scotty777
...doesn't know
I'm quite happy with my 19" 1280x1024 LCD, cost me R1800 a good 3 years ago 
.
.-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Oldest working tech or appliance in your house that you refuse to replace?
1920x1080 VS 1920x1200
- Thread starter techead
- Start date
Ok, lets do this one step at a time.
1) 4:3 = 8:6 = 16:12 = 800x600
right? everyone with me? good.
2) I am saying that a 16:9 will give you more viewing area than 16:10. in Games AND in Movies.
why?
because it is a wider ASPECT RATIO.
Here is a few Aspects Ratios:
16:12 (4:3)
16:11
16:10
16:9
here is a comparison of a 16:12(4:3) vs 16:9 screenshot of Counter strike:
the small one is the 16:12(4:3) and the bigger one is the 16:9
So, what have we learned? that even though the 16:12 has a 12 for vertical and the 16:9 only has a 9 for vertical, the 16:9 shows you more.
hope we are all on the same page now.
1) 4:3 = 8:6 = 16:12 = 800x600
right? everyone with me? good.
2) I am saying that a 16:9 will give you more viewing area than 16:10. in Games AND in Movies.
why?
because it is a wider ASPECT RATIO.
Here is a few Aspects Ratios:
16:12 (4:3)
16:11
16:10
16:9
here is a comparison of a 16:12(4:3) vs 16:9 screenshot of Counter strike:
the small one is the 16:12(4:3) and the bigger one is the 16:9
So, what have we learned? that even though the 16:12 has a 12 for vertical and the 16:9 only has a 9 for vertical, the 16:9 shows you more.
hope we are all on the same page now.
The_Techie
Resident Techie
Ok, lets do this one step at a time.
1) 4:3 = 8:6 = 16:12 = 800x600
right? everyone with me? good.
2) I am saying that a 16:9 will give you more viewing area than 16:10. in Games AND in Movies.
why?
because it is a wider ASPECT RATIO.
Here is a few Aspects Ratios:
16:12 (4:3)
16:11
16:10
16:9
here is a comparison of a 16:12(4:3) vs 16:9 screenshot of Counter strike:
the small one is the 16:12(4:3) and the bigger one is the 16:9
So, what have we learned? that even though the 16:12 has a 12 for vertical and the 16:9 only has a 9 for vertical, the 16:9 shows you more.
hope we are all on the same page now.
Fair point. Why the difference between 2D and 3D though?
EDIT: In 2D it would be the same as the 16:9 but with added pixels at the top and bottom, however the amount of detail displayed horizontally is the same. I'm guessing you'll be able to prove that 3D works differently? In which case I retract my statement that 16:10 is better for gaming, as I would not like vertical vision at the expense of horizontal vision (to my understanding 16:10 gained vertical vision at no expense of horizontal), though from the above example I will not actually gain vertical vision?
Last edited:
It's simple really.
Well in 2D it's all about pixels. nothing to do with aspect ratio.
4000x4000 is better than 2000x1000, 800x600, 1200x600 - it's got more pixels
In 3D it's all about Aspect Ratio
2000x1000, 800x600, 1200x600 is better than 4000x4000 - it's got a wider aspect (all of them)
*Obviously the 4000x4000 will have a better quality image, but we're talking about "Real estate" and "Viewing Area" now.
Well in 2D it's all about pixels. nothing to do with aspect ratio.
4000x4000 is better than 2000x1000, 800x600, 1200x600 - it's got more pixels
In 3D it's all about Aspect Ratio
2000x1000, 800x600, 1200x600 is better than 4000x4000 - it's got a wider aspect (all of them)
*Obviously the 4000x4000 will have a better quality image, but we're talking about "Real estate" and "Viewing Area" now.
The_Techie
Resident Techie
Here's also an example of 16:9 vs. 16:10
We're talking peripheral vision loss - not resolution loss.
The 16:9 there has a much higher resolution horizontally for the same resolution vertically. However, what about the case outlined in the OP where the horizontal resolution is the same, however 16:9 has a lower vertical resolution? Does that not make 16:10 superior in his case (not talking about 3D)?
The_Techie
Resident Techie
Why would 16:10 (1920x1200) not display the same horizontal image but with 60 extra pixels top and bottom versus the 16:9 (1920x1080) image in 3D?
I'm assuming that if an aspect ratio works in favour of horizontal viewing it'll work in favour of vertical as well?
The_Techie
Resident Techie
Techie, give it up, they are going to cook your brain
I think I just might, the differentiation between 2D and 3D and when an aspect ratio displays x but not y while another displays y but not x (but only in 3D) makes no sense to me
/me runs away
16:10 @ 1920 x 1200 has more viewable area than 16:9 @ 1920 x 1080; it's quite simple.
Keeper, you're right, except that you're assuming that 16:9 has a better horizontal resolution than a 16:10. That's simply not always the case.
Keeper, you're right, except that you're assuming that 16:9 has a better horizontal resolution than a 16:10. That's simply not always the case.
Why would 16:10 (1920x1200) not display the same horizontal image but with 60 extra pixels top and bottom versus the 16:9 (1920x1080) image in 3D?
