How can you justify paying for 16:10?

>>52931351
Because it's what the person wants

how does it make you feel that i got the 34" 3440x1440 meme?

>>52931351
6:10 is life

>>52931465
so you're consumerism is the only answer to 16:10

>>52931470
i'm considering a 27" 4K anon so don't feel bad. I'm trying to reassure myself that a 24" 1080p is enough.

>>52931477
No my preference is.

I've been steadily upgrading my rig but I'm sticking to the same Acer x223w monitor. 1680x1050 is good enough and I like the aspect ratio.

>>52931477
>ure cumsoom
Yes, don't get a 16:10 screen if you don't want. Not everyone needs a 4K, UW, 4:3 or 16:9 display.

Though, there is just that slight extra bit of screen real estate with a 16:10 compared to a 16:9, for obvious reasons.

Also, not everyone is completely anal about their exact screen size or ratio. Some people just want "a big screen"
>It jost werks

Not everyone cares about the same things you do.

>>52931574
>comparing 4K and 4:3 to 16:10
yeah no

>>52931351
Because you like heading in the exact opposite direction of technological advance

I find it to be the most comfortable aspect ratio for a desktop monitor.

>>52931574
I prefer high DPI, regardless of aspect ratio.
I'm not sure why similar UW and 16:10 monitors are the same price.
UW is a fad, a new thing to just come out, and 16:10 is years old.

16:10 master race, it's worked perfectly for 5+ years now.

what kind of peasant uses anything other than 21:9?

21:9 or kys

>>52931351
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Literally God-tier.

>>52931351
I got a refurb U2415 for $180. It wasn't that much.

>>52932040
My UW was $169 before taxes.

File: 1449787673266.jpg (240KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1280x960px

How do you justify not buying a square monitor?

>>52931655
Only because 16:10 is still a niche product alongside ultrawides.

>>52932079
I'm sure Jamaal sells you the stuff he steals all the time.

>>52932092
1:1's great on my BlackBerry but I'll stick to 4:3, 5:4, and 16:10 for desktop monitors.

>>52932079
Got any other good deals from Treyvon? Can you hook me up? No iPhones though. Shit always come locked with iCloud.

>>52931655
because 16:10 was always a fad

File: 600px-SimilarGoldenRectangles.svg.png (12KB, 600x550px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 600x550px

>>52932149
>the golden ratio is a fad

>>52932155
you've been memed for thousands of years

>>52931351
I have a 30" cinema display, fo free. Why pay?

>>52932173
Because PPI is life

16:10 is nice to have for most Adobe applications, but so is 21:9.

File: 1800px-SimilarGoldenRectangles.svg.png (20KB, 1152x550px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 1152x550px

>>52932155
Golden ratio doesn't even work.

>>52932227
Agreed. The extra space over 16:9 on both gives and edge. Now, if only they were more popular.

would you guys say that the dell u2415 is worth $270?

>>52932309
If you could get it at 25" for that price, yeah.

I'll never buy another 16:9 monitor again.
It's why I haven't even felt tempted by 4K.

>>52931523
I tried that already. Didn't work. Now have 3440x1440 monitor. No regrets other than my bank account.

>>52931655
I prefer HiDPI also, after getting used to it on my rMBP. The options for HiDPI screens are very limited though.

>>52932341
it's just the 24" :(

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NZTKOQI?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_act_image_3&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

I don't know what to buy at this point. The damn u2414h is overpriced right now.

>>52932413
I probably don't know what high dpi is, honestly. Anything over 120 is pretty amazing to me.

>>52932413
>high resolution
>low screen size
that was hard. a 21.5" in 1920x1080 will look like a 27" in 2560x1440.

>>52932431
I've not had much luck with dell, they always look weird to me. Oversaturated, undersaturated, yellow, or something. LG is my most recent monitor, and I'm happy with it both in terms of price and performance.

>>52932449
>shitting on ultrasharps
no

>>52932436
I was talking 200+, but 120 and above is pretty nice also. I'm on 110 at the moment and find it a big improvement from ~90 on my old monitor.

>>52932445
Most manufacturers don't sell monitors with that kind of combination of resolution/size.

>>52932445
2560x1440 looks fucking awful when you are used to laptop screens a quarter of the size with higher resolution. 4K is pretty much necessary for a desktop display to look good but they all come in 16:9 which is a shame.

>>52932445
108 and 102 ppi, with 2560 being the latter.

>>52932455
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NZTKOQI?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_act_image_3&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PC9HFNY/ref=twister_B014R6J7VU?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

4k at 24". go crazy with your PPI.

>>52932455
Eh, 21.5 inches makes me want to kill myself and 27 is oversized.
At least in my opinion.

>>52932474
Yeah I've had my eye on that for a while. I'm waiting for Apple to release their 5k 27", to hopefully create competition and bring the price down for that size/resolution, because I couldn't go back to 24" from my current setup.

>>52932487
why do you want such a high PPI so badly? 4k at 24" would be fucking crazy.

>i'm close to buying it

>>52932504
I'm used to it from my laptop and phone displays, I figure why not also on desktop. I can't help but see distracting pixels on my desktop monitor after working on my laptop for a while. 1st world problems, but yeah

>>52932487
>>52932504
>not having that 185.58 PPI on 24" IPS screen
take me now

Hey I just got hired to work as a photographers assistant.

My uncle is giving me money to get a good computer for editing (he's a business photographer and has an iMac and wanted me to get an iMac but nah). So I'm ordering parts for a rig around $1200 CAD. But now I'm stuck at the monitor part.

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B00SPWPF1O/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=15121&creative=390961&creativeASIN=B00SPWPF1O&linkCode=as2&tag=colormanage04-20


Will this be good? I don't want to spend more than $800 on a single monitor.
I'm following this guide btw

http://www.color-management-guide.com/photo-editing-monitors-buying-guide.html

>>52932841
Post pcpartpicker link to comp

>>52932841
You do not need $1200 CAD to build a computer to edit photos. Are you secretly trying to use this to play games or something?

>>52932841
If your uncle is paying, just get the iMac and stop being such a faggot. The high-dpi screen is unmatched by most other monitors, and certainly not the one you picked out

16:10 is nice if you turn your monitor sideways to read books and stuff, that's about it really.

>>52932841
>$1200
>edit photos
A $200 laptop from craigslist can edit photos.
With $1200 you could buy a gtx 970 sli and a 6600k along with 32gb of ram, which is not only overkill, but super overkill.

>>52932923
>gtx 970 sli
Why tho, unless you're a mechnical engineer or architect?

>>52932841
http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/HPrvgs

>>52932875
Yeah it's for games too, but mostly editing.
>>52932892
The colour calibration is shit on iMacs

>>52932923
I can't give you an excuse, I'm sorry.

>>52932841
>>52933020


help me /g/

What is the best monitor for $200 or under niggers?