What's the comfiest aspect ratio?

What's the comfiest aspect ratio?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
twitter.com/AnonBabble

3:2

2:4

4:3 laptop

16:9?

1:1

1:1

Whatever it is when i close my eyes and see black nothing rather than reality.

kitty needs to go on a diet

25 lines 80 columns

4:3

16:10 / 8:5

4:2.5

56:44

1.61803398875

16:9

That cat is 1:1

16:10

16:10

just say 8:5

4:1:2.5

1969:2018

...

this

5:4

2:1 on mobile, 4:3 on tablets and desktops. 8:5 on laptops

dual 16:9 desktop, 16:10 laptop, 4:3 tablet, 16:9 mobile

I've used 4:3, 16:10, 16:9, 21:9 and 3:3.
16:9 is comfy as an all-rounder, has the most support, video is full screen.

3:2*

3:3

JUST

2:2 is better

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

16:10 golden ratio master race

it's really disappointing you need Chromebooks or Microsoft surface to get a 3:2 monitor these days.
using dual 4:3 just isn't the same.
for whatever reason I feel that 3:2 is the best golden ratio approximation, better than 16:10 or good forbid 16:9, possibly because the ratio is simple and both numbers are (consecutive) primes.
it could be my superstitious faggotry, but it feels like it reaches a level of mathematical perfection that exceeds 16:10 which despite being closer to phi feels clunky and inelegant.
it certainly doesn't count against it that most portrait photos have 3:2 ratios either.
I'll confess to another retarded hipster obsession of mine, my love for 5:4 - its half of 16:10 but closer to perfection, it's subtle asymmetry being vastly easier on the eyes than 1:1

1280x1024

3.14

2.718281828459045 is better, scrub

10:16 surfing Sup Forums is best when having the montior vertical

2:1 is the only non-meme widescreen resolution
unfortunately, as the industry is full of retards with special snowflake ratios, there is precisely zero content in this format.

I think the biggest travesty of all is that monitors have bent over backwards to cater for the consumer segment rather than try to appeal to professionals with ratios based on standard american 8.5 by 11 or european iso paper sizes.

why is your cat fat

He's not fat he's thicc

I've really only used 16:9 and 16:10 (8:5) ever and I like them.

>He

I can't believe people have so many stupid special snowflake resolutions. Y'all niggas need to get a job.
4:3 (and preferably CRT) for web content, because that's what the people who designed web content used, and 16:9 for video content, because that's what the people who design video content (at least in the last 50 years) use. This question isn't all that hard.

u must be ove 18 to post on this site

Thank you for simplifying that ratio, I never would have figured it out on my own.

9:21 for lurking

he's american

1:1

Ultrawide is not a meme.

4:3 Widescreen is for faggots

I would love 5:4 more if it had higher resolutions than 1280x1024

You can get a 2560x2048 5:4 monitor if you're loaded. 21:9's the best we've got in the affordable range, it's really close to having two 5:4 monitors

But what about old video content in 4:3? The pillarboxes are a bigger eyesore than the space on top and bottom.

This. I've found 16:10 to be a nice compromise if you're only using one monitor. Minimizes the boxing on both compared to watching 4:3 on a 16:9 monitor or vice versa.

>it's what the people who designed web content used
[citation needed]
dual 16:10 = dual 8:5 = a single 8:10 = 4:5
dont have any clue where you're coming from with 21:9

dual 5:4 = 10:4, or 20:8. 20:8 is very close to 21:9.

Anyone who has actually worked in an office environment during the early 2000s to the early 2010s would be well familiar with 1280x1024

6:9 is most comfy
:^)

this i still use philips 19c 1280x1024

4:3 almost exactly matches the verical and horizontal FOV of human vision

16:1, for the asians

It depends on what you're trying to display. For general work it should be 16:10 or 16:9. For spreadsheets or webpages, you can invert that. For photography and such, you're better off with something closer to 1:1, like 4:3.

Too late. He will be dead before he makes any kind of diet progress.

Your player is almost as dead, as that cat.

I don't get why people see this as an advantage. Why would you want to see your taskbar, window decorators, and player controls while watching a video?

rapid task switching for sly wanks

F

Golden ratio is literally pseudoscience and theologic bullshit
this myth is only used to sell normies on "good" design

16:9 monitors are dear to the unimaginative peasant-burgher whilst
16:10 monitors appeal to the sensitive poet-aristocrat-philosopher. This will be clear in a moment when we reflect on the matter of association.

Practical plebeian folk judge a thing only by its immediate touch, taste, and smell; while more delicate types form their estimates from the linked images and ideas which the object calls up in their minds. Now when 16:10s and 16:9s are considered, the stolid churl sees only the two monitors before him, and bases his favour on their relative capacity to pander to his sloppy, unformed ideas of visual artistry.

On the other hand the gentleman and thinker sees each in all its natural affiliations, and cannot fail to notice that in the great symmetries of 16:9 monitors fall in with slovenly pulp movies created by peasant-burghers, whilst 16:10 monitors stand proudly with the highest art conceived by man such as the Mona Lisa by Leonardo DaVinci and the Parthenon.

