(Credit:
CBS Interactive)
I have a question: is having a 16:9 aspect ratio monitor (as opposed to 16:10) really all that beneficial? The answer is, "It depends."
If we're talking strictly about resolution benefits, the specific size of the screen matters greatly. For example, a 16:9, 21.5-inch monitor has a native resolution of 1920x1080, whereas a 16:10, 22-incher tops out at 1680x1050. That's an extra 309,600 pixels you'd have at your disposal on the 21.5-incher. Gaming, movies, Photoshop--virtually all apps would benefit from more pixels. Yes, even porn. Or so I hear...ahem.
On the flip side, a 16:9, 24-incher's max resolution is 1920x1080; however, a 16:10, 24-inch monitor has a higher native resolution of 1920x1200. To complicate matters a bit, Dell's smaller, 16:9 SP2309W is a 23-inch display with a 2048x1152 resolution.
So, clearly, for certain screen sizes there are resolution benefits to 16:9. Also, with a monitor capable of 1080p (1920x1080) resolution, you'll get to watch 1080p, high-definition content without it getting stretched or shrunk to fit the screen.
So that long-winded setup brings me to the HP 2009m: a 20-inch, 16:9 monitor with a maximum resolution of 1600x900. As a rule, 16:10 monitors at 20 inches have a max resolution of 1680x1050. So with a monitor this small, what's the real benefit in going to 16:9? Sure, high-def content (1080 and 720p) will fit better, but will there really be a huge difference in quality and in the experience you have?
Now, I just got the HP 2009m in this week and, while it's definitely pleasing to the eye, it doesn't boast many improvements over the HP w2007 we reviewed a couple years back--unless you consider 16:9 on a 20-inch monitor an improvement, since the w2007 had a 16:10 aspect ratio and 1680x1050 resolution. On HP's site, the newer 2009m costs $20 more. Are we really expected to pay $20 more (yes, a small difference, but still) for a lower-resolution monitor?
OK. Now, to be fair, I haven't tested the monitor yet. There could be many hidden benefits I'm not yet privy to--performance and power consumption being chief among the possibilities. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for any of those boons when I review the monitor in a couple of weeks. For now, check out the slideshow.
(Credit:
Philips)
Many people may just now be getting used to the idea of the 16:9 aspect ratio HDTVs have. The whole black bars at the top and bottom just kinda throw people off I guess.
Personally, I've never had a problem with this. I just never understood how someone could prefer pan scan movies over letterbox once the difference was explained to them. I mean, you're getting the whole movie with Letterbox and a cheap knockoff with "Fullscreen" that has its edges cut off. Not to mention really awkward pans. Yeah, I'm a movie snob, so what?
Phillips will attempt to end any association home movies have with black bars when it releases what is, according to them, the world's first 21:9 aspect ratio HDTV, the Cinema 21:9.
Until now, all HDTVs had an aspect ratio of 16:9. Movies shot in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio when converted to DVD can roughly fit on 16:9 HDTVs without the need of black bars. Movies shot in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio have a wider picture. When these movies are brought home, the black bars are necessary to see the entire picture, otherwise the image would be stretched or zoomed and the right and left edges clipped off.
The Cinema 21:9 will attempt to remedy this inconstancy through a means that Philips hasn't gone into detail with yet. According to the company, you'll be able to view 2.35:1 content, full screen, sans the black bars or zooming. In addition, regular 16:9 content from TV broadcasts and games will also be automatically adapted to fill the 21:9 screen.
Philips plans to release the Cinema 21:9 this spring with more info coming in February.
The HP G60-125nr
The move from traditional 16:10 laptop displays to 16:9 ones that mirror HDTV screens is shift that's here to stay, judging by the mini-flood of new 18-inch and 16-inch systems that have crossed our desk. What's a little odder is that we've also run into a couple of systems that have 15-inch 16:9 displays (making them 15.6-inches, diagonally, to be precise).
This is a good illustration of how to be a smart laptop comparison shopper, because one of these two 15-inch 16:9 laptops is a much better deal than the other (and both are part of our Holiday 2008 Retail Laptop Roundup).
