You guys might want to screen cap this, I'm going to wholeheartedly agree with a guest!
Dell U2412M, 24" 1920x1200. Amazing image quality and even good for gaming.
I'm very sorry to see 16:10 slowly being phased out, 16:9 1080p makes me sad.
I depends on whether you're into still photography, or video to make this fully apparent.
35mm film, and the latest crop of DSLRs, have a native aspect ratio of, 1.5:1.0. (Maybe I should call that, "15:10", for the sake of comparison). 35mm cameras have done all the heavy lifting with respect to quantity of images created with them for decades. I call them, "the shotgun of the fine art world".
In any case, whichever SLR derivative, is often used in the vertical, or "portrait", orientation. 16:9 used vertically is awful, and flies in the face of any traditional idea of composition.
16:9 used horizontally kills any decent image height for portrait oriented images. When you consider that my 23" 16:9 monitor, used vertically has the same image height as my 40"TV, you'll begin to catch my drift..!! 16:9 is simply too skinny, for traditional portrait work.
When you consider that something like 30% of the american public is bordering on being morbidly obese, we likely should be going away from rectangular image formats, and toward square...!!
So, when going from 16:10 to 16:9, you have to buy at least the next size up, to maintain the same portrait image height!
Even the Greeks thought the perfect aspect ratio was 1:68, and it's still known as the :golden rectangle" today.
16:9 is an attempt to force every device you do, or will own, into the same standard, regardless if that is the most pleasing for the intended function.
16:9 is a "downsizing", (with respect to width) of the "Cinemascope" standard 2:35:1.00. It's an attempt to be all things to all people, but more or less just becomes an annoyance to many. (It would be an annoyance to all, if they knew better).
