, a whole 230,400 lesser dots/pixels (2,073,600 for 1920x1080 vs 2,304,000 for 1920x1200).


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Apr 12, 2010)

You know this debate never ends with a clear winner. On the bright side I think this will soon be irrelevant. Look at how many 1080p monitors there are vs 1200 on newegg. If the number of 1200 displays keeps shrinking there won't be anything left to argue about now will there?


----------



## btarunr (Apr 12, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> You know this debate never ends with a clear winner. On the bright side I think this will soon be irrelevant. Look at how many 1080p monitors there are vs 1200 on newegg.



It's not because consumers just love 1080p and that's the more popular thing, but that manufacturers ramthroated the market with 1080p since it's cheaper for them, and comes with the "Full HD" moniker to cover up.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Apr 12, 2010)

That wasn't my point. If one option disappears, there won't be anymore debate. That's all.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 12, 2010)

And that won't happen. The de-facto 30" resolution is 2560 x 1600, which is a 16:10 resolution. The industry hasn't even started with 2560 x 1440 (16:9).


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Apr 12, 2010)

Well I was thinking it could disappear from average consumer accessibility, as in TN panels. I suspect 16:10 will always be around for professionals.


----------



## douglatins (Apr 12, 2010)

3870x2 said:


> hmm... how about this:
> 
> not enough difference to make it worth this post.
> ...
> ...


 
+1


----------



## btarunr (Apr 12, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Well I was thinking it could disappear from average consumer accessibility, as in TN panels. I suspect 16:10 will always be around for professionals.



2560 x 1600 is about as "reserved for professionals" as 1920 x 1xxx was four years ago (it isn't, and is more of a premium-enthusiast resolution in general). Two-odd years later it will have as many takers as 1920 x 1xxx has.


----------



## Goodman (Apr 12, 2010)

I was like you , i wasn't to sure of which to go with 16:9 vs 16:10

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=117965

Anyhow the best way to decide is to go in electronic/PC store & see the difference between 16:9 vs 16:10 & then you should know what you like best...


----------



## Wile E (Apr 12, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> *You know this debate never ends with a clear winner.* On the bright side I think this will soon be irrelevant. Look at how many 1080p monitors there are vs 1200 on newegg. If the number of 1200 displays keeps shrinking there won't be anything left to argue about now will there?



Sure it does. It's always the 1920x1200 supporters that are the very clear winners.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 12, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Sure it does. It's always the 1920x1200 supporters that are the very clear winners.



no, they're just the loudest and most obnoxious.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 12, 2010)

Mussels said:


> no, they're just the loudest and most obnoxious.



Rightfully so, them being correct and all.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 12, 2010)

Yup as prices go down the amt of monitors bought goes up and eventually outweighs the purchase of the 1080 monitors at a higher price.


----------



## nt300 (Apr 12, 2010)

Middle page down is Steam chart with monitor res info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution#cite_note-3
Seem like 1080p is 2nd place for most users.

I stick with 2560x1600p and get two of the HD 5970 to run in crossfire


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Apr 12, 2010)

Heres the chart.


----------



## Super XP (Apr 13, 2010)

Nice, full Hi Def 1080p


----------

