Screen resolution 16:9 vs 16:10

[Max-well]

I am looking for a new screen, type 22 " or 24 ", I hesitate between several references type 16 / 9 and 16/10. I asked about the uses of these ratios. The 16 / 9 is it suited to the office, at play? What are the benefits / pitfalls of these two formats ? My use will be mostly gaming, surfing and some series / movies in divx . What format would suit me best ? Thank you in advance.

[Bon-Z]

Because 1280 X 768 resolution is not a 16 / 9 or 16/10 1280 pixels, 720 and 800 respectively would be lines ... your display has the between two chairs regarding the display. If you offer 1920 X 1080 1920 X 1200 and not , for me it's a 16/9 since it is basically a no TV and a monitor, it seems natural that the HD 1920 X 1080 is the native resolution. The 16/10 was a compromise between the 4/3 and 16/9 is endangered unfortunately. For your use, 16 / 9 will be ideal for games and movies but less pleasant, I think, for desktop use . Blame it on a low height inappropriate to a webpage but for some site that does not use the entire width of the screen. Hence the presence of large margins on the side.

[Gonzo]

Another important use : playing movies . TV 's monopoly over the DVD at the expense of usability . The format 16 / 9 is close to existing film formats . The latest video games are also sold to be displayed on this format as well as numerous television shows. The 16 / 9 is also an advantage because it allows video processing to display a Timeline much longer. At office , removable screens can be rotated to simulate a sheet of A4. It remains to be seen whether these extra-large screens to meet all requirements . Judging sales, users are more satisfied with their purchase . Few consumers are complaining about the format. Also, I can not believe that only economic dynamics motivates manufacturers to produce cheaper tiles in 16 / 9.

[Pugsly]

The 16/9 has a ratio of 1.78 / 1 or 1.78 for short . It is a TV format , and unlike what many think , this is not a format film projection . Movies formats are generally larger and the TV screen 16 / 9 is more appropriate. By cons , a movie recorded with a ratio of 1.66 shows two black bands on the left and right . In 1.85 or 2.35 bands are visible at the top and bottom of the screen to avoid distorting the image source . The higher the value of the ratio , the larger bands are massive.

[Regina]

The idea of a survey on the aspirations of the readers of the blog when the resolution of their machine seems to me relevant. In recent months netbooks have evolved , the arrival of GMA 3150 , for example now allows video playback 720P . The machines have also become a bit more powerful and above all the future Atom N550 dual core should improve performance ... But the screen resolution still remains frozen at 1024 x 600. This type of slab 1024 x 600 has become very common among manufacturers and therefore very economical. Switch to 1024 x 768, 1152 x 864 or 1280 x 1024 ( only capable of displaying 720p ) would have a real impact on the price of the machine equipped . Display It would also upset with a finer display on the screen.

[Simond]

I decide to take a 4/3 and as you said its a 20 inch would be difficult for my graphics card, then I would try to more than a 19 inch one 17 inch. Think you that my graphics card could support a 19-inch screen. My pc has 512 ram memory and virtual memory I have 1759 MB and swap space 1249 MB, (I do not know if its importance. You can adjust the settings "resizing of the screen " in your ATI for the resolution selected is always displayed in 1:1 (the graphics center resolution, adds itself and sends black pixels on the screen in its native resolution ), so even if the future games all begin at 1080 you will have at worst only two black stripes but no distortion of the image, and you'll have always 1200 for the office.