Misplaced Pages

16:10 aspect ratio: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:56, 30 March 2013 editIndrek (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,958 edits →Common screen resolutions: rm unnamed, uncommon resolution (see talk)← Previous edit Revision as of 14:46, 8 April 2013 edit undoSolarra (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,143 edits formatting: heading, heading-style, mdash (using Advisor.js) also removed Essay tag see talk page.Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{multiple issues| {{multiple issues|
{{unreliable sources|date=February 2013}} {{unreliable sources|date=February 2013}}
{{essay|date=February 2013}}
{{update|date=January 2013}} {{update|date=January 2013}}
}} }}
Line 20: Line 19:
In 2005–2008, 16:10 overtook 4:3 as the most sold aspect ratio for LCD monitors. At the time, 16:10 also had 90% of the notebook market and was the most commonly used aspect ratio for laptops.<ref name="displaysearch"/> However, 16:10 had a short reign as the most common aspect ratio. In 2005–2008, 16:10 overtook 4:3 as the most sold aspect ratio for LCD monitors. At the time, 16:10 also had 90% of the notebook market and was the most commonly used aspect ratio for laptops.<ref name="displaysearch"/> However, 16:10 had a short reign as the most common aspect ratio.


==== Industry moves away from 16:10 in 2008 to 16:9==== ==== Industry moves away from 16:10 in 2008 to 16:9 ====
Around 2008–2010, there was a rapid shift by computer display manufacturers to the 16:9 aspect ratio and by 2011 16:10 had almost disappeared from new mass market products. According to ], by October 2012 the market share of 16:10 displays had dropped to less than 23 percent.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=17 |title=Screen Resolutions |publisher=Net Applications |date=October 2012 |accessdate=2012-11-26 }}</ref> Around 2008–2010, there was a rapid shift by computer display manufacturers to the 16:9 aspect ratio and by 2011 16:10 had almost disappeared from new mass market products. According to ], by October 2012 the market share of 16:10 displays had dropped to less than 23 percent.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=17 |title=Screen Resolutions |publisher=Net Applications |date=October 2012 |accessdate=2012-11-26 }}</ref>


The primary reason for this move was considered to be production efficiency<ref name="engadget"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/displays/283041-where-displays-are-heading |title=Where Displays Are Heading |publisher=PC Magazine |last=Miller |first=Michael J. |date=2008-03-21 |accessdate=2012-07-09 }}</ref> - since display panels for TVs use the ] aspect ratio, it became more efficient for display manufacturers to produce computer display panels in the same aspect ratio as well.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15046 |title=DisplaySearch: Transition to 16:9 displays is 'unstoppable' |publisher=The Tech Report |last=Kowaliski |first=Cyril |date=2008-07-02 |accessdate=2012-07-09 }}</ref> A 2008 report by DisplaySearch also cited a number of other reasons, including the ability for PC and monitor manufacturers to expand their product ranges by offering products with wider screens and higher resolutions, helping consumers to adopt such products more easily and "stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market".<ref name="displaysearch"/> The primary reason for this move was considered to be production efficiency<ref name="engadget"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/displays/283041-where-displays-are-heading |title=Where Displays Are Heading |publisher=PC Magazine |last=Miller |first=Michael J. |date=2008-03-21 |accessdate=2012-07-09 }}</ref> - since display panels for TVs use the ] aspect ratio, it became more efficient for display manufacturers to produce computer display panels in the same aspect ratio as well.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15046 |title=DisplaySearch: Transition to 16:9 displays is 'unstoppable' |publisher=The Tech Report |last=Kowaliski |first=Cyril |date=2008-07-02 |accessdate=2012-07-09 }}</ref> A 2008 report by DisplaySearch also cited a number of other reasons, including the ability for PC and monitor manufacturers to expand their product ranges by offering products with wider screens and higher resolutions, helping consumers to adopt such products more easily and "stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market".<ref name="displaysearch"/>


