16:9 vs 16:10?

W

Wasp_21

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
2,881
Reaction score
43
Location
Currently 18m down
What is the practical difference between 16:9 and 16:10? Just got a mede8er and it has those settings. Can't really notice any difference.
 
Depends on the size of your screen.

One would have black/unused space at the top, the other on the sides. Difference would be slight, but there should be a clear favourite where there is no un-utilised screen area. This is the one you want to use.
 
16:9 is wider (you see a bit more) than 16:10. However, with 16:10 you still have the option to use both. So if there's a choice, I'd always take 16:10.
 
16:9 Is the standard for movies ( though a lot of them use an even wider format ), whereas 16:10, you will allways have unused space above and below the image.

It depends on if you want a wider screen or a taller one, though the more recent screens have tended toward 16:9, so it'll soon be the more widely used aspect ratio.

Besides, it's easier to say "1080p" than "1680x1050" ^^
 
Wasp_21 said:
IOW, the picture is "deeper" on 16:9 than 16:10? if i understand correctly?
Click to expand...

3065794828_3d35513ce7_o.jpg


Does this explain it better?

16:9 is wider, 16:10 is taller. With a 16:10 monitor you can still switch to a 16:9 resolution but you will see black lines at the top and bottom of the monitor/TV. Personally, I prefer 16:10 because there's a lot more room for choice (i.e. you don't lose so much physical screen space by switching to 16:9 if you feel the need, and, personally, I've never felt the need and even in 16:9 vids, stretching it vertically to fill the screen isn't even that noticeable). Also, if you watch movies in native 16:9 with the black lines then you'll forget they're there (especially if you watch it in the dark).

Again, I just prefer 16:10 because there's that much more room for messing around.

Also, I should probably add that I have a 26" monitor, so there's still plenty of visual space whichever resolution I choose :p I suspect on smaller monitors the preference would be for 16:9.
 
Native shmative. :p

I stretch my movies to fill the screen. VLC- hit 'A' while playing, aspect ratio will move to the next available 5:4, 16:9, 16:10 and a few others.

Makes the actors look a bit taller/fatter but the lines on the sides/above irritate me more...
 
Lycanthrope said:
3065794828_3d35513ce7_o.jpg


Does this explain it better?

16:9 is wider, 16:10 is taller. With a 16:10 monitor you can still switch to a 16:9 resolution but you will see black lines at the top and bottom of the monitor/TV. Personally, I prefer 16:10 because there's a lot more room for choice (i.e. you don't lose so much physical screen space by switching to 16:9 if you feel the need, and, personally, I've never felt the need and even in 16:9 vids, stretching it vertically to fill the screen isn't even that noticeable). Also, if you watch movies in native 16:9 with the black lines then you'll forget they're there (especially if you watch it in the dark).

Again, I just prefer 16:10 because there's that much more room for messing around.

Also, I should probably add that I have a 26" monitor, so there's still plenty of visual space whichever resolution I choose :p I suspect on smaller monitors the preference would be for 16:9.
Click to expand...

Thanks a mil. It's a 50", so a little is a lot i guess. I'll put more effort into it this evening and compare for the better. "Stretching" the pic makes it look like an old dated movie, which is what i'd avoid. Thanks again.
 
I've always understood that a TV is 16:9 and a PC monitor 16:10.

So if you're using a monitor (as some do) , you'd be able to select the correct output ratio.

I think
 
Dolby said:
I've always understood that a TV is 16:9 and a PC monitor 16:10.
Click to expand...
That's not entirely accurate.
A good example is that most LCD sets were native 16:10 and not 16:9 until it was decided that the standard should be 16:9.
That's why you used to be able to get 42" (16:10) sets whereas now, most sets in that region are instead 40" (16:9). The same applies for the other sizes.
 
you need to find out what the aspect ratio of your particular viewing device is. take it from there.
 
Kheiron said:
That's not entirely accurate.
A good example is that most LCD sets were native 16:10 and not 16:9 until it was decided that the standard should be 16:9.
That's why you used to be able to get 42" (16:10) sets whereas now, most sets in that region are instead 40" (16:9). The same applies for the other sizes.
Click to expand...

as a matter of interest, when last did manufacturers make 16:10 standard in 40" and above
 
milomak said:
as a matter of interest, when last did manufacturers make 16:10 standard in 40" and above
Click to expand...
Well technically there was never a 40" 16:10 screen. 16:10 would have made it 42".
I don't know the exact date that this changed but I know most manufacturers stopped making 42" sets a few months ago, perhaps almost a year now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X