Why confirming from multiple sources is important. ;)

[Paradigm Shifter]

http://www.tcmagazine.com/tcm/news/hardware/29573/dell-coming-u3011-30-inch-monitor

This is not good! I was at least hoping that on the ultra-high-end monitors they'd keep 16:10, as I prefer that res when working/gaming on the PC.

[Yui]

That's totally incorrect. The dell u3011 is still 16:10 2560x600 resolution.

http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=dhs&cs=cadhs1&sku=224-9949

[Paradigm Shifter]

Oooh... interesting. Guess time will tell when they're released and reviewed. Hope that Dell's site is right, though.

[Yui]

It's there own website so it is definitely correct.

[Paradigm Shifter]

Um, no, it's not definitely correct. I've phoned/e-mailed Dell up in the past because their site said something but it actually hasn't been correct... and errors like those are usually caused by overzealous use of Copy 'n' Paste when something new comes out to replace an older item.

[suiken_2mieu]

Um, no, it's not definitely correct. I've phoned/e-mailed Dell up in the past because their site said something but it actually hasn't been correct... and errors like those are usually caused by overzealous use of Copy 'n' Paste when something new comes out to replace an older item.

You sir are incorrect. It's 16:10. With 2560x1600. The 27" is 2560x1440. Pro-tip, check the website, and the Australian cnet review.

[DaFox]

You sir are incorrect. It's 16:10. With 2560x1600. The 27" is 2560x1440. Pro-tip, check the website, and the Australian cnet review.

I'm inclined to believe that their site is correct, but PS is right, it certainly does not have to be correct.

But indeed it seems to be.
http://www.cnet.com.au/dell-ultrasharp-u3011-339305812.htm?omnRef=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fsource%3Dig%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D%26%3D%26q%3Ddell%2B3011%2Bcnet%26aq%3Df%26aqi%3Dg1%26aql%3D%26oq%3D%26gs_rfai%3D

As for the poll, I would certainly prefer 16:10, I wouldn't say 16:9 is terrible though.

[suiken_2mieu]

My problem with 16:9 is that the way they get 16:9 is by cutting off resolution off of a 16:10 monitor. Now if they added more pixels (kinda like how they go from 1440x900 to 1600x900) that would be (in my mind) a better way to do things and would make me more inclined to by 16:9 panels. But alas this is what they do to get the following formats in the high end resolutions:

16:10 2560x1600
16:9 2560x1440
21:9 2560x1080

All I see is them hacking off resolution to go wider.

[Paradigm Shifter]

Haha, awesome. Well, I'm glad that TechConnect is wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that you think I'm wrong because Dell have had errors on their site before? A couple of times in the past their UK and US sites can't even agree. As I said, I've called Dell up on errors before now for clarification - I have done with Amazon (although e-mail in their case) too, for that matter. ;)

[thales100]

I prefer that res when working/gaming on the PC.

Me too, 16:10 all the way. :bowdown

[phantom]

I much prefer 3 x 16:10 and the increased vertical pixels for gaming and when using my setup as a workstation.

Documents, photos, spreadsheets, and telemetry display much better using the extra vertical screen space. Immersion is also better with more pixels filling my vertical field of view.

[GeneralAdmission]

My problem with 16:9 is that the way they get 16:9 is by cutting off resolution off of a 16:10 monitor. Now if they added more pixels (kinda like how they go from 1440x900 to 1600x900) that would be (in my mind) a better way to do things and would make me more inclined to by 16:9 panels. But alas this is what they do to get the following formats in the high end resolutions:

16:10 2560x1600
16:9 2560x1440
21:9 2560x1080

All I see is them hacking off resolution to go wider.

Great. Even hardware manufacturers are going Vert-? How the hell am I supposed to fix that?

[DaFox]

Don't forget the good ole Maximum Resolution for many 22-24 inch 4:3 CRTs!
2560 x 1920

Great. Even hardware manufacturers are going Vert-? How the hell am I supposed to fix that?

I have been thinking about it quite a bit lately but what exactly makes 16:9 wider than 16:10?

The lowest size that you can get on either of them is obviously exactly how they are explained 16x9 and 16x10.

Technically speaking neither is actually wider correct?


