Red pill me on 16:10 Sup Forums

Red pill me on 16:10 Sup Forums

Ok, I'll give you the quick rundown.

Get this, so like, count from 1 to 16 going left to right. ok, you got that? and then count 1 to 10 going top to bottom. You with me still? 16 left to right, 10 top to bottom. You got it now? Ok, good. Compare to 16:9 which you would count 1 less when going from top to bottom. See also 4:3 which means you would count 1 2 3 4 from left to right and then 1 2 3 from top to bottom. These are called ratios and it refers to how far you count right to how far you count down. I hope this helped you understand 16:10 and in a broader sense what a ratio is.

It's a marketing term for a ratio. So is 21:9. Apparently people think bigger numbers are better so now we have unclear names for things.

Anyway, 8:5 is pretty good.

just get 16:9, you'll have more space.

it's a meme

Overpriced.

For a 1920x1200, you can get a 2560x1440 monitor for the same or even lesser price

I can use silly graphics too

I use 3x1920x1200 monitors
It's comfy.

That being said my intention is to eventually get a 3440x1440/HighHz/MemeSync display to use as a primary, then have two of the 1200's in portrait on each side, and possibly the 3rd above the Ultrawide in landscape.

Actually, in real life 16:10 screens are bigger.
In the sense that a 24 inch 16:9 screen is smaller than a 24 inch 16:10 screen.

16:10 is almost exclusively used on colour management monitors. You're comparing apples to oranges when it comes to price. A 1920x1200 wide gamut screen is way more expensive than some 2560x1440 turd sold to consumers, but it also has features that justify the price like programmable LUT.
Also most 16:10 screens use 8 bit (with FRC) or 10 bit panels, while a lot of consumer grade, that means cheap, screens use 6 bit panels with FRC.

There is a reason why the screens are expensive. They are not in mainstream consumer use, because 16:9 is cheaper to produce for low end consumers and is treated standard by gamers. Cheaper to produce because of the reason I mentioned earlier, they are physically smaller for the same diagonal.

>16:10 is almost exclusively used on colour management monitors.
no it isn't. there are consumer 16:10 monitors, and they are more expensive than 16:9 counterparts.

also, 16:10 is not maintaining market relevance in color grading monitors. there are no 3840x2560 monitors in production today.

16:10 consumer monitors are extremely rare, I don't know any. But they are obviously going to be more expensive for a reason I already mentioned twice. A 24 inch 16:10 monitor is physically larger than a 24 inch 16:9 monitor. Physically larger = more expensive. And the panels used by them are usually 8 bit. I would assume the "consumer" monitors are just reject panels, but I wouldn't know since I don't even know any such monitors by head. That aren't more than 5 years old anyway.

Also I should point out that
1) 3840x2560 is not 16:10, 3840x2400 is.
2) When your monitor has over 1200px of vertical space, the 16:10 aspect ratio isn't that important anymore.
With a 4k screen, 2400 vs 2160 is not as a big deal anymore as 1200 vs 1080 is. 1080 is impossible to use for anything resembling productivity.

It's a meme ratio for old fags who won't move on

they're more expensive because they have lower production volume on account of 16:9 having triumped as the standard. it has next to nothing to do with the screen size.

>And the panels used by them are usually 8 bit.
there are plenty of 8 bit 16:9 monitors, stop being a retard.

Those 16:9 monitors aren't cheap. Maybe you should stop being a retard and learn the context of the conversation you're in?

The extra vertical real estate with 16:10 vs 16:9 is rather nice. My secondary setup is a 900x1440 monitor on the left, and my Thinkpad LCD (1440x900, T410 masterrace) on the right

I'm using an 8 bit 16:9 monitor right now that cost me 180 dollars. You're a dipshit.

What monitor is it?

BenQ GW2760HS

Oh it's a VA panel. Those are generally cheaper than IPS.

VA has faster response times so despite being cheaper it is actually technically superior for certain applications (e.g. muh gaymen).

Don't forget those sweet black levels

Aren't MacBooks baseline 16:10? If so is it really considered a "rare" ratio?

VA has worse response time than both modern IPS and TN, that's one of the weaknesses which VA technology is known for. I mean you can still use it for gaming, your BenQ has comparable response time to my wide gamut IPS screen and I can play most games just fine on it. It's not great though. 120Hz gaming oriented IPS and also TN panels are much better.

I have an old syncmaster 305t plus. $1200 in 06 but I got it for $50 in 2012 with a bad scaler.

I haven an Eizo L685 as a secondary screen myself, I think that was like 2000 dollars in 2002 but I dunno how much I paid for it. Got it for peanuts. It's a joke of a monitor in modern terms, but it still works and I use it daily.

Not 16:10 though. It's 5:4.

My entire setup is a joke in modern terms. It's amazing how fast tech depreciates.

It's divine

It's not a marketing term, it's the fucking aspect ratio.