The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 was met with a mixed response. The lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with their suitability for gaming and movies and the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, was seen as a positive.<ref name="engadget"/><ref name="PC Mag">{{cite web |url=http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328932,00.asp |title=Stop Shrinking My Laptop Screen |publisher=PC Magazine |last=Ulanoff |first=Lance |date=2008-08-27 |accessdate=2012-07-09 }}</ref> On the other hand there was criticism towards the lack of vertical screen real estate when compared to 16:10 displays of the same screen diagonal.<ref name="PC Mag"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1723060/gateways-displays-common-sense |title=Gateway's 16:10 displays show common sense |publisher=The Inquirer |date=2010-07-16 |accessdate=2012-07-09 }}</ref> For this reason, some considered 16:9 displays less suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, which are mostly designed for taller, rather than wider screens.<ref name="PC Mag"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1652880/time-ditch-awful-hd-1080p-widescreens |title=Time to ditch awful HD 1080p widescreens |publisher=The Inquirer |last=Orion |first=Egan |date=2010-06-11 |accessdate=2012-07-09 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://vr-zone.com/articles/monitor-aspect-ratios--beyond-16-9-ipad-to-the-rescue-/13399.html |title=Monitor Aspect Ratios - Beyond 16:9, iPad to the rescue? |publisher=VR-Zone |last=Novakovic |first=Nebojsa |date=2011-08-26 |accessdate=2012-07-09 }}</ref> The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 was met with a mixed response. The lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with their suitability for gaming and movies and the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, was seen as a positive.<ref name="engadget"/><ref name="PC Mag">{{cite web |url=http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328932,00.asp |title=Stop Shrinking My Laptop Screen |publisher=PC Magazine |last=Ulanoff |first=Lance |date=2008-08-27 |accessdate=2012-07-09 }}</ref> On the other hand there was criticism towards the lack of vertical screen real estate when compared to 16:10 displays of the same screen diagonal.<ref name="PC Mag"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1723060/gateways-displays-common-sense |title=Gateway's 16:10 displays show common sense |publisher=The Inquirer |date=2010-07-16 |accessdate=2012-07-09 }}</ref> For this reason, some considered 16:9 displays less suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, which are mostly designed for taller, rather than wider screens.<ref name="PC Mag"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1652880/time-ditch-awful-hd-1080p-widescreens |title=Time to ditch awful HD 1080p widescreens |publisher=The Inquirer |last=Orion |first=Egan |date=2010-06-11 |accessdate=2012-07-09 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://vr-zone.com/articles/monitor-aspect-ratios--beyond-16-9-ipad-to-the-rescue-/13399.html |title=Monitor Aspect Ratios&nbsp;— Beyond 16:9, iPad to the rescue? |publisher=VR-Zone |last=Novakovic |first=Nebojsa |date=2011-08-26 |accessdate=2012-07-09 }}</ref>


=== Tablets === === Tablets ===
Line 51: Line 50:
|} |}


==See also== == See also ==
* ] - Different aspect ratios for computer monitors. * ] - Different aspect ratios for computer monitors.
* ] * ]

Revision as of 14:46, 8 April 2013

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. Please help improve this article by looking for better, more reliable sources. Unreliable citations may be challenged and removed. (February 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (January 2013)
(Learn how and when to remove this message)
An 19-inch LCD monitor with an aspect ratio of 16:10.

16:10, also known as 8:5, is an aspect ratio mostly used for computer displays and tablet computers. The width of the display is 1.6 times its height. This ratio is close to the golden ratio " φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " which is approximately 1.618.

LCD computer displays using the 16:10 ratio started to appear in the mass market from 2003. By 2008 16:10 had become the most common aspect ratio for LCD monitors and laptop displays. Since 2010, however, 16:9 has become the mainstream standard, driven by the 1080p standard for high definition television.

History

Computer displays

Industry moves towards 16:10 from 2003 to 2008

Until about 2003, most computer monitors had a 4:3 aspect ratio and some had 5:4. Between 2003 and 2006, monitors with 16:10 (8:5) aspect ratios became commonly available, first in laptops and later also in standalone monitors. Reasons for this transition were productive uses for such monitors, i.e. besides widescreen movie viewing and computer game play, are the word processor display of two standard letter pages side by side, as well as CAD displays of large-size drawings and CAD application menus at the same time.

