>unironically buying 16:9 monitors >unironically using

>>55833026
choose ultrawide or 16:10 dual monitors
you won't regret it. especially if you like you rice your desktop

File: i_saved_this_image_from_reddit.jpg (18KB, 372x351px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 372x351px

>/g/ would rather use a 1600x1200 monitor than a 1920x1200 monitor
>/g/ would rather use a 1920x1200 monitor than a 2560x1440 monitor

>>55833026
(You)

>>55833081
ill consider it smug anime poster

>>55833026
>>55833077
>not going along with the standard
>using a proprietary aspect ratio
>>>/applestore/

File: 1468143166548.jpg (15KB, 234x230px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 234x230px

>>55833026

>>55833104
but I don't like the standard
fuck off you comformist hipster

>>55833122
You are that one guy that tries to replace audio jacks

Lets face it if you aren't using dual 16:10s in portrait mode you are a hack

File: 1449787798962.jpg (52KB, 590x337px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 590x337px

>>55833081
1:1 is the best aspect ratio for grown-up computing

Once you're on a modern size monitor at a reasonable resolution there isn't much point of anything other than 16:9 since the economy of scale keeps the price down and the little bit of extra vertical space just isn't worth the extra price tag.

40" 3840x2160 should probably be considered the new standard.

>>55833166
never knew of it.

File: square destap 2048.png (3MB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2048x2048px

>>55833166
THIS

>>55833239
not too bad mang

>>55833026
If you're a gamer, then your computer is supposed to use 16:9.

>>55833026

At work I've been forced to use an old 4:3 LCD. Even though it has ass tier visual quality, that perspective makes articles so much more easier to read holy shit.

>>55833166
Are there any 1:1 monitors out there?
I'd happily buy one (or a decent 4:3 monitor at least).

>>55833166
They ain't common though

File: terry.jpg (321KB, 1971x1971px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1971x1971px

>>55833324

I'm still on 19 inch 5:4

help

>>55833239
>almost half the horizontal resolution of 4k 16:9
>still less vertical resolution than 4k 16:9
>more expensive for a smaller screen than 16:9

No matter what weird aspect ratio you might think is better you can almost always find a 16:9 display that is higher resolution and larger with a similar PPI for the same price or less.

File: p3.jpg (94KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x800px

>>55833298
>>55833230
Eizo EV2730Q

>>55833081
I just moved from 1920x1200 to 1920x1440.
I am not upset in the slightest.

Because I didn't lose any vertical space.
I never had a 2560x1600 display, I had 1920x1200.
My new monitor is the same PPI, so all I've done is just extend my desktop out in both directions, just slightly more in the horizontal direction than vertical.

>>55833578
*I just moved from 1920x1200 to 2560x1440

File: img_02.jpg (275KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 700x467px

>>55833578
You could have bought an Eizo EV2730Q with 1920 vertical pixels

>tfw no affordable 2560x2048 monitors

>>55833026
>tfw using a 16:9 monitor
>second monitor I've ever owned
>was donated
I'm too poor to buy your ultrasharps okay

>>55833596
>1:1
>not 3:2

It's like you don't even golden ratio.

>>55833697
No. I just switched from a ThinkPad T400 with 16:10 to a ThinkPad T460s with 16:9 and I hate it.
The resolution is higher but it just feels WRONG.

File: terryadavisyoucantbeseriousrightnow.jpg (561KB, 1971x1971px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 1971x1971px

>>55833697
no you fucking tard

>>55833692
Business laptops and portable workstations for serious work = 16:9
Tablets for media consumption = 4:3, 3:2, 16:10

Can someone explain this to me?

File: 1418071412096.gif (827KB, 400x460px) Image search: [Google]

827KB, 400x460px

>>55833714
>16:9
>for serious work

>>55833581
For comparison a 40" 2160p 16:9 monitor is 88cm x 50cm and has a lot more room to show off how pathetically small most monitors have been.

>>55833714
No one makes 16:10 panels in sizes small enough for laptops.

Tablets are for Internet consumption, media is secondary to ensuring webpages are usable for the form factor. - most 16:9 tablets are really bad browsing devices.

That's pretty much it.

>>55833714
>>55833708

>>55833746
>No one makes 16:10 panels in sizes small enough for laptops.

BUT WHY? I mean surely they could just make shitty 16:9 panels for the masses who want to watch their Netflix on their laptop and then make 16:10 panels for people who want to get some work and shitposting done? Do they use the same machines to produce low end TN panels and high-end IPS panels? How does Apple and Google manage to make 16:10 and 3:2 panels but everyone else can't?

>>55833788
chicken/egg - no panel manufacturer wants to take the risk because there aren't any customers demanding it.
Customers won't demand it because they know it doesn't exist and they don't want to take the risk paying for a custom panel.

If anyone could do it, it would be Samsung or LG.
Sony *could* but the *won't* they love 16:9 for media, even where it's bad for the device in question. (as they own several media companies, one would presume)

No one else has the vertical integration required to get it off the ground.

>>55833850
I should also mention, by customers I mean OEMs like Dell, HP, etc - not end users.

>>55833596
My 4k monitor has 2160 vertical pixels.

>>55833026
>doing anything ironically
I really hope you don't do that.

>>55833869
And a disgusting aspect ratio

>>55833873
I use Windows ironically
Me and my friends have a good laugh while pretending to actually enjoy the non-free joke OS

>>55833884
It's just some extra horizontal space compared to 16:10. You can just ignore it if you're autistic. Just place a 2 inch strip of electrical tape over the side and you have your glorious 16:10.

>>55833906
No, you say you do it ironically because you're too ashamed to admit you enjoy windows.

>>55833850
It just makes me sad. I mean you shouldn't watch movies on small laptop screens anyways. And if you don't care that much that you still do then surely you can deal with some black bars. Surely the majority of your time on your laptop is not spent with movie/tv watching. I mean on a laptop a taller screen will just be additonal screen space anyways so there are no drawbacks. It's just so stupid that they started to use 16:9 panels in the first place.

>>55833873
I use Q-tips ironically.

>>55833928
Chill, it's only a virtual machine
I run it full-screen sometimes Jackass style

>>55833026
There are no viable 16:10 monitors with a resolution larger than UHD

>>55833554
>>55833298
>>55833166
Pretty sure it's cheaper to buy a 4k monitor than one of those things

File: terryadavis.jpg (81KB, 410x410px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 410x410px

>>55833928
he's was too ashamed to admit he uses windows. so he just admitted to this because he was ashamed all this time

>>55833935
You want more screen space? Then just get a bigger screen. Stop being so fucking autistic.

>>55833976
4k monitors have disgusting aspect ratios and are not as tall

>caring about monitor ratios

>>55833989
What is the height of the viewable area of your current monitor?

>>55833935

What are you complaining about.

Apple uses 16:9 on their iMacs and iPhones. The iMacs are used by video/photography professionals.

An aspect ratio is just that.

How can you possibly say a 1440x900 (8:5) screen is better than a 1600x900 (16:9) screen?

File: if_only_you_knew_the_power_of_16x9.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>55833788
Tablets are high volume devices where producing custom panels makes sense.

Odd aspect ratio computer monitors on the other hand are always going to be low volume items because not many applications need that sort of monitor.

It is almost always cheaper to simply go with a larger and higher resolution 16x9 display than it is to buy 1:1 or 3:2.

>>55833989
Do you not know what a 40" 4k display is?

You can nearly fit 2 of those 1:1 monitors in one

Also nothing compares to these set ups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L1cz1Hr6Hs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwS0fftQAFc

File: 1462992865645.jpg (79KB, 775x500px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 775x500px

>>55833984
You can do that with desktop screens. I am talking about laptops where there is unused vertical space.

>>55833989

They are as tall and have more horizontal real estate.

Buying anything other than 16:9 is pretty much paying more for less.

