16:10 is the only God-tier resolution

>>56252318
>19:9 is retard-tier.
You got that right. Go tell 'em!

>>56252318
>16:10 is the only God-tier resolution
>resolution
It's an aspect ratio, idiot.

>>56252331
You know it's true. It's only popular because some movies come in that resolution. It looks like shit on eyes.

That's why every good IPS 24" 16:10 monitor is over $300.

>>56252318

>1610
>Resolution

>19:9

Probably shouldn't be calling anything retarded.

>>56252367
uh oh, I made a mistake. like that invalidates my argument.

fact is that 16:10 is the best aspect ratio that you can have.

File: microwave time.png (582KB, 939x1163px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 939x1163px

>>56252318
5:4 you giant pleb.

>>56252318
God tier:
>21:9 aspect ratio
>3440x1440 resolution
>34" IPS panel

>>56252519
>things that are shit tier

>>56252519
>34"
way too big.

>get 4k monitor
>no longer falls for the 16:10 meme

>>56252573
>>get 4k monitor
almost all of them suck :( way too slow.

File: 1456806584310.gif (2MB, 209x213px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 209x213px

>>56252531
>>56252533

>being poor and acting like you really enjoy a 23",16:9, 1920x1080, TN panel

>>56252605
>16:9, 1920x1080, TN panel
I prefer 16:10 fyi

File: 1470587204050.jpg (39KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 360x360px

>>56252605
>tfw 21.5" 1920x1200 S-PVA

>>56252484
5:4 and 3:4 masterrace

>>56252651
>3:4
>masterrace
pick one.

>>56252684
3:4 is superior to 16:9 for reading and working. Consume your media on the couch.

>>56252351
>every good IPS 24" 16:10 monitor is over $300.
Huh? Even in Canada that's not true.
In fact, you can get them at a pretty steep discount since retailers are phasing them out.

File: 1280x1024.Ubuntu16.04..png (193KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1280x1024px

>>56253291
Wait till you try 5:4. 3:4 is pretty much when I have to add the wide screen with me. (basic 1366x768 while the 3:4 is set to 1024x768)

>>56253371
None of those panels are actually any good either. 8ms latency, light bleed, 60Hz refresh rate.

Yuck.

>>56252318
I prefer 8:5

>>56253417
I don't know what to tell you; you're objectively wrong on all counts except 60Hz.
And if you need 60Hz, why are you considering a 16:10 monitor? Video games are designed with 16:9 in mind.

>>56253587
Who said anything about games?
My dark like my soul desktop looks like shit on IPS with the light bleed and 60Hz is a joke.

File: 1464856302462.png (20KB, 341x372px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 341x372px

>>56252318
You mean 16:9, right?

>>56252318
10:16 is where it's at.

>>56252318
21:9 confirmed objectively master race reporting in

File: 1471579747338.jpg (37KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x640px

>>56253371
>In fact, you can get them at a pretty steep discount since retailers are phasing them out.
you're a fucking idiot. all of the pro-tier IPS panels are 16:10. Just look at pro-Dell and pro-HP lines.

16:9 is for retards watching netflix on their shitputer.

16:10 is for professionals getting the shit done.

BestBuy mostly carries low & mid range screens that are mostly 16:9.

Anyone else love 5:4?

>>56252318
Enjoy your black bars in movies and lowered fov in games dumb nig LMAO

I agree that 16:10 is the best but no one sells that shit. Fucking bullshit

>>56252318
1:1 master race. Anything wider is trash.

I mean, we invented windows after all
>>56254588
>gaming
>watching movies

File: witcher3 2016-07-08 13-20-55-min.png (1MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1200px

Shit for games and movies, god tier for everything else. I'm probably going to buy a 1440p monitor and go back to 16:9, though. I don't do much that warrants the extra screen estate other than composing in Sibelius and programming. Not sure if there are any 2560x1600 monitors that are decent and not outrageously expensive but I feel like the jump in resolution would only makes my gripes with 16:10 even worse.

Hopefully all goes well and i get this 16:10 dell monitor i found on ebay locally

I can join the fellow master racers

4:3 is better.

File: Comfy_guy.jpg (41KB, 600x579px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x579px

>>56252318
>2560x1600 monitor
>1680x1050 laptop

Feels gud man.

