I was playing around with the iMac's at my Apple store a couple of days ago and found that, even on the 27", the 16:9 ratio really irritates me because it feels like I have *less* screen space. Of course that's not true, but because there's now more space on the sides and less from top to bottom, it feels more "squashed" to me - 16:10 was the perfect ratio to me, because it's the perfect balance of space across the whole screen. Am I alone here? Or has anybody bought a new iMac, not liked the ratio at first but gotten used to it? I'm curious...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Does the 16:9 ratio bother anybody?
- Thread starter Matt T
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
16:9 is the widescreen format, so yeah, it's more stretched around the sides, but that's actually very nice for watching movies and pretty much everything else.
I've been using 16:9 for a while now, and so far, I've only liked it.
I've been using 16:9 for a while now, and so far, I've only liked it.
I personally doubt it.
For a computer, web browsing, graphic designing, working with images, working with text, etc. etc. 16:10 really makes more sense. I mean, would you prefer computer made for everyday work or for movie watching?
The MAIN reason I believe Apple went 16:9 on the iMacs is due to the "chin," it made 16x10 iMacs still appear very square.
With a 16x9 screen, they have the width to pack in more components and there is less height on the screen, so the overall computer seems "wide," and a bit more pleasing to the eye.
Thankfully, this compromise is not so bad in at least these are fairly large displays on the iMac, so I can live with it when I get one.
On a notebook, much smaller displays, 16x9 would make even less sense, and it isn't needed for aesthetics like on the iMac since the notebooks already appear wide.
Actually I am positive it is because of cost. More and more monitors are going 16:9 those days, so 16:9 panels are cheaper to produce than the increasingly rare 16:10 panels.
Once this trend hits notebooks, you bet your ass the MacBooks will go 16:9 as well.
I, for one, welcome this move.
It bothers me that all the 16:10 wallpapers I've collected over the last 5 years will have to be adjusted for the new resolution. 
The prices on 16:9 panels are getting ludicrously cheap. 23 - 24" is dirt cheap to get in 1920 x 1080. I want my 1200 pixels high though.
Wow, those are actually all very good reasons which never occurred to me....Whatever the ultimate reason, the savings in cost, the extra space, and minimizing the chin seems to all work in in Apple's favor. I think these imacs just look absolutely slick in 16:9.
I actually wouldn't mind the Macbooks going 16:9 too.
You might want want to use one of these beauties. They offer this unbelievable wide display ratio
Attachments
I've only found one 1920 by 1200 res screen on my searches recently. a samsung one, and i get the impression that its gonna sell quite quickly cos they are switching to a 16:9 ratio. For me its a bit annoying. I dont tend to watch movies on my computer all that much, and i have never really noticed anything wrong with 16:10. but i guess its the whole thing with the increased media outlook on computers etc.. Blu-ray on PCs, 16:9. the list goes on.
Darn
PTP
Darn
PTP
I'm not a designer by trade but I have done quite a bit of graphic design and 3D modling work in the past and I'm confused by the 16:9 vs 16:10 issue. Why do people like 16:10 so much? I personally like the idea of a wider display because if you're using something like Photoshop, etc. the tools are essentially taking up width and you're left with a more square working area. If you did the same on a 16:10 screen, you'd be left with a more rectangular area. That's good for web design I guess?
Anyway... any reasoning would help to enlighten me on the "issue". Thanks.
Anyway... any reasoning would help to enlighten me on the "issue". Thanks.
It sucks. This monitor is insane, but it's only 1080 pixels high:
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/article-240-6216-36.html
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/article-240-6216-36.html
As long as they keep the 1600 pixels in height, Apple can go as wide as they want, I don't care.
16/9 is ok, as long as they don't reduce the height which is done by almost every manufacturer of 24" displays now. They are still 1920 pixels in with, but they lost 120 pixels in height, which is not ok.
They way Apple has done it with the new iMac is ok. Bigger screens, with more width WITHOUT ripping of the height, they even added some pixels.
16/9 is ok, as long as they don't reduce the height which is done by almost every manufacturer of 24" displays now. They are still 1920 pixels in with, but they lost 120 pixels in height, which is not ok.
They way Apple has done it with the new iMac is ok. Bigger screens, with more width WITHOUT ripping of the height, they even added some pixels.
its funny how they use 16:9 and DONT allow for external inputs like a blu-ray player or PS3/XBOX, nor do they include a blu-ray player...
Um... actually I think one of the big selling points of the 27" is the input ability on it...
Although I much prefer 16:10 for computer use, particularly with the bottom dock, in the case of iMac, Apple is giving you additional horizontal pixels rather than taking away the vertical. 21.5" screen is about the same height as 20", but with 1920 horizontal pixels vs 1680 (verticals are 1080 vs 1050). And ditto for 27" (2560x1440) vs 24" (1920x1200). Since nothing is lost, I don't mind 16:9 in this case.