16:9 or 16:10 aspect for a single-headed edit station?

[Drew Wallner]

I'm planning to replace my aging 5:4 multi-head displays with a single, widescreen, mid-priced IPS monitor. Since I'm mostly looking at 23" and 24" models, one of the key differentiators appears to be between a native resolution of 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 (seems like I can find all my other requirements, within my target budget, in either size/shape).

Besides running Premiere and After Effects and other video tools, this machine is also my primary personal desktop. I'm a strictly amateur "filmmaker" at this point (if and when I get more serious, everything I have will probably be replaced so I'm not looking to make a huge investment in screens right now). I almost never play videogames or watch feature films on this rig, that's living room fare here. If it matters, the computer in question a first-generation '06 Mac Pro with the video card upgraded to a more recent ATI 5770.

In terms of general comfort, I could see myself really enjoying the slightly more square aspect of 16:10, because a little more height is nice for non-editing stuff like web browsers and buddy lists. However one thing that's always irked me all the years that I've had multiple 1280x1024 displays has been never being able to fullscreen an HD video (mine or anyone else's) without interpolation/scaling.

The thing is, both these classes of displays are 1920 pixels wide, so in theory I suppose whenever you fullscreen a video on them, you should get a pixel-perfect display of your video right? Would there just be black bars on the 1200 line screens giving the video exactly 1080 vertical lines? I probably sound paranoid, but even a single row of extra/removed pixels can really mess with your head when working on titles and other sharp graphics.

I'd love to hear from folks who use either of these aspects/resolutions as the primary display on their edit station, particularly if you have only one screen. What did you base your decision on, and how happy are you having used it for a while?

Thanks for any and all advice! :)

[Rusty Rogers]

If your edit software is generous enough to offer full-screen preview it should show the correct aspect no matter what resolution of the monitor, so letterboxing is to be expected. Be aware that having a 1080 computer monitor will probably not give true HD preview without the benefit of additional output hardware.

[Les Wilson]

Computer displays are 16:10. TVs are 16:9. Get a computer display. The software will letterbox the video so it shows it properly. You'll appreciate the extra vertical resolution for the palettes and other window dressings that modern software uses.

[Bruce Watson]

Originally Posted by Les Wilson

Computer displays are 16:10. TVs are 16:9. Get a computer display. The software will letterbox the video so it shows it properly. You'll appreciate the extra vertical resolution for the palettes and other window dressings that modern software uses.

+1. Go with the 16:10 display.

[Arnie Schlissel]

If you're only getting a single monitor, get the biggest one that you can afford. A mid priced 27" will buy you a decent amount of real estate without really breaking the bank.

Or you can look for a pair of 23" or 24" refurbs.

[Brian Tori]

I agree with Arnie. Get a large 25" or 27" monitor. Your source and preview windows in your NLE will be a comfortable size. Also, I'd recommend a good hardware calibrator like the Spyder or Huey Pro which is what I have.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

16:10 without a doubt. You get the best of both worlds.

[Jeff Troiano]

I love my dell U3011, I couldn't imagine going back to anything smaller

[John Peterson]

Unfortunately 16:9 has become the norm in computer monitors. 16:10 are still available, preferred, and I would definitely look for one that suits your budget.

John