>>55834016
There isn't any unused vertical space. Bezels are there to hold circuitry.

>>55834023
I don't need more horizontal real extate, I need more vertical. I don't give a shit about muh pixels if they're useless, I'll gladly pay more for less horizontal pixels.

>>55834036
>I need more vertical.

but you aren't getting that

>>55834036
So take a 40" 4k display and mount in portrait mode for 3840 vertical pixels

>>55834036
>I'll gladly pay more for less horizontal pixels.
Stop shitposting or stop being retarded

>>55834036
Rotate your display then. 16:9 will be taller.

>>55833984
16: 10 gives you more space for the same width

>desk space and laptop portability don't matter

Who's the autist here? Apple still sells 16:10. Guess apple is for autists.

>>55834005
nice try. 1600x1200 > 1600x900 (same dpi).

>imacs
>professionals
imacs are their poverty models. they're used because they're cheap and artists are too dumb to realize photoshop works on windows.

>>55834008
squareposter here, I actually use a 3840x2160 screen now but there's really a lot of advantages to having a 1:1 screen - mostly relegated to productivity prorgams and even web browsing to a degree.

>>55834067
Apple is for people that don't know any better

>>55834015
>expand the bottom link
>it's a big fat neckbeard laying in a sexy pose
ew
>immediately after there is some super annoying sound and the word ``nerdgasm''

Yeah I can't watch this mate

>>55834067
>an extra 1 inches to the side now makes things unportable

>>55834096
Why do you think I listed the one with wendell first

>>55834047
No fucking shit, it sucks.

>>55834049
>So take a 40" 4k display and mount in portrait mode for 3840 vertical pixels
No, I'm not interested in a 9:16 monitor.
>Stop shitposting or stop being retarded
What's so retarded about it? Why the fuck would I give a shit about having extra horizontal space I don't need? 16:10's already too wide and you're telling me to go for an even wider fucking aspect ratio? Yeah, you're totally not the retarded one.

>>55834067
iMacs are great. General computing on a computer built into your display, remote into your server for when you need to do real work.

File: dd.png (257KB, 909x497px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 909x497px

$300 for a 27'' 3840x2160 IPS freesync monitor.

Hipsters of /g/ would rather buy a 1920x1200 monitor for the exact same price because 'muh ratio' .. and here I thought /g/entooment were supposed to be smart consumers.

>>55834115
>9:16 monitor
You are made of stupid

>>55834129
>consumers
Please don't use that word in regards to computing.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Consumer

>>55834129
i'd rather not
1920x1200 is good enough for me. enjoy it

>>55834033
I am pretty sure a 16:10 screen would still fit in.

>>55834129
That has actually less vertical space than the 1:1 1920x1920 monitor because of the PPI.

>>55834005
>Apple uses 16:9 on their iMacs
No they don't.

>>55834033
That's bullshit and/or stupid design then.

>>55834083
What advantage is there for 1:1 2048x2048 over 40" 16x9 3840x2160?

>>55834165
Then get a bigger 4k monitor, instead of some shitty $2000 1:1 monitor for Eizo marketed for "professionals".

>>55834138
>aspect ratios are measured w:h
>for a 16:9 monitor 16 is width and 9 is height
>for some reason a 16:9 monitor sideways isn't 9:16
Anon, you're a fucking moron.

File: 1407237218118.jpg (74KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1024x768px

tfw no modern 4:3 laptop.

>>55834183
It's only $1000. I make that in 2 days.

>>55833026
>tfw moving from 15:9 to 17:9 feels like you're using an ultrawide or something

>>55834129
Why not comparing it to a 16:10 4k screen?

Aspect ratio is obviously more important on a smaller screen, where having more pixels won't give you practically usable space.

>>55834192
The ChromeBook Pixel is 3:2 but it's glossy which is illegal in some countries*.

* for instance German employees can sue their employer if they are forced to work with a glossy shit screen

>>55834194
40" 2160p displays can be had for less than $1000, mine was $600 over a year ago.

>>55834169
none, but consider a 3840x3840

2048 was just the max my integrated graphics in 2008 could do

>>55834194
If you really did you wouldn't be posting on 4chan

>>55834223
You have to factor in the medication for nausea and the room cleaning bill for when you throw up due to the horrible aspect ratio of 16:9.

>>55834129
>he thinks displays are only classified by their resolution, diagonal and liquid crystal orientation
Protip: There's a reason some displays are significantly more expensive than others despite having a “ωorse resolution”, not that I expect /v/posters to understand.

>>55834212
Aren't there matte screen protectors you can buy?

>>55834185
It gives you 2160 horizontal pixels at that point

>>55834209
>Why not comparing it to a 16:10 4k screen?

Because they don't exist? And even if they did, they would be wayy more expensive. We're comparing similarly priced tech.

>>55834165

>2160 is less than 1920

the fuck? 4k btfo 1920x1920 any day

>>55834237
>There's a reason some displays are significantly more expensive than others despite having a “ωorse resolution”
Because retards will spend money on them thinking they're superior?

>>55834246
Yeah but they're all reviewed as mediocre
Otherwise the Chromebook Pixel would be the perfect work laptop

it's just a computer screen who cares lol grow up

>>55834105
Yes it does

One inch is the difference between fitting somewhere and not

>>55834248
No fucking shit.

>>55834260

this

8:5 autists are the audiophiles of the monitor world

>>55834289
Nah. There's actually a reason for it when talking aspect ratios, audiophiles are just wasting money.

/sci/ here.

16:10 is the closest to the golden ratio. Therefore it's the perfect aspect ratio.

Q.E.D

>>55834305
To a point maybe when you're talking about small low resolution displays where the difference between 1080px and 1200px is important. Once you're above 38" though there isn't much point to the extra cost of an odd aspect ratio.

>this thread again
Kill me pls

>>55834256
If somebody cares about couple bucks so much, they should just roll with <150 shit. Pretty sure I saw some 5k 16:10 screens, which isn't 4k but the more pixels the better.

>>55834319
Everybody but media consuming plebs knew it ... I hoped.

>>55834352
Well sure but just because the difference becomes less important doesn't make the shittier aspect ratio magically better.

>>55834360
You're free to hide it and pretend it doesn't exist. Hell, nobody's even forcing you to browse this site. Why not just leave and not come back instead of shitposting?

16:9 fags think they know better than Leonardo DiCaprio

>tfw 1440p 144hz+1440p as secondary
16:10 is too expensive and rare in high resolutions.

File: golden-ratio.jpg (179KB, 354x500px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 354x500px

>>55834383
forgot pic

>>55834389
>144hz

>>>/v/

>>55834286
16:9 stops mattering at that point because nothing comes close to the amount of pixels it offers

aside from 5k, but I don't know of anyone that makes a 5k 50-60" display

>>55833166
That's not how FOV works.

File: gold08.jpg (218KB, 800x498px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 800x498px

Thousands of years of artistic development favor 16:10.
vs
Fag on 4chan with a 16:9 monitor

Hmmm

>>55834402
You can't watch movies on a 60 Hz panel.
Movies are 24 Hz which does not divide 60 evenly. So you either need a 72 monitor but then you can't watch new 48 Hz films. Granted, those are very rare. I only know of The Hobbit.
Anyway you can't watch film on a 60 Hz panel, only a vague approximation of it.

File: trump-golden-ratio-fibonacci.jpg (58KB, 600x371px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x371px

>>55834396

>>55834377
>shittier aspect ratio

You keep saying that, but you don't seem to understand. Once you have a large enough monitor its no longer the aspect ratio of the monitor that matters, but the aspect ratio of the windows that are on it.

If I need a 2560x1600 16x10 space to work on something, I can have a 2560x1600 16x10 space to work on it. If I need a 2048x2048 1:1 space to work on something I have a 2048x2048 space to work on it. If I need two 1200x1920 10x16 windows to work on something I have that too.

