Who would win?

Who would win?

Other urls found in this thread:

eizo.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The fpbp

As someone who owns a 16:9 i wanna say 16:10

For the same diagonal, the 4:3 will win on area.
TV was originally 4:3.
There's no equivalent of Cinerama in monitors as far as I know.

If I could have a very large monitor (>32") I'd choose 16:10. I could deal with black bars in games and videos if it meant better FOV.

3:2

doesn't matter
you have to memorize the track to win

The 4:5 would win.

Thanks OP, reinstalling TrackMania

As someone new to TrackMania, which one should I install?

>Cinerama in monitors

There's curved ultrawides already but they're still not as wide as full cinerama was.

4:3 because vertical space is more important to me.

Nations Forever it's free on steam, start there.
I personally love TrackMania United Forever

Not that guy but Stadium and join a fullspeed server.

16:9 literally has more FOV than those other aspect ratios

looks like 16:9 is 0.05 seconds ahead

3:2

10:16

Comparisons like that are silly. Games will either lock the vertical fov—which would mean that a taller monitor would have a lower horizontal fov—or lock the horizontal fov—meaning wider monitors get less vertical fov. Which happens depends on the game. I'd rather 16:10 personally because it's nicer when rotated to portrait mode. However there are some games I love which simply will not run in anything other than 16:9 or 9:16.

How annoying do you find the letterboxing in those games? Does one just forget about it after a while?

you never notice them unless you have autism

I've never found letterboxing annoying. I'm more annoyed when people choose to distort or cut off content to fit their display.

eizo.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/

16:10 is the only true GOD-TIER aspect ratio. Everything else is shit and just doesn't look good.

...

>muh diagonal
Never understood this argument. That's about as convincing as saying "for the same vertical, 16:9 will win on area".

The one with the higher refresh rate

I'm just going to say it. Trackmania Turbo is way better.

post some 16:10 papes

It depends entirely on how you render the game.

Dude... Turbo is to Trackmania what Episode 1 is to Star Wars

21:9

>4:3 is dead

1:1 always

fucking this

16:10. 16:9 a shit. 4:3 is deprecated

your car's windshield is closest to 16:10 so 16:10 is the winner

1920x1200 includes perfect scaling at 1600x1200

>tfw TV ruined 16:10 by making 16:9 the standard

Nigger what fucking bus do you drive? Mine is certainly 16x9 if not thinner.

Whoever is the best at TrackMania.

Refurbished BenQ XL2411Z 24" LED Gaming Monitor, 1 Year Warranty - Includes 1 Dead Pixel

>1 Dead Pixel

what does this mean and will it effect me much for gayming?

I love 16:10 but still less popular
4:3 is also nice but hardly around it seems
Haven't got to try 3:2 yet, make more stuff

1680x1050 16:10 display here I'm using, my fave aspect ratio forever. Humans see wider than taller so, 4:3 is nice for the vertical but too limited on the horizontal whereas 16:9 is too narrow on the vertical.

16:10 is damned near perfection, seriously.

Also, this.

There's a big difference between dead (it'll be black and not functional) and stuck (which means it'll almost always be pure white) pixels. Ask the seller to clarify what the actual state of the one defective/non-functional pixel happens to be.

If it's dead you can live with it, if it's stuck well, on a pure black background it could be something you go all fucking OCD on and can't tolerate it.

Personally most pixels are so small on today's high resolution displays that unless there's a large clump of them, like 25+ or more, in a very tight grouping you're not likely to ever notice it unless you're running some solid color backgrounds and purposely hunting for it.

If the price on the monitor is good then I'd say grab it regardless of whether it's a dead or stuck pixel.

it'll be annoying but won't make any difference

Lions win at night.

16:10 is best. No point in arguing in terms of games though, because sane games would allow configurable FOV.

?

this

i never understood why 16:9 was even a thing, 16:10 should have been de-facto and then i wouldn't have to part with my shekels to get a superior display because the market is backwards

>G that looks cool
>that price

I feel like I could buy a 4k monitor for less and still end up with more screen real estate.

As a 16:9 and 16:10 owner:

16:10 is good for secondary screen. But the main things u focus on is better on a 16:9, except for programming

4:3 and 5:4 are best for desktops, 4:3 is best for laptops.

