>16:10 and 4:3 are fucking ded
Fucking why?
They were the best aspect ratios for productivity.
Who benefits with 16:9? Even worse, now we have 21:9
I still use old 16:10 lcds that I got for cheap second hand and refuse to upgrade, they also look much better than most TN panels and some IPS.
the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 is negligible
for you maybe
what's the deal with whiny cunt nerds on Sup Forums lately? get over it, you fucking faggot. if you were okay with 16:10 but not 16:9 then you need fucking psychiatric help.
I want the redditors to leave
16:9 can't do this.
win10, jesus...botnet
Did you install a phone OS on your desktop?
I use 1920x1200
anything less is for cucks
1) Cheaper to produce 16:9 screens these days
2) 99% of all media these days are made for 16:9 since that's the ratio that widescreen tvs use.
That being said, my second screen is a 1280 x 1024p 4:3 second hand DELL that I got for $14 at CEX. I like using it for reading because I couldn't afford one of those fancy portrait monitors years back, and the high resolution has kept me from replacing it since.
My Samsung Chromebook Plus™ doesn't have this problem.
>lately
fuck off newfag
>not using a 21:9 monitor vertically
boy it sure is fucking pleb in here
It doesn't matter because 1440 vertical pixels are cheap now
define cheap.
also
> 1600p>1440p
For the price of a 24" 16:10 1200p monitor you can get a 27" 16:9 1440p monitor
Also, I've only heard of 30" 16:10 1600p monitors. You can just get a 30" 4k monitor.
My point is pixels are cheap and there's no longer an advantage to getting a 16:10 monitors. Just get a 16:9 monitor with more pixels
Would it be worthwhile picking up one of the refurb 1050p on newegg and using it vertically for reading and shitposting? Main screen is 1440p/144Hz by ANUS.
>16:10 and 4:3 are fucking ded
>tfw shitstation has both
feels good
Macbooks are 16:10, apple wins again
iPads are 4:3. Apple way ahead of its time.
The golden ratio for a tablet
fuck you fags
16:9 needs to die
Yesterday I experienced 16:10 after a long time without ever seeing it. Fuck, that shit is gold, why did 16:9 got popular instead of it?
16:9 monitors make the most sense because most content is 16:9, period.
>Most content
If you only have a computer to watch shit, sell it and buy a tablet.
Most content consumption is web browsing, not video watching. 16:10 and 4:3 are better for web browsing, and sometimes better for video too, because you can have things on the top and bottom of a full screen video.
I also use it to play console ports. :^)
Who wants black bars on your screen when watching a 1080p/4k bluray rip in full screen?
>Who wants black bars on your screen when watching a 1080p/4k bluray rip in full screen?
>modern movies playback in 16:9
2013 wants you back
>not watching a widescreen dvd on your shit tv, the dvd adding black bars of its own in addition to the black bars your tv likes to include
Only if you watch them exclusively in fullscreen.
Most people don't most of the time, so they'll have some bars like in the screenshot above, and on a 16:10 screen you'd have the video like it would be in fullscreen on an equivalent 16:9, plus the space for the bars with no scaling or forced pillarboxing (which is way worse than having letterboxing when fullscreening a 16:9 video on a 16:10 screen because of the additional pixels.
>Fucking why?
Because chinks.
Stupid gookposter
>Most people don't
Most people are idiots.
The 16:10 is already something awful, faggit.
4:3 is the patricians choice followed by 16:10.
prove me wrong
Well then idiots are those buying those 16:9 screens anyway, so we're not disagreeing here.
Well, on OLED screens or even just screens with good black levels, the black bars aren't distracting at all.
I didn't have someone that loved me to tell me which aspect ratio is best. But mathematically 4:3 is fucking 16:9, how does this change with regard to screen size, lolwut?
>Not watching 21:9 content streamed at 16:9, giving you horizontal black bars, on a phone with a 2:1 aspect ratio, so you have vertical black bars as well
I rented a movie the other day on my LG G6 expecting it to fill most of the screen with small horizontal black bars. But nope, I had to watch it with black bars on both sides with no option to zoom in.
That's fucking shite. Got a screencap? My Tv spergs out and I'm constantly changing the 'zoom' function between watching different movies as many older ones are widescreen and do some dumb shit like that too. Completely horrible. If I watched more I'd get a new screen but alas
samsung's new ARM chromebook has a 12.5 inch 2:3 display and it's cheap
get it
Youtube won't and the play store (where I rented the movie) blocked taking screenshots.
>mathematically 4:3 is fucking 16:9
Please show me how you arrived at this stunning conclusion.
>blocked taking screenshots
Wat
1280x1024 is 5:4 you fucking illiterate. And that's the best aspect ratio, btw. I miss my old 19" LCD.
>99% of all media these days are made for 16:9
Most films I've seen are not in 16:9. e.g. 1:1.78 aspect ratio, so there's black bars even on 16:9.