>>55833183
>40" 3840x2160 should probably be considered the new standard.

It truly is the best, although it's still somewhat incomplete until the 120Hz/DP 1.3 models come out late this year/early next year.

~45" 8k is about the last thing I see myself ever strongly wanting, but it will require quite a bit of additional bandwidth/compression to pull off, so I'm not expecting it before 2020.

>>55834435
even though I completely agree with 16:10 being master race, why don't these film producers who are supposedly artist respect a real framerate.

>>55834484
You can type all you fucking want, I don't give a shit what you say. Yes, aspect ratio does become less important as monitor size goes up, no I do not give a shit that I could get by with a 16:9 monitor. I won't. Just using one pisses me off, I'm not going to subject myself to that bullshit on a daily basis.

>>55834402
trying to fit in?

>>55834518
Stupid people would complain that the 60 Hz film "looks like TV"
The same stupid people who preferred 1080p30 to 720p60 when HD was still new

>>55834260
>>55834289
No - e.g. because they have better colot gamut, bit depth, refresh rate compatibility, viewing ratio gamma stability, brightness range/technology, global/static contrast, local contrast, overdrive controls, display coating, FRC, backlight tech, panel uniformity, input latency, ISO G2G response, mount brackets, polarizer, hardware LUT support, pixel retention, signal stability, etc.

There are a lot more factors to monitors than /v/ manchildren like yourself realize..

>>55834544
>1080p30
You mean 1080i
the 'p' implies 60 hz.

>>55834553
NO, there's only SPEED, PIXELS AND SIZE

>>55834435
all movies you see are only vague approximations of the source, dipshit

>>55834565
The p only implies progressive scan.

File: 2015-06-07 18.41.08.jpg (2MB, 3264x1840px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1840px

This thing?

>>55834565
No it doesn't you fucking retard

‘p’ stands for progressive which means every frame covers the entire pixel range

>>55834565
Wrong. The "p" means progressive, nothing more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_standards

1080p30 refers to 30 progressive frames.

Honestly I would kill myself if I had a 16:9 monitor

>>55834488
Yeah, once we can get both ~40" displays and ~200ppi I don't see much need to go larger or higher definition, though I could see potential use cases for something like a 16k 60" monitor if it was combined with some kind of better tiling window manager that could simulate many combinations of multiple smaller monitors.

Though by the point we could get that I could probably just get glasses that will be able to project virtual displays wherever I want.

>>55834592

it's 1080@60i

>>55834625
>a skull that thick
1080i60 is not the same as 1080p30

>>55834625
No it's not, you fucking retard.

>>55834584
>>55834590
>>55834592
I sort of understood that, but I was under the assumption that tv jews had buzzworded p to signify 60 HZ and the i to be 30 HZ.

>>55834665
literally all the letters mean is i=interlace and p=progressive, you tack the framerate after the letter if you want to specify that as well.

>>55834665
There are many variations.
In Germany live events used to be broadcast in 720p50 (progressive 50 Hz)

Then some braindamaged consumer assocation sued the public stations and made them switch from 720p50 to 1080i50 (true interlacing with 50 fields/sec) because of "muh pixels". They're too stupid to realize what true interlacing does.

I don't even watch TV but this still pissed me off to no end.

>>55834665

1080i 29.97 still looks "smooth" like true 60fps, not as smooth though

>>55834665
No, you're fucking retarded if you believe that and doubly retarded if you care about TV buzzwords.

I just jumped in, wtf is wrong with 16:9 monitors ?!
I have been using them since I got rid of shitty crt 4:3 monitors.
Like here you need to pay really hard to get something else than 16:9..

>>55834751
You mean 1080i60

60/I = 30 even frames and 30 odd frames per second. It would be 30 frames per second if you weave, and 60 frames per second if you bob.

60/P = 60 total frames per second.

30/PsF = 30 total frames per second, transmitted as 30 even and 30 odd fields. (Even if you bobbed, it would still only be 30 frames per second total)

>>55833692
16:10 is closer to golden ratio than 3:2

File: golden ratio.png (33KB, 696x532px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 696x532px

>>55834886
This. No aspect ratio comes closer. I don't know why there even is debate. It's mathematically the best. Are you doubting mathematics?

>>55834817
>I just jumped in, wtf is wrong with 16:9 monitors ?!
Read the thread for irrevocable truths.
16:9 is pleb shit pig disgusting normie ratio

>>55833850
>>55833788
>>55833714
Apple uses 16:10. I don't like apple laptops, but they do have nice screens.

I use my librebooted x200 with a 16:10 screen.

>>55833746
except for apple...

>>55833746
Don't they make tablet with 4:3 screens though? (I can't confirm, it's just what I heard).

Anyway I'm stuck using a laptop with 16:9 display because that's all they had in the store. Not even a 16:10, much less 4:3.

>>55835108
>>55835065
But Apple displays are all glossy which is almost as annoying as 16:9

I'd pay premium for a 14" 16:10 matte IPS laptop

>>55835123
Based Apple uses 4:3 screens in their iPads.

>>55835130
Yeah, glossy is horrible.

I use a matte antiglare screen protector on my phone that gives it a nice matte finish. I think I have seen that for glass laptop displays.

>>55834817
>I just jumped in, wtf is wrong with 16:9 monitors ?!
There's literally nothing wrong with them, but they're the most popular by a pretty big margin which causes /g/ autists to avoid them for fear of associating with normies.

>>55835167
>. I think I have seen that for glass laptop displays.
It's never as good as a true matte display unfortunately. Else I would have bought the 3:2 ChromeBook Pixel long ago

>>55834961
16/9 = 1.7777777777777...
16-9 = 7
7 = 7

16:9 is superior. QED

File: _DSC9589.jpg (458KB, 1900x1176px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 1900x1176px

>>55835130
Why did they stop offering matte displays?

>>55834961
Well, you could make 13:8, 21:13 or even 34:21 screens, but that would get silly.

>>55835240
Stupid users touching and damaging their screens I bet

>>55833850
>Customers won't demand it because they know it doesn't exist
Well what about during the transition period, before they all stopped making laptops with 4:3 display? Surely a lot of people complained and said they won't buy the shitty new screens. But the manufacturers ignored them because they figured the complainers are a minority, and they instead decided to cater their sales entirely to consumer/entertainment crowd. So now we have shit hardware (even 16:10 is suckass compared to 4:3).
http://www.gadgetteaser.com/2010/01/21/professionals-still-lament-the-43-laptop/

>>55835240
The glass was and is a structural element. The non-glossy screens had extra strengthening beams to get the screen assembly more rigid. My guess as to why they stopped offering the matte option with the rMBP is that they couldn't fit those strengthening beams in the thinner version of the display assembly used in the rMBP.

>>55835185
You can watch videos on TV screen instead of tiny laptop screen.

>>55835240
less contrast

>>55835281
So it's just Apple sacrificing functionality and robustness for the sake of aesthetics / “muh thinness”? Sounds like business as usual.

>>55835242
>>55834961
>>55834886
>>55833692
Can somebody explain to me for a second why the golden ratio is supposed to be relevant for displays?

If anything, I would base my aspect ratio on the comfortable motion range of the human eye, not some pseudoscientific “muh cosmic energy” ‘golden’ constant.

how are you watching movies? are you changing the aspect ratio?

>>55834589
is that the 29 or 34?

>>55835361
The Golden Ratio has proven itself empirically through millennia of art. It's simply the most pleasing ratio in existence.

That 16:9 monitors are dear to the unimaginative peasant-burgher whilst 16:10 monitors appeal to the sensitive poet-aristocrat-philosopher 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.

>>55835185
>mainly watch 4:3 videos
>absolutely no black bars at all

>>55835451
>It's simply the most pleasing ratio in existence.
[citation needed]

Do you have a case study of displays to back this up? By that I mean comparing the same overall number of pixels with different aspect ratios and figuring out which ratio people seem to prefer (on that basis alone).