I understand *exactly* what you are trying to say
but it's probably because nobody wants to see their feet or the sky - they want to see more of what's around them.
if that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have gone from 4:3 screens to widescreens, but to "vertical screens"
truth is....nobody wants that..... so games probably render more horizontal viewing area while keeping the vertical area the same, otherwise you would see your feet at the same time as the ceiling
The_Techie
Resident Techie
I understand *exactly* what you are trying to say
but it's probably because nobody wants to see their feet or the sky - they want to see more of what's around them.
if that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have gone from 4:3 screens to widescreens, but to "vertical screens"
truth is....nobody wants that..... so games probably render more horizontal viewing area while keeping the vertical area the same, otherwise you would see your feet at the same time as the ceiling
Sigh, so they use two different standards just to make our lives difficult
In which case I retract my statement about 16:10 being superior in games than 16:9 (aspect-ratio wise). However I'll maintain that 16:10 is the better choice Maybe I should play more games so that I can give advice on games based on experience instead of hearsay
no, you have it wrong
16:9 is wider = more peripheral vision.
1920x1200 simply has more real-estate in windows (like Techie posted of firefox)
Aspect ratios have nothing to do with resolution.
However I'll maintain that 16:10 is the better choice
a 16:10 1920x1200 screen is better than a 16:9 1920x1080 screen in one thing, and one thing only - real estate. you get an extra 120 pixels in windows
but for games and movies 16:9 is the better choice. games will have a bigger viewing angle and movies will display bigger.
yep, it's true - movies will display bigger as well (even though it's 2D lol)
scotty777
...doesn't know
hmmm, well, the way I see it, the 16:9 means that the screen is longer, and there is less "height". The 16:10 means that the screen is a little shorter, but HAS TO BE a little "Higher" because in order tho achieve the same diagonal length, the 16:9 has a larger X value, while the 16:10 has a larger Y value.
lets say a screen is 16cm long, and 10cm high. therefor the screen has an 18.86cm diagonal length.
Now lets say another screen is only 9cm high, and has the same diagonal length (18.86cm), that means that the screen has a length of 16.58cm.
So the 1st screen loses some length (0.58 cm) compared to the 2nd screen, it gains 1cm of vertical height.
the 2nd screen gains 0.58cm of length compared to the 1st screen, but it loses some vertical height.
So in essence, you get more screen with a 16x10 ratio.
Another way to look at it is by screen area. lets say you use the same screens as above.
1st screen has 160cm^2 (16x10) area
2nd screen has 149.22cm^2 (16.58x9) area.
Therefor 1st screen gets you more area, with a minimal loss in length, so it's literally better to game with a 16:10 screen (you get to see a lot more)
lets say a screen is 16cm long, and 10cm high. therefor the screen has an 18.86cm diagonal length.
Now lets say another screen is only 9cm high, and has the same diagonal length (18.86cm), that means that the screen has a length of 16.58cm.
So the 1st screen loses some length (0.58 cm) compared to the 2nd screen, it gains 1cm of vertical height.
the 2nd screen gains 0.58cm of length compared to the 1st screen, but it loses some vertical height.
So in essence, you get more screen with a 16x10 ratio.
Another way to look at it is by screen area. lets say you use the same screens as above.
1st screen has 160cm^2 (16x10) area
2nd screen has 149.22cm^2 (16.58x9) area.
Therefor 1st screen gets you more area, with a minimal loss in length, so it's literally better to game with a 16:10 screen (you get to see a lot more)
no, you have it wrong
16:9 is wider = more peripheral vision.
1920x1200 simply has more real-estate in windows (like Techie posted of firefox)
Aspect ratios have nothing to do with resolution.
16:9 @ 1920 x 1080 is NOT wider, it's the same width.
16:10 @ 1920 x 1200 is THE SAME WIDTH, but taller.
Aspect ratios have everything to do with resolution. In the current argument, the aspect ratio determines what your vertical resolution will be given a SET horizontal resolution.
The_Techie
Resident Techie
Well your games run at a higher resolution as well, which to me is a very important consideration. Otherwise you can say 1280x720 is better for games than 1920x1200
EDIT: I took some screenshots in Crysis Warhead confirming what Keeper said, 1920x1080 shows more horizontally than 1920x1200 however it shows the same vertically (which is counter intuitive, I know, made me look a right idiot in this thread
). Should I post them?
Last edited:
Nope, wrong too.
screens are measured diagonally - so your 16:10 screen has less width than the 16:9 screen - do the maths.
that is why I said movies will display smaller on a 16:10 screen than on a 16:9 - it's smaller from left to right.
If you mean physical size, then yes. But again, resolution being the same means that they will show equally.
I think the big issue here is your confusion of the way engineers define things.
Edit: Where did I ever mention physical size?
Edit: Where did I ever mention physical size?
physical size 16:10 or pixel size 16:10, a movie will display smaller on a 16:10 than on a 16:9, i.e: the movie will ACTUALLY be smaller if you measure it with an Actual Measuring tape.
We have two screens. Screen A is 16:9 and Screen B is 16:10
Scenario 1:
Both are *exactly* the same physical size - 16:9 will show a bigger picture (black bars on Screen B)
Scenario 2:
Both Screens are 22", but they are true to their aspect ratio (Square Pixels)
now, the 16:10 screen might "Look" bigger to the eye, but in actual fact it is smaller if you took a Measuring tape while playing a Movie, and measured it.