>But mathematically 4:3 is fucking 16:9
4*3 = 16? Those this is the power of primes under 2 million.
God, someone should make a tv or web series where nerds argue with each other unironically about aspect ratios, gpus, and mechanical keyboards. I bet it would be a big hit!
21:9 is perfect for productivity but you wouldn't know that since you're obviously only concerned with retarded number tossing bullshit.
Dell makes new 16:10 screens
I miss Tech TV
square = 1/1 = 1 optimal screen real estate but subjectively "ugly"
5/4 = 1.25 subtle enough to be aesthetic
11/8.5 = 1.294117647 us paper
4/3 = 1.333 still plenty vertical room for taskbar / titlebar
(7/5 = 1.4) A4 approximation, few monitors of this size
3/2 = 1.5, 35mm film
17/11 = 1.545454545 two sheets of paper
16/10 = 1.6 - phi approximation, most aesthetic ratio
16/9 = 1.777 pigshit, this ratio cant be true widescreen or true phi, so it fucks up horrendously at both. at least now you can have a vertical dock with huge icons
1.85 / 1 plen "film" ratio is fine for movies but doesnt belong on work computers
2/1 = humans have two eyes meme, does look ok
2.39 / 1 = pig disgusting
2.718281828459045 oh shit nigga what are you doing
3.141592654.... stahp
16/10 is balance and harmony, 16/9 is squished and narrow - the difference in ratio is small, but its the straw that breaks the camels back IMO, YMMV
They can do that. I press power + volume down and I just get a message that this applications has blocked that feature.
21:9 two windows side by side is the pinnacle of productivity
>16:10
It's 8:5, nigger.
It's 1.6:1, turbopleb.
yeah, sure
fuck off
>They were the best aspect ratios for productivity.
prove it
do what
>not using a 1:1 monitor
It's like you enjoy being suboptimal
Buy monitors from asians
Wonder why too squashed
Praise (Tim) KUK
They died because tn panels have shitty vertical view angles which would be even more obvious on taller screens
>yfw Apple are the only company to get aspect ratios right on all products
>4:3 iPad
>16:10 Macs
4:3 serves no purpose now when 3:2 exists, we just need to wait for decent desktop monitors to come out in that resolution
bane?
Let's hope that maybe 3:2 will catch on.
Funnily enough years ago 3:2 was considered widescreen.
Or you could, y'know, buy a TV that's actually made for viewing content on and have computer monitors that are made for productivity.
>21:9 is perfect for productivity
now this is some kind of bait
jesus christ Sup Forums, your autism is really showing
>this whole shitshow over fucking screen ratios
/thread
>a lot of horizontal space is "bait"
16:9 monitors are good for being productive. Are you too poor to a afford a screen larger than a few inches or something?
I just want my golden ratio back.
>For the price of a 24" 16:10 1200p monitor you can get a 27" 16:9 1440p monitor
No you can't. Where the fuck did you even pull those numbers from? 24" 1200p dell ultrasharp is $250, 27" 1440p monitors start from around $350 for shit tier ones. 27" 1440p Dell goes for $430. Those are prices straight out from Amazon.
Maybe on sales you can get it cheaper, but base prices are hardly the same.
Ok fine it's a little bit more expensive but you're getting a lot of pixels and screen real estate.
$/pixel, they're almost identical ($250, 1200p and $400, 1440p)
>Using the poorfag argument when the reason for why 16:9 monitors are standard over 16:10 is because 16:9 is cheaper to produce
Uh-huh
All monitor ratios suck when you letterbox them into specific use cases.
I see you avoided answering the question, which is as good as a yes in this case. I rest my case. Moving on.
>Not using any arguments
Uh-huh
470, not 400.
27" 1440p for $1 you get 7800 pixels
24" 1200p for $1 you get 9200 pixels with older ultrasharp (the one with bezels, actually better one) or 8500 pixels with bezel-less one.
I mean, it is comparable but no matter how you look at it your argument of 1200p monitors not being viable in terms of bang for buck is flat out wrong.
did you install a phone home OS on your desktop?
Because it's 2017, the only reason to use a PC is for games
Fair enough. Let's also not forget with 16:9 monitors our animu fits perfectly on the screen
16:10 is closer to golden ratio than 16:9.
16:9 was a mistake
21:9?
I think you mean 64:27
16:9 was introduced because it was cheaper to manufacture.
16:9 = kike resolution
This is what justifies 16:10 you retard, it means you don't have to watch 16:9 content in fullscreen.
website design is retarded these days, so the extra vertical space is nice to have
doesn't really matter though above 1200
16:9 could have been fine on PC if monitors were 2133x1200. That way it would be compatible with anything designed to be viewed on a screen up to 1600x1200. The issue with 1080p is it reduced vertical space while calling it an "upgrade." I want a 1440p monitor just so I can pass the magic 1200 vertical pixels.
You never have too, jackass.