I didn't read the rest of your post since it seems to be mostly pseudoscientific voodoo / hocus pocus mumbling.

1920x1080 is still the best, most reliable, easiest to use, non-freetard-degenerate-weeaboo resolution.

>>55836120
>most reliable

What does that mean for a resolution?

>>55836120
Did you mean for all of those words to be put together?

>>55835748
please stop

>>55836180
What's the matter, are my words hurting your little special snowflake ears?

>>55836151
>>55836163
Full HD is still the best resolution for every purpose and 16:9 is the standard format everywhere. 2K is simply overpriced and it's literally no different from Full HD. 16:10 is retarded.

>>55836301
>16:10 is retarded
Maybe if all you do is watch moves made in the last decade. Some people actually use their computers as computers though. 4:3, 5:4, 3:2, and 16:10 are the only acceptable aspect ratios.

>>55836120
No that widescreen shit is pretty much only good for watching HD anime/movies and shitty modern games.

>>55836301
>Full HD is still the best resolution for every purpose

It's pretty terrible for reading documents.

3:2 is the best aspect ratio in my opinion. The compromise between 4:3 and 16:9

>>55836322
>>55836326
Full HD is great for any enternainment purposes, it's much cheaper than 2K and it's still great value for money. Stop spreading "only anime and gaymes are good for Full HD" meme.

>>55836330
No, it's just your blind consumerism that deceives you into thinking like this.

>>55836369
>Full HD is great for any enternainment purposes
That's my fucking point, that's all it's good for. My god you're retarded.

File: 1346301175453.jpg (156KB, 500x362px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 500x362px

>>55833026

>>55836369
It's not good for the only games I care about (which is stuff made last century).

>>55836322
>>55836330
Can you please start backing up your bullshit facts with actual research on human aspect ratio preference?

Everybody can pull numbers out of their ass and claim they're superior.

>>55836422
Fact: 16:9 is one of the worst aspect ratios when it comes to vertical pixels
Fact: vertical pixels are more important when working
Fact: BTFO

>>55836410
> muh 2K gaming
Lel enjoy spending thousands of bucks for your 30 fps

>>55833081
>>/g/ would rather use a 1600x1200 monitor than a 1920x1200 monitor

fuck no, give me 16:10 or give me death

>>55836301
>16:9 is the standard format everywhere
Films are usually 1.85 up to 2.39

A4 paper ~ 1.41
US Letter ~ 1.29

Only TV and video games for children are 1.777

>>55836435
>Fact: 16:9 is one of the worst aspect ratios when it comes to vertical pixels
This is bullshit. Aspect ratios having nothing to do with the pixel count.

>Fact: vertical pixels are more important when working
[citation needed]

Feel free to take your monitor and rotate it into portrait mode if you prefer vertical space.

>>55833581
why is this midget scratching up the surface of the monitor with those books?

>>55833626
>$1200 for a monitor
Fuck that.

>>55836479
>This is bullshit. Aspect ratios having nothing to do with the pixel count.
Yes they do, you fucking retard
>1920x1080 v. 1920x1200
16:10 has 120 more vertical pixels
>2560x1440 v. 2560x1600
16:10 has 160 more vertical pixels
etc.
>[citation needed]
I don't need to cite shit, if you've ever used a computer for more than muh gaymes and animu you'd fucking know this.

Feel free to eat a dick

>>55835451
this is beautifully written

>>55836553
Written on a 16:10 monitor btw

File: 1464131073356.jpg (186KB, 2040x1360px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 2040x1360px

Explain me why 3:2 is not the perfect aspect ratio in your eyes.

>>55836570
It's great but glossy is garbage tier

File: 01_intro.png (7KB, 1023x691px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 1023x691px

>>55836455
I don't want that 2K or 4K or whatever stuff either. Just plain old 4:3 display on laptop, and good keyboard like the old IBM Thinkpad line used to have. The most comfortable laptop I ever used for programming on was a R51 that my work gave me (I guess some of the newer T60 were ok too).
And a lot of games I play don't even have fps to speak of. I even like to boot up in text mode, but with widescreen that ends up looking pretty silly (and not very comfy at all).

>>55836528
>Yes they do, you fucking retard
No they don't. A ratio is a RATIO. It does not depend on the pixel count by definition.

These are all 16:9
>960x540
>1280x720
>2560x1440
>3840x2160
>5120x2880

Even though they have *wildly* different pixel counts, the /ratio/ is always the same. This is pretty much the definition of a ratio: A relative comparison that is independent of the exact magnitude.

So now that we've established that you're full of shit,

>16:10 has 120 more vertical pixels
Yes, good job cherry picking. But 1920x1080 (16:9) can just as easily be compared against 1728x1080 (16:10) which has 192 fewer horizontal pixels.

If you want to cherry pick on a case by case basis, you might as well just compare 1920x1200 (16:10) against 2560x1440 (16:9) which has about as much justification. (In fact, it wouldn't even surprise me if an equivalent 2560x1440 screen was probably cheaper than a 1920x1200 screen..)

>I don't need to cite shit, if you've ever used a computer for more than muh gaymes and animu you'd fucking know this.
You must be fucking joking. I use my computer almost exclusively for programming, with a tiling window manager. I don't give a shit about anime or video games. And I don't even have a 16:9 display. (I use a 4096x2160 screen, which is about 17:9)

Why is it that just because I'm schooling you about basic mathematical principles and asking you to fucking back up your statements you automatically assume I'm some video gaming manchild. Give me a fucking break.

>>55833239
Buying a 4K screen and setting it to display 2160x2160 with black bars on the sides would both be cheaper and provide a higher resolution than what you posted.

>>55836580
enjoy your no contrast

>>55836738
Blatant lie.

>>55836816
let me guess, you also say the eye can't see the difference past 24fps

>>55836570
because a 3:2 ratio is not how human eyes work

File: kontrast.jpg (64KB, 800x424px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x424px

>>55836830
Pic related: contrast curve of the matte 1:1 Eizo

>>55836570
In the absence of any justification, there's no assumption we can make about aspect ratio would be optimal for your eyes.

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that 3:2 matches the human eye well.

>>55836914
Please explain to me in your own words what this diagram is measuring. I genuinely want to know how you come to this bizarre conclusion.

File: image026.jpg (54KB, 480x472px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 480x472px

>>55836934
>>55836901

>>55836945
The white line is cd/m^2
The blue line is the white/black contrast ratio
X axis = monitor brightness setting

>>55836682
Yes, but for every 16:9 ratio with a 16:10 equivalent, the 16:10 equivalent has more vertical pixels. I could explain this to a 3rd grader yet somehow some shitstain on an 18+ board can't grasp such a simple concept

>>55836957
lol is that some science faggotry

>>55836975
Okay, now why would this graph have anything to do with matte vs glossy?

>>55837120

>>55836738
claimed that matte monitors have "no contrast"

>>55836957
What exactly does this graph show?

>>55836994
You're arguing based on the assumption that two different ratios are “equivalent”, which is an decision you made arbitrarily based on what was more convenient for your argument.

Also, you're changing your stance from “16:10 is better than 16:9” to “1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080”, which is an entirely different argument and something I'd be very happy to agree with.

But notice how this argument has nothing to do with “golden ratio” hocus pocus, it has to do with measurable facts - yes, 1920x1200 has more pixels than 1920x1080. But that neither makes 16:10 better than 16:9 nor does it has to do anything with the golden ratio, which is the notion that I'm trying to challenge.

>>55836994
1920x1200 isn't neccessarily "the 16:10 equivalent" of 1920x1080 as you mistakenly believe. Which resolution is equivalent to which should depend not on the superficial "they both have 1920 vertical lines", but rather on "they both have similiar prices". If, due to 16:9 being the more popular standard and swaying supply and demand, a 1900x1200 monitor is closer in price to a 2560x1440 monitor, rather than to a 1920x1080 monitor, then 1900x1200 is the "16:10 equivalent" of 2560x1440, not of 1920x1080, and clearly has a lower resolution than its rival.