The HP G60-125nr was in retail stores for $729, and has a 2.0GHz AMD Turion X2 Dual-Core RM-70 CPU, 3GB of RAM, and a 250GB, 5,400rpm hard drive. We were surprised to see this AMD CPU in a system that expensive, especially as the performance on our benchmark tests was more in line with an entry level laptop.
The Acer Aspire 5735-4624
Meanwhile, the other 15-inch 16:9 we reviewed, the Acer Aspire 5735-4624, offered a 2.0GHz Intel Pentium Dual Core T3200 CPU, 2GB of RAM, and a 160GB, 5,400rpm hard drive. It only wins in the CPU department, but it was about 33-percent faster in our multitasking test, so that's a significant difference to the user experience. The real hook is that the Acer had a retail price of $499, and was occasionally discounted to $399, earning it an excellent four-star rating.
Paying less and getting more is always a win for consumers, but this example is for illustrative purposes only. In the short time since we published these two reviews, the Acer has been sold out at retail stores, and, more interestingly, Best Buy is suddenly offering a deep discount on the HP G60, knocking it down from $729 to a more reasonable $549, saving you $180.
An 18-inch Acer next to a 17-inch Gateway.
You may (or may not) have heard some buzz lately about new laptop sizes, as models with 16- and 18-inch screens join the traditional 12-, 13-, 14-, 15-, and 17-inch party (plus all those 7- and 9-inch mininotebooks).
That may seem a little like overkill, but there is at least some method to the madness when it comes to the new 18-inch screen size (and these new sizes may eventually replace more traditional 15- and 17-inch displays). Take, for example, the very first 18-inch laptop we've gotten our hands on, the 18.4-inch Acer Aspire 8920.
The new screen sizes allow for true 16:9 aspect-ratio displays, which means Blu-ray or other HD content will fit the screen better. The native resolution of our 18-inch screen was 1,920x1080-pixel resolution (you know, like Blu-ray), while a high-end 17-inch laptop is usually 1,920x1200. To fit a lower, wider panel, the Acer Aspire 8920 is about 1.5-inches wider overall than a 17-inch Gateway P-172. Even though both of these laptops were equally deep (11.9-inches), the Acer has a hinge that pivots the entire lid back, making it about .75-inch shorter when you've got the screen open at a 90-degree angle (as pictured).
The upshot is you're trading a little tabletop footprint space for a more cinematic experience in a marginally larger chassis, and we've seen some not-yet-announced 18-inch laptops that are hardly larger than their current 17-inch versions. However, we also think the laptop industry could get swamped with too many screen sizes, causing consumer confusion--so maybe we should all agree to pick a handful and stick to them. So, the question to you is: What laptop sizes should we keep, and which ones should be retired to the great wire box in the sky?
(Credit:
Apple)
Add one more reason to doubt the iPhone hype: It appears that Apple's uberdevice utilizes a totally proprietary 1.5:1 aspect ratio. While that's wider than the standard square-ish 1.33:1 (4x3) aspect ratio found on older TVs, PC monitors, and iPods, it's 15 percent narrower than the 1.78:1 (16x9) screen dimensions found on most HDTV and DVD programming.
The specs of the iPhone list a pixel count of 480x320. In and of itself, that doesn't prove anything: some displays utilize rectangular pixels, which allows them to deliver a true 16:9 picture. (Older Hitachi plasma panels, for example, have a 1,024x1,024 pixel count, but their rectangular shape delivers a wide-screen image, rather than a perfect square one might infer from the resolution). But examining the photos of the iPhone on Apple's site reveals a nearly perfect 1.5:1 aspect ratio on the device's 3.5-inch screen when it's viewed in landscape mode. (The images below were snagged from Apple's site, and they compare the iPhone to Apple TV, which offers a true wide-screen image of 1.78:1.)
The nonstandard screen shape means that wide-screen content will either need to be zoomed (cutting off the left and right sides) or letterboxed (black bars on the top and bottom) when viewed on the iPhone. Neither option will be as cramped as it is on current iPods, which cut off more when zoomed or have larger letterbox bars. But it might disappoint prospective iPhone owners to learn that the "true video iPod" offers a compromised wide-screen viewing experience.
The iPhone's aspect ratio is narrower than standard wide-screen.
(Credit: CNET)
For more information on letterboxing and aspect ratio, check out CNET's quick guide to aspect ratio.
- prev
- 1
- next
