Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Adam Wh3tham]

So most computer monitors now days at 16:9 it seems, as are most TV's. I was assuming 16:9 would be a good screen ratio to go.

But then seeing some of the projectors it appears 16:10 is more common with that?

I guess i'm looking for short answer is there any positive to a 16:10 over a 16:9? This is just for video and powerpoint media being displayed.

[Jordan Wolf]

...This is just for video and powerpoint media being displayed.

Adam,

There lies the rub - graphics displays are trending towards 16:10 and video displays are trending towards 16:9.

I'd be inclined to go with a screen that will fit a 16:10 image.  In an environment with controlled ambient light levels, you'd be hard-pressed to find (or really care about) the sliver of black at the top and bottom of a 16:9 image on a 16:10 surface.

Of course, if you have a good scaler, you could scale 16:10 graphics into a 16:9 format.

[Adam Wh3tham]

Adam,

There lies the rub - graphics displays are trending towards 16:10 and video displays are trending towards 16:9.

I'd be inclined to go with a screen that will fit a 16:10 image.  In an environment with controlled ambient light levels, you'd be hard-pressed to find (or really care about) the sliver of black at the top and bottom of a 16:9 image on a 16:10 surface.

Of course, if you have a good scaler, you could scale 16:10 graphics into a 16:9 format.

Just when I thought it was a simple solution. After reading a bit more I'm more inclined to go for the 16:10 as it would be slightly more versatile.

When two markets collide....

[Jonathan Kok]

Adam,

There lies the rub - graphics displays are trending towards 16:10 and video displays are trending towards 16:9.

I'd be inclined to go with a screen that will fit a 16:10 image.  In an environment with controlled ambient light levels, you'd be hard-pressed to find (or really care about) the sliver of black at the top and bottom of a 16:9 image on a 16:10 surface.

Of course, if you have a good scaler, you could scale 16:10 graphics into a 16:9 format.

I'd have to disagree with you on this one.  Most monitors these days are 16:9 (1366x768, 1600x900, 1920x1080) and laptops are trending away from 16:10.  I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a graphics card that was not happy in 16:9 resolutions.

Many 16:10 projectors have an option in the menu to force 16:9 projection.  I'd go with a 16:9 screen, myself, and force the projector into 16:9 mode.  No need for scaling.

[Brad Weber]

Many laptops and displays are moving to 16:9 format and that may be due to their becoming a common way of viewing HD video content (iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, Slingbox, etc.).  However, some venues may not be able to assume the majority of users will have newer laptops, tablets, etc. with 16:9 native screens or that any graphic content was created on 16:9 displays, they may have to deal with 4:3 and 5:4 format sources and content as well as widescreen formats.

I find that it can come down to your content, if the content is primarily widescreen video than 16:9 may make sense, if it is mostly graphics than 16:10 or even 4:3 may be a better option.  In cases where you have mixed media 16:10 may be a good compromise with less letterboxing for 16:9 images than with a 4:3 format and slightly less pillarboxing of 4:3 images than with a 16:9 format. 

[Jordan Wolf]

Many laptops and displays are moving to 16:9 format and that may be due to their becoming a common way of viewing HD video content (iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, Slingbox, etc.).  However, some venues may not be able to assume the majority of users will have newer laptops, tablets, etc. with 16:9 native screens or that any graphic content was created on 16:9 displays, they may have to deal with 4:3 and 5:4 format sources and content as well as widescreen formats.

Definitely a good point.  I deal with corporate A/V and we have end users coming in with presentations in various aspect ratios.  Probably about 2/3 4:3, 1/3 widescreen of some sort.

In cases where you have mixed media 16:10 may be a good compromise with less letterboxing for 16:9 images than with a 4:3 format and slightly less pillarboxing of 4:3 images than with a 16:9 format.

This is the angle I was coming from (no pun intended), as I see more and more widescreen content come my way.  One way to deal with a widescreen surface displaying 4:3 content is to use the side "pillars" as client branding for their event...of course, that depends on what gear is in use and if you have layers to spare.

[Adam Wh3tham]

I went with the 16:10 screen for the same reasons. Its a good compromise for everything. And just seems to be the most flexible out of the bunch depending upon content

Thanks for the input guys!

[ProSoundWeb Community]