Mind you, I'm not an expert on monitor prices, I'm just explaining a lapse in your reasoning.

>>55837147
So where's the equivalent graph for the same display with no AG coating?

>>55837158
For every 16:9 resolution there's a taller 16:10 resolution. You even agreed that 16:10 is better than 16:9 at a comparable res, what the fuck are you still arguing for?

>>55837162
>1920x1200 isn't neccessarily "the 16:10 equivalent" of 1920x1080 as you mistakenly believe.
But it is.

>>55837174
He's not arguing that matte displays have better contrast than glossy ones, he's just refuting the point that matte displays have bad contrast.

ffs,people in this thread don't have basic reading comprehension and don't know basic logic.

>>55837212
For every 16:9 resolution there's also a narrower 16:10 resolution.

>You even agreed that 16:10 is better than 16:9 at a comparable res
What do you mean by comparable? If by “comparable” you mean “10% biased in favor of 16:10” then yeah no shit. But what does this have to do with the aspect ratio? Oh right, nothing.

You still haven't justified your claim that 16:10 is better than 16:9, which is independent of the number of pixels.

>>55837221
>ffs,people in this thread don't have basic reading comprehension and don't know basic logic.
That's what one should expect from people who use 16:9 unironically

>>55836957
that just feels wrong. most probably anatomically right, but our attention is certainly not trained for what is happening vertically but horizontally around us

>>55837221
>He's not arguing that matte displays have better contrast than glossy ones, he's just refuting the point that matte displays have bad contrast.
But in absence of a comparison, there's no such thing as “good” or “bad”.

For all you know, the same display (but glossy) could have a contrast of 2000:1, which would make the matte display bad in comparison.

>>55837247
>For every 16:9 resolution there's also a narrower 16:10 resolution.
And the 16:10 resolution is still superior because those extra horizontal pixels are worthless.
>What do you mean by comparable?
Similar resolutions. For example, 2560x1600 is the 16:10 equivalent of 2560x1440 just like 2560x2048 is the 5:4 equivalent and 2560x1920 is the 4:3 equivalent.

File: 1469859771799.jpg (79KB, 717x960px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 717x960px

i try my best not to have autism but when i see a 16:9 15 or bigger laptop with no numpad keyboard and see a large frame on the sides of the keyboard i am physically triggered.
Those keyboards should exist only on 4:3 laptops imho.
And there should be 4:3 laptops because you need vertical space to work efficiently and with power saving hardware you can experience shitty performance on higher resolutions.
Thats just my shitty blog tho.

>>55837212
>But it is.
But it isn't. It was, around 8 years ago. Now it's cheaper to buy a 2560x1440 screen than to buy a 1920x1200 screen. You can't seriously say that a 1920x1200 screen is the equivalent to a 1920x1080 if the former costs twice as much.

>>55837284
>And the 16:10 resolution is still superior because those extra horizontal pixels are worthless.
More “facts” straight from your ass. Go fucking prove it.

If you think horizontal resolution is unimportant, then I invite you to compare a 720x1280 display against a 1920x1200 display. Based on what I can tell from your logic, you would prefer the former - which I highly doubt.

>Similar resolutions. For example, 2560x1600 is the 16:10 equivalent of 2560x1440 just like 2560x2048 is the 5:4 equivalent and 2560x1920 is the 4:3 equivalent.
So how come 2560x1600 is somehow supposed to be more similar to 2560x1440 than 2304x1440?

>Gaming, movies, TV and other useless activities that should be ceased over the age of eighteen
16:9
>Software development, journalism, composing sheet music and other sophisticated adult activities
1:1, 4:3, 3:2 or 16:10

>>55837346
Programming should clearly be done on 3:4 displays, journalism on 12:5, sheet music on 3:7, gaming on 17:12, editing photos on 1:4 and shitposting on 4chan on 4:9.

>>55837284
2560x1600 is the price-point equivalent of 4K, not 2560x1440. All of your reasoning is missing an incredibly important point that is the FUCKING PRICE. It's literally (and that's using "literally" correctly) cheaper to buy a 2560x1440 display and set it to 1920x1200 with black bars around the image than to buy a 1920x1200 display these days.

>>55837433
>price
Poorfag.

>>55837443
>Buying a display with greater vertical AND horizontal resolution for less money is being a poorfag
>Buying a display with smaller vertical AND horizontal resolution for more money is being a 16:10 patrician
You say 1920x1200 is the 16:10 equivalent of 1920x1080. I say 1920x1080 is the 16:10 equivalent of 2560x1440. How do we decide which of us is right? We have to establish some outside criteria to come to any conclusion. The only sensible one is price. Give me some other criteria that would support your view.

>>55837497
>1920x1080 is the 16:10 equivalent of 2560x1440
I meant "1920x1200 is the 16:10 equivalent of 2560x1440" obviously.

>>55837443
If price was irrelevant to you then there would no be no justification whatsoever to use an existing 1920x1200 display over a custom-made 2133x1200 display.

After all, the latter has more pixels, so it's obviously better, right? And since price is not a factor, there's no reason to prefer the 1920x1200 display.

So let me ask you: Why haven't you gone and bought a custom-made 2133x1200 panel yet?

>>55837497
>We have to establish some outside criteria to come to any conclusion. The only sensible one is price. Give me some other criteria that would support your view.
What amuses the me most is the stark irony between
>resolutions are “equivalent” if they have the same horizontal pixel count
and
>vertical pixels matter more than horizontal

To somebody who thinks vertical pixels matter more than horizontal, the only sensible conclusion would be to assume that ratios are “equivalent” if they have the same vertical pixel count (with the aspect ratio only determining the horizontal pixel count).

>>55837315
I'm not talking about price, I'm talking pixels.

>>55837595
If you're talking pixels, then the 16:10 equivalent of 1920x1080 (2073600 pixels) would be 1822x1138 (2073436 pixels).

So, please justify to me why 1822x1138 is better than 1920x1080.

>>55837595
So you've picked an arbitrary way of deciding equivalent resolutions
>1920x1200 is equivalent to 1920x1080 because I SAY SO
While I picked an objective way of deciding equivalent resolutions
>1920x1200 is equivalent to 2560x1440 because they actually have similiar prices
Which one of us makes more sense?

And I swear to God, if your next reply is "lel he took the bait I was just pretending to be retarded", then I will find you and I will bitchslap you until you cry for mommy to save you.

I cannot respect a """man""" with a 16:9 monitor.

>>55833104

>proprietary aspect ratio
>proprietary ratio

Are you mentally disabled?

>>55833104
Just because apple uses 8:5 aspect ratios doesn't mean it's solely theirs you dunbass. My ThinkPad is 8:5 master race along with my work monitor, it's just better for productivity programs because the extra height.

>>55837845
>8:5

Why not write 16:10?

>>55838026
Why not 32:20?

>>55837340
>More “facts” straight from your ass. Go fucking prove it.
It's objectively true, if you can't realize this it's because all you do is muh gaymes and anime
>If you think horizontal resolution is unimportant, then I invite you to compare a 720x1280 display against a 1920x1200 display
Of course not, I would never prefer a lower resolution 16:9 display to a higher resolution 16:10 display. Hell even right now I'm using a 16:10 main monitor with a higher resolution 16:9 monitor as my secondary.
>So how come 2560x1600 is somehow supposed to be more similar to 2560x1440 than 2304x1440?
Because I'm basing the similarities on horizontal width. For the record, I'll take 2304x1440 over 2560x1440 any day.

>>55837433
See >>55837595

>>55837661
>So, please justify to me why 1822x1138 is better than 1920x1080.
More vertical pixels.

