Would you recommend 16:10 aspect ratio?

[drkknghtavngr]

Im bout to buy my first 1080p monitor, but the deals im finding are mostly 16:10 I will watch movies and tv shows in this monitor so I dont want black bars as much as possible especially in tv shows. Would you personally buy a 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio monitor?

[ARikozuM]

16:9, though I'd rather go 21:9 if I need to be rid of my triple 1080.

[Oshino Shinobu]

I would recommend it, but not really for watching video. It's more useful for productivity, text based content or if you have a monitor in portrait. 

[Guest]

I'd say stick to the standards like 16:9 or even 21:9

[agent_x007]

I'm using 16:10, 1920:1200 monitor since 2009.

I like black bars because they are perfect space for subtitles (and some movies are 2.39x1, or 21:9).

Other than that, 16:10 is perfect for old videogames without wide screen support (because they can display common 4:3 resolutions in 1:1 pixel ratio).

It can however suffer in Nv shadowplay (no DSR for shadowplay recording in 16:9 video format).

[Enderman]

Almost all video is 16:9, so use that if you want black bars the least amount of time.

[manikyath]

34 minutes ago, Abyss Gaming said:

I'd say stick to the standards like 16:9 or even 21:9

16:10 is a standard

 

but as said.. it's more useful for productivity, and even there the benefits are questionable because usually 16:10 displays are narrower, instead of being taller.

[DrMacintosh]

16:10 is the best ratio for laptops hands down. Gives your content more ability to display itself while not having to compromise on UI elements like the Dock in MacOS or the Task Bar in Vindows

 

On the Desktop I see no problems with it. You'll just get black bars on YouTube/Netflix. 

[Malibooroo]

I much rather 16:10 to 16:9 at that res. 16:9 if you're going 1440p or best imo is 21:9 at 3440x1440. But if media consumption is your main priority, just stick with 16:9.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, manikyath said:

16:10 is a standard

 

but as said.. it's more useful for productivity, and even there the benefits are questionable because usually 16:10 displays are narrower, instead of being taller.

I mean stuff like videos and movies is more standard towards 16:9 or 21:9, even though that's really only media and maybe some games since everything should resize fine.

[manikyath]

55 minutes ago, Abyss Gaming said:

I mean stuff like videos and movies is more standard towards 16:9 or 21:9, even though that's really only media and maybe some games since everything should resize fine.

afaik the only thing that's more or less 21:9 (not exact) is movies made for 2.39:1 cinemas, which i dont exactly think you can find on store shelves as DVDs

 

as it stands the most common aspect ratios are still 4:3 and 16:9, with 4:3 slowly becoming a dying race.

--

as for OP's question as for recommending 16:10.. if you want that tiny slip of extra vertical space, buy 16:9 and learn to work with your taskbar to the left or right, it's more awesome than people give it credit for.

[aakopa]

I would take 16:10 over 16:9 any day

[Guest]

1 hour ago, aakopa said:

I would take 16:10 over 16:9 any day

Only thing is if he doesn't want black bars then it isnt great.

[bimmerman]

16:10 is fantastic. 16:9 feels too short to me when doing work. 21:9 is a weird hybrid where it's still too short but you get extra width-- great for spreadsheets, not so great for reading or writing. 16:10 is by far my favorite for Portrait mode for PDFs, word docs, coding, etc.

 

I have dual 16:10 24" monitors at work and have had dual 27" 16:10 since 2008 at home. Using laptop 16:9 screens just feels cramped, and since you can't find 27" 16:10 anymore, I've kept mine going. I added a 21:9 34" two years ago and it's...good at some, bad at others.

 

If you are intending on watching movies, 16:9 is the winner; 16:10 is just as good. You'll have 60 pixels of black bars on the top and bottom of your image--pretty negligible IMO.

 

so......yea. 16:10 > 21:9 > 16:9 IMO.