16:9 monitors are the hieroglyphs of blind emotion, inferiority, servile attachment, and gregariousness - the attributes of commonplace, stupidly passionate, and intellectually and imaginatively undeveloped men.

16:10 monitors are the runes of beauty, invincibility, wonder, pride, freedom, coldness, self-sufficiency, and dainty individuality - the qualities of sensitive, enlightened, mentally developed, pagan, cynical, poetic, philosophic, dispassionate, reserved, independent, Nietzschean, unbroken, civilised, master-class men.

16:9 is a peasant and the 16:10 is a gentleman.

Switching between videos to check quality between releases.

18:9 of my xiaomi redmi note 5™

widescreen is how the dev intended it

Triple ultrawide.

14:88

...

is this a pasta?

God damnit, I'm tired of hearing about that faggot. Stop posting this shit any time

1,6:1

>math is for normies
I really hate underage internet users

Strawman. I never said that. Reading comprehension is for normies too?
Anyway, explain to me how having 2 sides of the screen at 1.618 proportion gives you any advantage or harmony, from pure "mathematical" standpoint. Don't worry, I'll wait, and have more than enough material to prove you're wrong.

It is now.

this

>tfw this guy could have been 8 years old when he got his first PC in 2008, when 16:9 started being common, and could be 18 now, here in 2018...

I've owned or worked on just about every resolution made (beyond ridiculously weird specialty shit).

16:10 for me is the sweet spot. Pissed off as all fuck it isn't the standard instead of 16:9. I have a 2560 x 1440 27" monitor because that's what a poorfag like me can afford, and it hurt balls to stretch my budget that far. Every day I wish it was a 30" 2560 x 1600. I've a pair of 24" 1920 x 1200 monitors. God tier. One in landscape plus one in portrait, on either side of the 27" and I have ALMOST the perfect work space.

But, 30" 2560 x 1600 is about $800 to $1000 and not in my budget (again) this year. Something like the Dell UltraSharp UP3017 would be great without shooting for insane Hollywood-level gear.

To be fair, though, I'm also trying to get one with full 10-bit color to pro up my graphics game a bit more. Needs something like a Radeon Pro WX 7100 graphics card to drive it properly, too. Wish I would have bought one last summer when they could be had for $425 or so. Now they can be $600 to $1000.

Is that tears made out of cum?

Well, I said BOTH 4:3 and 16:9 are ideal, meaning you should have both screens. For example, I've picked up Revolutionary Girl Utena (an old-ass anime) recently, and it looks AMAZING on my CRT monitor.
>[citation needed]
Are you fucking serious? Do you think that on Sup Forums, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc, etc, that the white space was INTENDED? You think they really wanted half of your screen to render nothing? Or maybe all of these sites were originally designed on 4:3 monitors, and if you view any of these websites on them, they push right up to the edge without zooming in.
But that resolution is cancer tho. It's too wide to render webpages properly, and you have to either upscale or downscale all of your video.

Definitely 16:10

>it's too wide to render webpages properly
No it's not, if anything it's much better than 16:9 for web browsing as you don't have all this wasted whitespace at the sides, a "feature" of almost all modern sites

>One in landscape plus one in portrait

Nigger, did you even read my original post? I already said that 4:3 is for web content, and now that I looked it up, the resolution you posted IS 4:3. Meaning you're literally disagreeing with me just because. Also said in the original post, 16:9 is only good for VIDEO content.

1:1
it's perfect
no diagonal wasted

sales pitch?

>Humans have a slightly over 210-degree forward-facing horizontal arc of their visual field[5]
>The vertical range of the visual field in humans is around 150 degrees[5].

1.4:1

But, only if t he screen is curved around you. Otherwise, 1.78:1(16:9) for closet feel for it.

>1280x1024
>4:3
Are you retarded?

Sorry, slightly different. When I googled it, I saw both that and 4:3. Point is tho that 4:3 at a higher resolution is still better than that, OR 16:9 for web content. Back to my main point, why use stupid snowflake resolutions? Why not use industry standards, or multiples of them (for upscaling)?

1280x1024 WAS standard for 5:4 monitors for the majority of the 2000s/early 2010s, and I've never had problems with webpage scaling with it

>standard
>5:4 monitors
That's like saying "1000x1000 is industry standard for 1:1 screens". The resolution isn't fucking standard, I'm talking about the FORMAT. 4:3 is just better. Granted, I'm also a bit of a fan of 5:4, but still, I threw away my screen that used it eventually because SPECIAL SNOOOOOWFLAAAAAKE. I'd rather just hit up the Salvation Army and get anything 4:3.

What are you talking about? Dell produced a shitload of 5:4 monitors with that exact resolution, a lot of businesses still use them to this day.
>4:3 is just better
For what exactly? Webpages look fine on 1280x1024, most programs I've used have had no problems with the resolution. What were you trying to run on it that didn't scale very well?