>>55837679
>So you've picked an arbitrary way of deciding equivalent resolutions
I guess
>While I picked an objective way of deciding equivalent resolutions
Your way is shit tho
>While I picked an objective way of deciding equivalent resolutions
I'm not talking prices, I'm talking pixels. Price is entirely irrelevant.

>>55834015
>vertically oriented monitors
this kills the subpixel rendering

>>55838026
>>55838061
What about 24:15?

>>55838061
Why not 64:1?

>>55838086
Every single subpixel-aware rendering engine that isn't a total piece of shit lets you set the subpixel order.

>>55838067
>It's objectively true
If it was objectively true, then you would be capable of providing an objective argument, which for 10 posts or so you have not been able to.

>Of course not, I would never prefer a lower resolution 16:9 display to a higher resolution 16:10 display.
Wait, so basically actually have no justification whatsoever other than religious preference for preferring 16:10? I thought this was about great pixel count, but now it's just about.. nothing at all?

Holy shit, you are seriously delusional. Seek professional help immediately.

>>55838067
>More vertical pixels.
Okay, so you *would* prefer a 720x1280 display over a 1920x1200 display?

You are directly contradicting yourself. If you aren't actually pretending to be retarded, then at this point it's just sad.

>>55833026
Why is that cat covering Satorin's eyes?

>>55838167
To protect her from the ugly 16:9 aspect ratio

>>55838133
>If it was objectively true, then you would be capable of providing an objective argument, which for 10 posts or so you have not been able to.
I've already said why it's better, if you're incapable of reading that's your own problem.
>Wait, so basically actually have no justification whatsoever other than religious preference for preferring 16:10
Are you kidding? You gave me the choice between a rather low resolution 16:9 panel and a decent 16:10 panel. Even if I preferred 16:9 I'd have taken the 16:10 panel.
>I thought this was about great pixel count
Of course it is.
>Okay, so you *would* prefer a 720x1280 display over a 1920x1200 display?
Oh 720x1280? No. I'm not interested in 9:16, that's unnecessarily high and not really wide enough for shit. I'm not against an additional vertical monitor but it's definitely not ideal as a main display.

>>55838067
>Because I'm basing the similarities on horizontal width. For the record, I'll take 2304x1440 over 2560x1440 any day.
So vertical pixels matter more than horizontal pixels but resolutions are equivalent if their horizontal resolution is the same?

Okay, got it. Please continue contradicting yourself more, it's actually sort of entertaining.

>>55838215
>So vertical pixels matter more than horizontal pixels but resolutions are equivalent if their horizontal resolution is the same?
Exactly. Just because vertical pixels matter more doesn't make it wrong to compare resolutions based on horizontal pixels.
>contradiction
I've yet to do so.

>>55838204
>I've already said why it's better
Yes, and all your arguments thus far have been subjective, i.e. “I prefer 16:10 therefore it's better”.

>You gave me the choice between a rather low resolution 16:9 panel and a decent 16:10 panel.
First things first: 720x1280 is not 16:9, it's 9:16. Secondly, it has more vertical pixels than a 1920x1200 display. So by YOUR OWN logic, a 720x1280 display is better than a 1920x1200 display - yet you would prefer a 1920x1200 display simply because “it's 16:10”. Ergo, you don't actually prefer 16:10 because it “has more vertical pixels”, the only reason you prefer it is simply because it's 16:10.

You have absolutely no justification other than religious preference, and probably your own disgusting level of ego (i.e. you want to avoid 16:9 because it's a common resolution, and using something uncommon makes you feel like a special fucking snowflake)

>No. I'm not interested in 9:16, that's unnecessarily high and not really wide enough for shit
So vertical pixels are more important than horizontal pixels but 9:16 is “unnecessarily high”? On what justification do you base this claim? Can you back it up with objective facts? No? Then you can fuck right off and stick it up your arse with all of your other voodoo non-arguments.

>Exactly. Just because vertical pixels matter more doesn't make it wrong to compare resolutions based on horizontal pixels.
So on what basis do you claim comparing resolutions based on horizontal pixels is an objectively definitive way to compare resolutions? Please justify this to me using FACTS, LOGIC and PROOF.

>I've yet to do so.
You've contradicted yourself approximately 3 times in the last few posts. Maybe you're just too dumb to realize the implications of your own logic?

File: a1000_1_big.jpg (223KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1600x1200px

I personally don't care about resolution, even 640x480 is ok for my needs. For the longest time I even used 800x600 on 15-inch monitor.
But I want 4:3 display, not some stretched widescreen that's both ugly and unfomfortable.

File: 1442922207638.jpg (58KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1280x720px

>>55833164
What if I have one in portrait the other landscape?

>>55838305
>Yes, and all your arguments thus far have been subjective, i.e. “I prefer 16:10 therefore it's better”.
No, it's entirely objective. Which way do you scoll when you're reading a PDF? How about scrolling through a website? Is it horizontal? I don't think so. What about toolbars in programs? Generally at the top, right? More room for toolbars means more room for other shit.
>First things first: 720x1280 is not 16:9, it's 9:16.
No fucking shit, I was skimming and read it wrong.
>Secondly, it has more vertical pixels than a 1920x1200 display
No fucking shit, I was skimming and read it wrong.
>So by YOUR OWN logic, a 720x1280 display is better than a 1920x1200 display
I said vertical pixels are better, that doesn't mean I'll take all that I can get. For every so many vertical pixels, let's say 10, the proper amount of horizontal pixels is 16.
>yet you would prefer a 1920x1200 display simply because “it's 16:10”
Of course.
>Ergo, you don't actually prefer 16:10 because it “has more vertical pixels”
Oh but I do.
>the only reason you prefer it is simply because it's 16:10.
Not in the slightest.
>i.e. you want to avoid 16:9 because it's a common resolution
I want to avoid 16:9 because it's fucking disgusting and unusable.
>So vertical pixels are more important than horizontal pixels but 9:16 is “unnecessarily high”?
Yes, I just explained why too.
>So on what basis do you claim comparing resolutions based on horizontal pixels is an objectively definitive way to compare resolutions?
Because that's how it works.
>Please justify this to me using FACTS, LOGIC and PROOF.
Nah.
>You've contradicted yourself approximately 3 times in the last few posts.
A mistake is not a contradiction. You're probably talking about the whole 720x1280 thing. I simply misread, I was thinking 1280x720.


Suck a dick.

>>55833164
>>55838359
I used to use a 17:9 monitor in landsacpe mode next to a 5:8 monitor (i.e. 16:10 in portrait mode), what does that make me?

(I stopped using the second monitor though because I realized the benefit is not worth the discomfort)

>>55838430
I use mine quite a bit. Currently it's just a NOC window more or less with my ten pokemongo bots running.

>>55838423
>No, it's entirely objective.
There's nothing objective about human preference, unless of course you perform a controlled study to ascertain it. (To which I'm still waiting for a link)

>Which way do you scoll when you're reading a PDF? How about scrolling through a website? Is it horizontal? I don't think so. What about toolbars in programs? Generally at the top, right? More room for toolbars means more room for other shit.
If you think vertical resolution is so important, why aren't you using your display in portrait mode? Also, you're cherry-picking examples. For example, many programs have toolbars, menus, property lists etc. at the left and right instead of the top and bottom. You might as well use the exact same argument to justify using 17:9 for those programs, which would clearly be a contradiction because you cannot possibly simultaneously advocate making your aspect wider and taller at the same time.

>I said vertical pixels are better, that doesn't mean I'll take all that I can get. For every so many vertical pixels, let's say 10, the proper amount of horizontal pixels is 16.
Okay, and where is the objective (i.e. scientific - based on measurements, inherent truths, indisputable facts, and objective reasoning) proof for this?

Why is 16:10 pixels a better ratio than 16:9 or 17:9? Again, you have provided no justification other than your own made-up preference (which I *STRONGLY* doubt you obtained from an impartial controlled trial).

