5 ms·
I understand the move to 16x10, but why the change from there to 16x9? That doesn't seem to do anything but lose more vertical space. I also don't understand w
by Zak 17y ago
I understand the move to 16x10, but why the change from there to 16x9? That doesn't seem to do anything but lose more vertical space.
I also don't understand why there doesn't seem to be enough demand to continue offering 4x3 models. Maybe not in every size range, but it seems like there should be enough demand in a couple popular sizes.
- chadgeidel 17y agoI've heard (no article link) that the panel makers are pushing to standardize on 16:9 formats. They don't want to have two manufacturing processes for tvs and computer display screens. It seems like a weak argument though, because there are more computer screen resolutions than there are "HD" resolutions. edit: grammar.
- hy3lxs 17y ago(1) It's cheaper for the manufacturer as others have stated. (2) Normal consumers don't like black bars. So they playback their increasingly-common 16:9 dvd/youtube/hulu content and complain that there are black bars at the top and bottom of their 16:10 or 4:3 screen, and feel like it's being "wasted," never mind that everything else you do on a computer (read web pages, edit documents) is done vertically and the extra lines help. Same reason why you see 4:3 content being played back stretched on 16:9 displays in coffee shops -- people would rather see a grossly distorted image than see black bars. Same reason you find really messed up in-between screen ratios being sold retail (stretch both 16:9 and 4:3, take the worst of both worlds but hey! no black bars). Personally, I'll take square pixels and correct aspect ratio with black bars any day.