Given MacBooks are practically the only laptops to still have that aspect ratio, yes, I'd say it is pretty rare.

He is implying they could be reduced to 8:5 and 7:3 but to other brainlets 21:9 sounds three times as good.

I know what he's implying, he's dumb for implying it.

Your dumb

I think it's much easier to visualise 21:9 than it is to 7:3. You intuitively compare it to 16:9 and understand that it's wider.

You're mom

Everyone who says 8:5 is an idiot. Do you really feel like a smartass knowing you can reduce 16:10 to 8:5? It's obvious that it's called 16:10 to make it clear it offers more height than 16:9.

4:3 is the standard aspect ratio.
Square the two and you get 16:9 which is better.
Add one to 9 and you get 16:10 which is even better.

This, it's all about easy comparison to the de facto standard, 16:9. 16:10 is obviously taller and 21:9 is obviously wider.

>16:9 is better than 4:3

I do like muh deep color.

>Square the two and you get 16:9 which is better
Explain the logic here.
Do you realise that 16:9 was settled upon as a compromise for television since it equally letter boxes 2.35 film and the 4:3 TV standard of the time?

It's lit

Forgot pic xD

There was no logic, it's just a coincidence that it works out that way.
>having more available screen space is worse.
Explain.

It was explicitly designed that way and doesn't give you any more space either. A 20 inch 4:3 screen is much larger than a 20 inch 16:9 screen.

Screen space has nothing to do with aspect ratio. A 2048x1536 4:3 screen has more space than a 1920x1080 16:9 one. And 4:3's a more efficient aspect ratio too, much more vertical space (the space that matters more) than 16:9 trash.

>left handed
How do you function in life?

>How do you function in life?
He has a fidget cube and a vaping device, so the answer is that he doesnt.

Just barely

You've misspelled 8:5.

You've forgotten to take your autism pills.

It's the best. 3:2 right behind it

I have one. Its pretty cool to have more vertical space. But thats it. Unless your doing programming/work on one and need extra space. Theres not much more to it

>laptop companies copy apple
>no one copies the 16:10 aspect ratio

just put the task bar on the left or right and have the best of both worlds

Nah, that's just retarded

ehy? its what i do and makes the screen good for viewing two page documents (books)

Because it's still a dumb aspect ratio, you're just adjusting your UI to compensate for its shittiness.

its essentially turning my 16:9 monitor into a 16:10

No, it's not. It's adjusting your UI to compensate for the retarded amount of horizontal pixels.

The task bar is not a separate area of the monitor, you're still looking at a 16:9 frame that is not tall enough.
If you really do use it like that you're essentially restricting yourself to a smaller monitor with a strange resolution.

We should bring back 16:12. I like 16:12 the best!

Me too, especially for laptops. 4:3 makes for a much more portable device.

not really, the task bar takes up the same amount of pixels if its on top bot or sides, i gain the vertical space and lose the horizontal. its way better for reading as i said and its way better for digital art (when drawing 1920*1080). it doesnt restrict as the os is going to take one or the other for the taskbar

No matter how you try to justify it you're using a 16:9 monitor

Mostly indistinguishable from 16:9 without a stark comparison.

Blatantly false. I can instantly tell whether I'm looking at a 16:9 or 16:10 screen

16:10 is the golden ratio. Sitting here staring at my two 16:10 monitors now. I have never used 16:9 on my machine ever. CRT's till about 2005ish. Pains me to think I might have to actually use a 16:9 monitor in the future. It's like having to eat a grilled cheese instead of filet mignon.

You could always go for 21:9

I'm not sure what I'll do yet. You're right though there are options.

Isn't it funny how the best aspect ratios are in devices made for casual users?

>Macbooks have 16:10
>iPads have 4:3
>Surface tablets have 3:2

Meanwhile

>Dell and Lenovo Thinkpad business machines and workstations have 16:9 displays

I hope my samsung syncmaster 226bw lasts until the fat lady sings for me.

> left handed
> fidget cube
> retarded watch on desk
> vape
> 2x2 Rubik's cube

BAIT: The post.

Same. I have 16:9 screens at work and 16:10 at home, and being at work is like being crippled. You'd think it doesn't make a huge difference since its only 120px but it does.

I'm talking about screen content, not the actual dimensions. With 16:9 its backwards compatible with 4:3, you can't really do it the other way without cropping or shrinking.

>arguing on semantics
user is just simply making the best of his setup

>muh need for space for my video editing tool strip
lame

Is it ThinkVision LT2452p?

Would recommend, use it myself. 10/10

What's a good UHD 4K monitor Sup Forums?

I'd like it to be able to handle HDR rendering in gaymes, 10-bit encoded anime and Rec. 2020 (UHDTV) color gamut for professional work.

I'm not sure what the fuck Dell and others are offering because it's hard to figure out what they actually support behind all of the marketing terms. Not sure if it's a good time to buy or should wait.

Price range is $600-$1000, so probably 24"-30" size panel.