>I want to avoid 16:9 because it's fucking disgusting and unusable.
Are you fucking kidding me? The difference is barely 10%, if you think it's “disgusting” it's simply your MASSIVE fucking ego getting in the way. Besides, you cannot possibly tell me that a 2133x1200 monitor is less usable than a 1920x1200 monitor - you LITERALLY have no downside.

>Yes, I just explained why too.
Yes, because it doesn't match your own subjective preference. Next time please provide an OBJECTIVE argument.

File: NecroBot_2016-07-30_16-51-13.png (259KB, 1661x1709px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1661x1709px

>>55838490
tfw bot updated and now it seems to not recycle items for me any more

Maybe the defaults changed, because it actually does seem to recycle some things but my inventory is always full >_>

>>55838104
becuz five o

>>55838423
>Because that's how it works.
You mean because this is more convenient for your argument than the alternative? Gotcha.

>A mistake is not a contradiction. You're probably talking about the whole 720x1280 thing. I simply misread, I was thinking 1280x720.
No, I'm talking about plenty of fallacies all of which I've pointed out. Maybe you should re-read my posts if you need a refresher.

>Nah.
Aha, now we've gotten to the essence of the matter: You don't want to provide an objective proof because you are incapable of providing one. In other words, you are completely full of shit and the only points you can possibly provide are either pulled straight out of your arse or justified with circular reasoning. (Like saying 16:10 is better because it's 16:10, which is effectively what you did with your last post)

tl;dr you are not only incapable of providing a real argument, you are also incapable of understanding you're wrong. If you don't have legitimate mental retardation, then you must be pretending to be retarded (hurr). But based on your incredible strength to resist even accidentally associating yourself with “the popular resolution” (and yes, we BOTH know that this is the only reason you dislike 16:9), I assume you have some form of autism. Go back to your fucking hug box and I hope you suffocate in it.

Reading your posts has probably killed off more brain cells than you have in total. Your reasoning is about as solid as that of a single-cell cro-magnon with shit for brains. Your lack of understanding of this entire subject is so appalling that I'm genuinely confused as to how you accidentally managed to use a computer for long enough to find your way on /g/. Either way, please fuck off, holy shit.

>>55838594
nevermind I figured it out

>>55838594
Nice, how much do you earn per day from them?

>>55838594
I modified mine to do initial transfers at start as well as on the go. You set a CP/IV cutoff with either "and" "or" and it will clear your inventory on startup. Sounds like the one you use lacks that which is why your bags fill up. Try the master branch or even the dev branch. Customize if necessary.

https://github.com/PokemonGoF/PokemonGo-Bot

>>55838677
I don't make any money if that's what you're asking. I kind of am doing it to make people at work think I actually did something on my vacation.
>wow Jordan you got a lot of pokemon, more than me!
>>55838685
The config file just changed, it was stored in a different place I think and it was wanting to keep 120 pokeballs when I kept it much less before

>>55838558
>There's nothing objective about human preference, unless of course you perform a controlled study to ascertain it. (To which I'm still waiting for a link)
And you'll keep waiting for a link. I'm not going to spoonfeed a sack of shit.
>If you think vertical resolution is so important, why aren't you using your display in portrait mode?
Too narrow. You're acting like I'd love a 1x1000000 display, but it'd be pants on head retarded and we both know it.
>Also, you're cherry-picking examples.
Nope
>For example, many programs have toolbars, menus, property lists etc. at the left and right instead of the top and bottom
Well sure, but more have them at the top and bottom.
>You might as well use the exact same argument to justify using 17:9 for those programs
Disgusting
>Okay, and where is the objective (i.e. scientific - based on measurements, inherent truths, indisputable facts, and objective reasoning) proof for this?
The golden ratio.
>Why is 16:10 pixels a better ratio than 16:9 or 17:9?
It's as wide as it can get without being retarded. You probably think I'm just a 16:10 fanboy, I don't even like 16:10. It's just what I have to settle for since everything's widescreen these days.
>Are you fucking kidding me? The difference is barely 10%
And that 10% is enough to cause disgust.
>it's simply your MASSIVE fucking ego getting in the way
My ego is far from massive and has absolutely nothing to do with this.
>Besides, you cannot possibly tell me that a 2133x1200 monitor is less usable than a 1920x1200 monitor - you LITERALLY have no downside.
What about all the extra useless horizontal pixels?
>Yes, because it doesn't match your own subjective preference. Next time please provide an OBJECTIVE argument.
I've already used objective arguments, you're not fond of those either, so I stopped.

>>55838657
>You mean because this is more convenient for your argument than the alternative?
Nope.
>fallacies
Oh, the nonexistent ones? Gotcha

>>55838734
>I don't make any money if that's what you're asking. I kind of am doing it to make people at work think I actually did something on my vacation.
Holy shit, maximum autism.

>>55838677
20-50k XP without lucky eggs. If you get lucky on the egg incubators and hatching you can hit that sooner and go well above.

>>55838657
>Aha, now we've gotten to the essence of the matter: You don't want to provide an objective proof because you are incapable of providing one
No, we've just been arguing long enough where I no longer give a shit about the point and am now still going because you're still replying.
>Reading your posts has probably killed off more brain cells than you have in total.
Impossible, you only had 5 or 6 to begin with while I've got a fully functional brain. It's alright though anon. If I was missing out on something so great I'd probably make fun of others who have it too. You're like anti-Apple retards, but with braincells instead of computers.
>please fuck off
no u

>>55838734
>The config file just changed, it was stored in a different place

I'd post it as an issue on their github. Nothing will change if someone doesn't mention it.

>>55838826
It's not a problem though, I changed the setting once I saw it

>>55838751
>And you'll keep waiting for a link. I'm not going to spoonfeed a sack of shit.
Hah, nice code for “I don't actually have any links to any legitimate research on this topic”. Burden of proof, faggot. You're the one making a strong claim, you're the one who has to prove it.

>You're acting like I'd love a 1x1000000 display, but it'd be pants on head retarded and we both know it.
I'm trying to apply your own logic to your own claims to produce an absurd result - because this is *literally* how to objectively disprove a claim. If you claim vertical pixels are more important than horizontal pixels (with no other condition on that statement) then the logical conclusion would be that a 1x1000000 display would be the best of all. Which it clearly isn't, therefore your assumption is clearly wrong. This is what's called a proof by contradiction, and it's an element of BASIC LOGIC which you seem to fail to grasp.

Also notice how you're using subjective wording again despite me asking you for objective proof (for the billionth time).

>Well sure, but more have them at the top and bottom.
[citation needed]

Please do a case study of programs used in practice and compare the ratio of screen consumed by horizontal interface elements versus vertical interface elements if you're going to make an otherwise baseless claim like that.

>The golden ratio.
Oh wow, 16:10 is better than 16:9 because it more closely approximates 1 plus the square root of 5 over 2. Show's fucking over guys, we can all go home - there's no way this level of sheer mathematical beauty could POSSIBLY be refuted in any way under the sun, right?

Go fuck right off. Know what 16:9 is closer to than 16:10? 2 plus the square root of 11 over 3. In fact, it's even closer to that then 1.6 is to phi. Does this make 16:9 somehow better than 16:10? No, of course not. Because “it's closer to some arbitrary mathematical expression” is not a proof of superiority.

>>55838751
>It's as wide as it can get without being retarded. You probably think I'm just a 16:10 fanboy, I don't even like 16:10. It's just what I have to settle for since everything's widescreen these days.
Ah, so if you take a 1920x1200 display and add one pixel of horizontal resolution to it, the monitor is somehow only suitable for use by idiots? Even though it has more pixels?

Would you not argue that a 2800x1200 display has objectively more working area than a 1920x1200 display (with the same PPI)? Is more working area now somehow supposed to be a bad thing?

>What about all the extra useless horizontal pixels?
Wait - now you're saying that extra pixels are *USELESS*. Like, not even bad, but completely useless? Decreasing your horizontal working area has ZERO downside to you? On what basis?! This level of incredibility I cannot possibly even begin to argue against, it exceeds even my suspension of disbelief.

>>55838889
>Hah, nice code for “I don't actually have any links to any legitimate research on this topic”
Well I'd have to search for them to get some, you're as capable of that as I am.
>I'm trying to apply your own logic to your own claims to produce an absurd result
And you're doing an extremely poor job.
>Also notice how you're using subjective wording again despite me asking you for objective proof (for the billionth time).
See >>55838799
>No, we've just been arguing long enough where I no longer give a shit about the point and am now still going because you're still replying.

>[citation needed]
Nah
>Oh wow, 16:10 is better than 16:9 because it more closely approximates 1 plus the square root of 5 over 2. Show's fucking over guys, we can all go home - there's no way this level of sheer mathematical beauty could POSSIBLY be refuted in any way under the sun, right?
Damned straight.
>Go fuck right off
no u
>Know what 16:9 is closer to than 16:10? 2 plus the square root of 11 over 3. In fact, it's even closer to that then 1.6 is to phi
Well sure, but 2 + (sqrt(11) / 3) is irrelevant. The golden ratio is everything.
>Ah, so if you take a 1920x1200 display and add one pixel of horizontal resolution to it, the monitor is somehow only suitable for use by idiots?
Nah, it's close enough where the difference is negligible.
>Wait - now you're saying that extra pixels are *USELESS*
Yeah, extra horizontal pixels are good for nothing. Sure you can find a use for them, but that doesn't make them okay.

>>55838769
I mean money

>>55838751
>I've already used objective arguments, you're not fond of those either, so I stopped.
Please link to them. I've been following this discussion from the beginning and have not found a single objective argument for preferring 16:10 over an equivalent 16:9 that did not rely on bending the definition of “equivalent” far enough to validate the claim.

>>55838966
Last few lines were for >>55838942

>>55838966
>Well I'd have to search for them to get some, you're as capable of that as I am.
Yes, but it's not my job to do so. You're the 16:10 salesman trying to justify why it's superior than 16:9 to the point where you find 16:10 “disgusting” and “unusable”. This is about as absurd a claim as saying there is an invisible flying spaghetti monster in the sky.

The burden of proof is on those making outlandish claims. Noli aliquid praesumere.

>And you're doing an extremely poor job.
Extremely poor assumptions (yours) lead to extremely poor reasoning, yes. But logic is a harsh mistress, and its application is indisputable. If your assumptions lead to absurd outcomes, the only possibility is that the assumptions are wrong.

>The golden ratio is everything.
Sure, just like god, jesus and the holy ghost. Can't argue against that, right? A religious claim is that which is impossible to justify using logic. Just like yours.

>>55839108
>it's not my job
It's not mine either, I'm just some guy on /g/, I don't get paid for any of this.
>Sure, just like god, jesus and the holy ghost.
No, those are just fairytale characters. I'm talking about real life, anon.

>>55838026
My math background makes me just want to simplify ratios. Also since 8:5 is commonly accepted as interchangeable with 16:10 I use 8:5 instead.

>>55839153
“I don't get paid” is no justification for refusing to back up your outlandish claims.

>>55839271
I've already backed them up, you didn't like that. It's not my fault. If you want more evidence you're free to find it.

>>55839271
>>55839289
>>55838966
You're right, I'm just as capable of searching for objective sources, which I'm going to do now to prove just how outlandish your claims are.

The first really relevant result I found via google was this: http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/~ravin/papers/chi2009_largedisplay.pdf

It's interesting in particular because the participants had almost absolute freedom in deciding how to size their windows (on an effectively unlimited workspace), so the exact window size used is indicative of the user's preference. While the article itself doesn't seem to analyze the actual aspect ratio much (apart from providing a mouse usage frequency heat map that seems to indicate users prefer wider working environments over taller ones), there is an actual screenshot of a user's working session provided. We can analyze the aspect ratios of the (freely sized) windows in this screenshot, giving me:

1.670487106017192 (main work window, spreadsheet)
2.1600000000000000 (browser)
1.4819277108433735 (browser)
1.6291390728476822 (mail client)
1.2914285714285714 (file browser)
1.3759398496240602 (todo list)
0.7333333333333333 (chat window)
0.8846153846153846 (document)

(For reference, 16:9 is 1.777777777 and 16:10 is 1.6)

In summary: Not only is there a lack of a significant preference for any particular aspect ratio (indeed, the user preferred a portrait mode window for documents or chatting), but the main work window (which, being a spreadsheet, has little inherent preference towards any particular aspect ratio) was pretty much right between 16:9 and 16:10 (and the difference towards either was almost surely within the margin of error).

Based on this screenshot alone I cannot possibly draw any conclusive evidence for a systematic preference towards 16:10 and away from 16:9.

Also, going by the heatmap provided, I fitted an ellipse to the approximate shape of the distribution of overall clicks and it turned out to be almost *exactly* 16:9.

>>55839569
Neat

>>55839569
To summarize: There's no evidence here for any systematic bias towards 16:10. If we want to establish such a claim, we would need to analyze much, much more data, and probably do it in a case study specifically designed to answer this question and nothing else.

I was unable to find a case study specifically geared towards this question, so based on the evidence I have seen I cannot find anything supporting a systematic preference towards 16:10.

tl;dr you're full of shit

>>55834553
none of which that 1:1 display offers

>>55835451
>all this fart-sniffing

Shit, This is pretty good. Do you dine at Noma?

File: 1450586839939.gif (3MB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x333px

>>55833026
>unironically using nonstandard shit

File: 1446679615011.gif (1MB, 512x336px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 512x336px

>>55840637
>everything but 16:9 is nonstandard

This thread is why we need post ids, all this samefagging.

>>55833746
Wrong. You can buy new 10.1" and a 12.1" 16:10 laptops from Panasonic. All of you whiners need to put your money where your mouth is.

File: 1468903103634.jpg (197KB, 1200x720px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1200x720px

16:10 scales better between 16:9 and 4:3 for the animus, it's that simple.

>>55835451
Do none of you recognize this pasta?

>>55841474
Personally, I realized it was a pasta but didn't recognize the source.

>>55833714
Lol no. Serious work 4:3, 3:2, 1:1 or 16:9 + 16:10 portrait. Media consumption 21:9 or 16:9.

>>55841423
this desu senpai

What makes 16:10 better than 16:9? How is 1821x1138 better than 1920x1080?

File: m_img_21944.jpg (98KB, 740x493px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 740x493px

What do you guys think about curved monitors?

>>55844497
meme

best 16:10 monitors to get right now?

>>55833026
I was using a 4:3 monitor until recently and I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised with my new 16:9.

I would have liked a 16:10 better but I'm very glad I didn't spend the extra money because it wouldn't have been worth it.

>>55844497
Only useful for TN shitters with their bad viewing angles

>>55842825
No justification, they just want to be special

>>55846856
Depends on your definition of best, your budget, and what you want to focus on.

Personally I would wait for OLED monitors to become affordable before buying any more into the LCD tech, but assuming you don't want to do that / can't afford that, I would get something from the Eizo ColorEdge series (depending on your budget).

If even that is too expensive for you, I would get a Dell U2413 or something.

Finally, if you can't afford even that, I would kill yourself.

4:3 >>>>>>>>> 16:9 = 16:10

>>55847409
>16:9 = 16:10
Full retard

>>55837433
This is not true at all. At least where I live. The cheapest 2560x1440 panel was twice as expensive as the 1920x1200 I ended up going with.

If anything, the 16:10 screens are a bargain as they begin to be phased out.

I'll probably order 2560x1600
I don't go out drinking anyway so I might just as well treat myself with a respectable aspect ratio