In 2005–2008, 16:10 overtook 4:3 as the most sold aspect ratio for LCD monitors. At the time, 16:10 also had 90% of the notebook market and was the most commonly used aspect ratio for laptops. However, 16:10 had a short reign as the most common aspect ratio.

Industry moves away from 16:10 in 2008 to 16:9

Around 2008–2010, there was a rapid shift by computer display manufacturers to the 16:9 aspect ratio and by 2011 16:10 had almost disappeared from new mass market products. According to Net Applications, by October 2012 the market share of 16:10 displays had dropped to less than 23 percent.

The primary reason for this move was considered to be production efficiency - since display panels for TVs use the 16:9 aspect ratio, it became more efficient for display manufacturers to produce computer display panels in the same aspect ratio as well. A 2008 report by DisplaySearch also cited a number of other reasons, including the ability for PC and monitor manufacturers to expand their product ranges by offering products with wider screens and higher resolutions, helping consumers to adopt such products more easily and "stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market".

The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 was met with a mixed response. The lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with their suitability for gaming and movies and the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, was seen as a positive. On the other hand there was criticism towards the lack of vertical screen real estate when compared to 16:10 displays of the same screen diagonal. For this reason, some considered 16:9 displays less suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, which are mostly designed for taller, rather than wider screens.

Tablets

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (August 2012)

Tablets started to enjoy mainstream popularity during the late 2000s. These modern releases were initially offered in a 4:3 format, but later releases saw increasing numbers offered in 16:10.

Common screen resolutions

This is a list of common screen resolutions with the 16:10 aspect ratio.

Name Dimensions Diagonal screen size
WXGA 1280×800 13–15 in (33–38 cm)
WXGA+ 1440×900 13–19 in (33–48 cm)
WSXGA+ 1680×1050 15–22 in (38–56 cm)
WUXGA 1920×1200 17–28 in (43–71 cm)
WQXGA 2560×1600 30 in (76 cm)

See also

References

  1. Knight, Dan (2008-09-19). "With 10% of the US Notebook Market, Where Will Apple Go Next?".
  2. ^ "Product Planners and Marketers Must Act Before 16:9 Panels Replace Mainstream 16:10 Notebook PC and Monitor LCD Panels, New DisplaySearch Topical Report Advises". DisplaySearch. 2008-07-01. Retrieved 2011-09-08.
  3. ^ Ricker, Thomas (2008-07-02). "Widescreen LCDs going widescreen by 2010". Engadget.
  4. NEMATech Computer Display Standards http://www.millertech.com/Technical_Specs.htm
  5. "Introduction--Monitor Technology Guide". necdisplay.com. Archived from the original on 2007-03-15. (currently offline)
  6. "Screen Resolutions". Net Applications. October 2012. Retrieved 2012-11-26.
  7. Miller, Michael J. (2008-03-21). "Where Displays Are Heading". PC Magazine. Retrieved 2012-07-09.
  8. Kowaliski, Cyril (2008-07-02). "DisplaySearch: Transition to 16:9 displays is 'unstoppable'". The Tech Report. Retrieved 2012-07-09.
  9. ^ Ulanoff, Lance (2008-08-27). "Stop Shrinking My Laptop Screen". PC Magazine. Retrieved 2012-07-09.
  10. "Gateway's 16:10 displays show common sense". The Inquirer. 2010-07-16. Retrieved 2012-07-09.
  11. Orion, Egan (2010-06-11). "Time to ditch awful HD 1080p widescreens". The Inquirer. Retrieved 2012-07-09.
  12. Novakovic, Nebojsa (2011-08-26). "Monitor Aspect Ratios — Beyond 16:9, iPad to the rescue?". VR-Zone. Retrieved 2012-07-09.
Categories: