Widescreen LCDs going widescreen by 2010
The term "widescreen" is one of the most notoriously confusing monikers this side of Full HD used to describe a display's specifications. Widescreen generally translates to a 16:10 aspect ratio when discussing computer LCDs (monitors or laptop displays) or 16:9 if your talking about the living room TV. Of course, it can also refer to the 2.35:1 ratio often used for films or something entirely different if you're Apple touting the wonders of your new widescreen iPhone. Fortunately, we're trending towards at least some convergence around the 16:9 aspect. DisplaySearch predicts that by 2010, 16:9 panels will make up 90% of new laptop displays and 67% of new monitors. Acer has been at the forefront of this transition with products like its Gemstone Blue laptops and the Acer P224W monitor pictured above. The move is being driven by panel manufacturers' desire to maximize production efficiency -- something they should have realized before the glass sizes diverged in the first place. Regardless, the end result should be more pennies saved by you, Joe Consumer, and that's a good thing.























Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
airtoast @ Jul 2nd 2008 1:00PM
It would be nice if they just standardized and made TVs the same aspect ratio of movies or if they made movies the same aspect ratio of TVs. I guess that would make too much sense though. That way, my expensive HDTV playing an expensive Blu-ray wouldn't have to display a shrunken picture with ghetto-looking black bars on the top and bottom.
minimalist @ Jul 2nd 2008 1:52PM
Who exactly would enforce this this new 16:9 "rule"? What about the hundreds of thousands of movies, television shows that are already in 4:3, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, 2:65 and 2.75:1 aspect ratios? What about the concerns of the theaters who have invested in huge screens for the 2.3:5 to one blockbuster summer films while smaller budget films get shown on their 1.85:1 screens? Do they all have to submit to some 16:9 Gestapo? There is after all a zoom command if filling up those unused pixels is so important to people who freak out about "black bars". I'm much more inclined to trust the creator of a movie or TV show to make the decision about the aspect ratio over some industry standards consortium.
kcmurphy88 @ Jul 2nd 2008 2:12PM
"ghetto-looking black bars" ???!?
But anyway, the problem with 16x10 is that there is NO video format that is undistorted. 16x9 doesn't match everything, but at least 4x3 or cinema sizes are matted to 16x9 as a matter of course. So, yeah, hurray for 16x9.
As far as people who think black bars are stealing their pixels, and that distorting the picture is better, I vote for taking away their TVs so that the networks don't have to make so many shows for stupid people.
airtoast @ Jul 2nd 2008 4:48PM
The 16x9 law would be enforced heavily by... Team America: World Police!
Come on, that's not at all what I'm saying. I was just saying it would be nice (read: "nice") for this generation of TVs to be as wide as most (not all) movies made today or for a consensus of filmmakers to agree on a common ratio for the foreseeable future. Obviously movie screens should not be cropped to 16x9 (that's definitely my mistake). Although my TV remote has a near-useless zoom function, someone will have to show me the zoom button on the PS3 Blu-ray remote (because there isn't one). But clearly it would be pointless to use due to quality compromising distortion and image cropping.
Of course I don't think black bars are "stealing pixels," and I don't advocate "distorting the picture" (Why jump to unfounded conclusions and resort to snarky, pseudo-intellectual "I'm-better-than-you" attempts at insults?).
I see there are true black bar lovers here. Personally, IMHO, I'd like to see them reduced from my daily field of vision, if possible. (read: But obviously not at the expense of the source material)
minimalist @ Jul 2nd 2008 9:07PM
OK. Sorry for the harshness of the post.
You have noticed however that even 1.85:1 films don;t completely fill the 16:9 screen right? (there is still slight letterboxing at the top and bottom). So we still have 4 aspect rations in common use today (4:3, 16:9, 1.85:1, and 2.35:1)
I think this is a problem that can only be solved except by changing our expectations. There is just too much visual content from too many diverse sources to ever achieve standardization (not to mention some business like movie theaters make not want standardization). I love my widescreen TV because I have so many widescreen DVD's and even the 2.35:1 ones are a lot bigger now than they were on my old 27 inch Trinitron. But many of them still have letterboxing and its a heck of a lot better than it was on the old 4:3 tube. I honestly forget about it after a while.
On the other hand widescreen aspect ratios on computers is great for movies and TV but not so great for productivity especially if you do graphic work like I do. It won't be long before I have to buy a 30" Apple or Dell monitor because dual widescreens will be so long and skinny as to be useless.
Shape @ Jul 2nd 2008 4:07PM
That sucks. 16x10 is used for computer monitors because with 16x9, there isn't quite enough vertical screen real-estate for getting work done. It is just a better ratio for computer work.
CJH @ Jul 2nd 2008 5:04PM
Great. First 1280x1024 monitors were cut down to 1280x800. Now they're going to be cut down even further to 1280x720. 8 years ago I never would have thought screen resolution would actually be going DOWN.
VinylVision @ Jul 2nd 2008 6:44PM
Acer USA has virtually no information beyhond the Acer Global news release on the recently announced model P224W. No specs, no availability date, nada. I am ready to buy a 24 or 26" s-ips panel with lots of connection possibilities including multiple HDMI, DVI, etc, but alas looks like I am going to have to wait for NEC to ship new models with more connectivity. Dell has connectivity, but does not use s-ips panels.