>As a 16:9 and 16:10 owner:
fellow brother here, 16:10 is perfect for secondary screen when the primary is 16:9

i am biased because the 16:10 is a cheap hp tn panel while the 16:9 is a 144hz dell. i have actually always prefered 16:10 as it gives me more space to look at what's above and below the middle of the screen, but i guess that if i was using a 1440p 27' i'd have way more space than the 16:10 anyways. 16:9 is generally lacking in vertical lines tho, this is irrefutable

So many hours making custom cars and skins for TMUF. Oh, my wasted youth.

godtier 1:1

1:1 is a pretty neat aspect ratio but I don't know if I'd want it on the desktop

21:9 ofc

retards

God that just looks awful

*9:21
Or are you not a programmer?

it's the only display you can set diagonally though

God i loved TMN

Giocavi a TMNF?

9:5

ala care nu e roman prost

In 2006, with an AthlonXP 3000+, it was the last game i played on that thing before it got retired,

...

...

21:9

16:10 user (U3011), but I'd go for the fourth option actually if the available displays support your requirements - 21:9.
Once 38" models with Adobe RGB support and Freesync are available I'm sold.

Games don't take advantage of "taller" resolutions though. If going from 4:3 to 16:9 the only change would be left to right perspective.

21:9 of course

nigga what? It has the same horizontal resolution as 16:10, just less vertical space. It's the hardware equivalent of adding black bars to your widescreen movie on a fullscreen TV

Why 21:9? To me, that seems like taking the worst part of 16:9 (the fucking downs-syndrome wide rectangle) and making it worse. What makes it actually good? I'm totally open to changing my opinion if there's a good reason I haven't heard yet.

>Trackmania

The feels

You would think that games would give you the 16:9 image + vertical, but it's usually 16:9 with the sides cropped.

For the same area 16:9 wins on diagonal.

And is shittier

True and for good reasons.

Vertical FOV should always be the same because there is no point in showing more sky and chopping off the horizon would be terrible.

With vertical FOV fixed, horizontal FOV must depend on the aspect ratio - the wider the more FOV you get.

Not debating its truth, but why is fixing vertical FOV a "good reason"? Is there something wrong with showing more sky? On non-racing games (especially first-person stuff), a bigger vertical FOV is definitely useful.

>Is there something wrong with showing more sky?

It's just a waste of resources.

>On non-racing games (especially first-person stuff), a bigger vertical FOV is definitely useful.

how?

16:9 because anime supports it

fuck you isac

A 16:9 display when compared properly to a 16:10 will be scaled to the sides, aka no black bars on the sides, thats a misrepresentation there. Assuming the monitor has a sufficient resolution, the fov it takes up is the prime measurement of usable space. A larger 16:9 monitor will have more screen space vertically and horizontally than a smaller 16:10.

>It's just a waste of resources
How so? Rendering some sky doesn't require showing more objects or (hopefully) polygons than rendering a larger sky. And, if there are more objects than just sky in the "sky", then shouldn't rendering them be useful?

Also, on a first-person shooter, for example, a larger sky means that you can see objects that are higher up. I don't know how much video game discussion is really relevant here, but I can name a couple first-person shooters where you definitely need to watch the sky for threats.

Do they make high resolution IPS 4:3 monitors?
My camera had the same ratio of sensor and I want to full bleed my images on a crisp, accurate screen. Probably flanked by one or two smaller 16:9 verticals.

>he fell for the four turds meme

A 16:9 display when compared properly to a 16:10 will be scaled to the sides, aka no black bars on the sides, thats a misrepresentation there. Assuming the monitor has a sufficient resolution, the fov it takes up is the prime measurement of usable space. A larger 16:9 monitor will have more screen space vertically and horizontally than a smaller 16:10.

5:4

I don't need the fake quality of a full frame digi. I already use 6x7 and 4x5. MFT is the sweet spot for a web quality camera.

>A larger monitor has more space than a smaller monitor

Damn, who would have guessed.

If you're a reasonable person, you'll compare monitors based on their advertised width, and then look at the pic to realize that the 16:10 monitor always wins.

16:9 because he starts 0.05 sec sooner

>all these Sup Forumsedditors ITT recommending 16:9
fucking revolting, go back to your containment zone

>compare monitors based on their advertised width

Why?

Who not compare monitors in similar price brackets?
Or screens of laptops that can fit similar sized bags? (hint: more rectangular is usually better)

The fuck is an "inch" anyways?

Or you buy based on price/performance because they're not all the same price, then realize that 16:9 is cheaper (on average) due to a higher supply/demand.

>The fuck is an "inch" anyways?
An inch (abbreviation: in or ″) is a unit of length in the imperial and United States customary systems of measurement now formally equal to 1⁄36 yard but usually understood as 1⁄12 of a foot.

Are you just playing dumb or do you really not learn about imperial units in school?

I think he may be making a joke about metrics superiority, I can't quite tell though.

>yard
>foot.

You're making this shit up.

It's 2017, nobody measures things with their feet anymore.

Yeah, he's just being stupid