(top left is 16:9, other two are 16:10)

Now obviously the aspect ratio between the width and height is wider but how does that translate onto the screen?
What's the deal?

[suiken_2mieu]

Don't forget the good ole Maximum Resolution for many 22-24 inch 4:3 CRTs!
2560 x 1920

[quote]Great. Even hardware manufacturers are going Vert-? How the hell am I supposed to fix that?

I have been thinking about it quite a bit lately but what exactly makes 16:9 wider than 16:10?

The lowest size that you can get on either of them is obviously exactly how they are explained 16x9 and 16x10.

Technically speaking neither is actually wider correct?


(top left is 16:9, other two are 16:10)

Now obviously the aspect ratio between the width and height is wider but how does that translate onto the screen?
What's the deal?
That logic only works when talking about a Vert- Game. Because your right, neither would be wider in that aspect. The game would just be taller in 16:10. But with a Vert- game it would also be taller in 4:3 and *tallest in 5:4.

But in a Hor+ Game, they make every aspect ratio have the same height and expand left and right. What happens is the narrower (Vertically) the aspect ratio, the wider image will be.

You can think about it like this.

Vert- Hor+
16:10 16:10
16:09 17:10

Those are basically the same values, but it's a different way of looking at it.


16:10 top-left
16:9 top-right and Bottom-left

*Assuming they aren't using a monitor in portrait mode of multiple stacked monitors.

[X-Warrior]

16:9 is horrible. Producers should stop pretending a computer is a TV. It works for TVs. PC's have this extra 'taskbar' thingy at the bottom, so it takes a few extra pixels. And plenty of other bars that require some space for that matter.

Also, a 1920x1080 display, which is sold horribly often these days, can not produce 1600x1200, a standard 4:3 resolution that's rather useful for games that don't do widescreen. A 1920x1200 display can, and perfectly as well - just black sidebars, no interpolation required.

[DaFox]

Vert- Hor+
16:10 16:10
16:09 17:10

Those are basically the same values, but it's a different way of looking at it.

17 / 10 isn't the same as 16 / 9.

The problem with that all resolutions are multiples of 16 and 10, 16 and 9, 4 and 3 etc.

A 16:9 monitor can never actually be wider unless they match up the height, which they typically do not do.

The lowest resolution possible to compare the two would be 144 * 90 and 160 * 90.

Who says that it's right to align the vertical resolution, isn't it logical to scale up to the lowest common denominator? That's exactly what these monitor makers are doing.

Don't get me wrong I love Hor+, I'm just trying to understand how It can work when horizontal resolutions are not changing.

Edit: Is it just stabilizing the aspect ratio somehow?

[phantom]

16:9 is horrible. Producers should stop pretending a computer is a TV. It works for TVs. PC's have this extra 'taskbar' thingy at the bottom, so it takes a few extra pixels. And plenty of other bars that require some space for that matter.

Also, a 1920x1080 display, which is sold horribly often these days, can not produce 1600x1200, a standard 4:3 resolution that's rather useful for games that don't do widescreen. A 1920x1200 display can, and perfectly as well - just black sidebars, no interpolation required.

Two very important points, I agree.

[suiken_2mieu]

[quote]16:9 is horrible. Producers should stop pretending a computer is a TV. It works for TVs. PC's have this extra 'taskbar' thingy at the bottom, so it takes a few extra pixels. And plenty of other bars that require some space for that matter.

Also, a 1920x1080 display, which is sold horribly often these days, can not produce 1600x1200, a standard 4:3 resolution that's rather useful for games that don't do widescreen. A 1920x1200 display can, and perfectly as well - just black sidebars, no interpolation required.

Two very important points, I agree.
There's always 1440x1080 @60Hz (not 1080i)

[Abram]

The ability to display 1600x1200 is Why I bought 16:10 monitors. Some games - older ones in particular - don't play nice with custom resolutions.

[Paradigm Shifter]

There's always 1440x1080 @60Hz (not 1080i)

There are lots of games that come with a limited resolution set - typically 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 - while we've got fixes for some, we by no means have fixes for all. KotOR took ages to have a fully working fix, and even now I'd rather play it at 1600x1200 (which is a res it'll do without complaint) rather than faff around trying to get it to work at another resolution.