>>56252318
Keep with times gramps, everything is 9:16 now.

>>56252318
I concur.

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.

You can always buy a bigger screen instead of being autistic about aspect ratio.

>>56254755
this, fuck all you other idiots and the idiots that bought 16:9 or some other stupid shit.

>>56254451
this. 16:9 is for movie watchers.

programming on a 16:9 is fucking hell. 16:10 is so much more natural.

File: 1471582221719.jpg (97KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 800x600px

>>56254797

>>56254881
Movies are 2.35:1 to 2.39:1
Only TV and childish video games are 1.77:1 (16:9)

>>56254697
>16:10 dell monitor
Which model, anon?

>50 pixels of additional height change everything!
I understand 4:3: window title bars, task bars, all of this was designed with that ratio in mind and widescreen still wastes a lot of space on them, but 16:10 fags are fucking retarded.

>>56254902
>TV

yeah, HDTV is the reason why all these new monitors are 16:9. There's like 2 companies that make 90% of LCD panels so when they make small TVs, they also make computer monitors.

But actually working on 16:9 screens is absolute hell because you have so little vertical space and if you split horizontally into two, you don't have enough screen real estate to actually see two documents side-by side.

>>56253414
Okay, you got me. 5:4 looks comfy as fuck

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

52KB, 590x337px

1:1 is best but too expensive

>>56254935
>works with documents
>still haven't rotated his screen

File: 01-24-inch-monitor-screen-size-630.jpg (92KB, 612x383px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 612x383px

> Those 120 extra vertical pixels might not seem like a lot on paper, but our pick’s extra space makes a difference in your daily web browsing, spreadsheet editing, and game playing.

>>56254964
>>56254810

>>56254964
The difference is more noticeable once you have menu bars. Then the relative gain is even more.

1080x1920
only way if you actually want to do work.

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

94KB, 800x800px

>>56254982
>1080x1920
>only way if you actually want to do work.
1920x1920 is better.

>tfw 16:9 gayman monitor, one vertical and one horizontal 16:10 muh productivity monitors
anything 16:9 is retarded on 16:10 so you need both

>>56254810
>You can always buy a bigger screen instead of being autistic about aspect ratio.
Stop being a retard. Bigger monitor doesnt necessarily mean diff aspect ratio.

I've seen 24" & 25" monitors with a 1920x1080 resolution. That's fucking retarded.

File: iD5UKwM.jpg (48KB, 543x960px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 543x960px

>>56254986

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

275KB, 700x467px

>>56255008
Jealousy.

>>56255001
If you need more vertical space buy a bigger monitor. It's that simple.

File: 1274916560855.jpg (48KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 640x480px

>>56254986
>1920x1920

>>56254976
yeah, it's the stupidest combination in the world.
short monitors for watching movies +
every application including browsers having so many fucking bars at the top and bottom of the screen and nothing on the sides.
leading to bullshit like facebook and twitter having content only in the middle third of the screen and gigantic white space on the left and right.

>>56255020
>mechanical keyboard
>trackball
>square monitor
10/10

>>56255043
She's missing Google Glass, otherwise all meme tech is there.

>>56255020
Do I look jealous to you? That stuff is all disgusting.

>>56254973

Or I could just buy a 1440p monitor for the same price.

1440p > 1200p

8:5 is snake oil marketed to morons. just like audiophile crap

>>56255074
Pleb / gamer spotted.
Let me guess, you use a 144 Hz TN monitor and a """gaming mouse""".

>all those memes in support for 16:10
>still haven't mentioned the golden ratio
Slacking off, memesters. 16:9 and 4:3, the rest is meme.

>>56255106
>still haven't mentioned the golden ratio
Wrong. Mentioned here:
>>56254797
>Mona Lisa by Leonardo DaVinci and the Parthenon
Both artworks rely on the Golden Ratio at their core.

>>56252318
>19:9 is fucking retard-tier
I'm sure you know first hand OP

>>56255090
I have a Corsair m65, but I have a 1080p IPS display.

>>56252318
>tfw no 16:10 144hz monitor exists

File: me pretending im a real solider.jpg (138KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 600x399px

>I need 144 Hz 16:9 monitor for my generic run-of-the-mill first person shooter so I can pretend to be a real soldier

>>56255169

What's wrong with a high refresh rate? It;s nice not seeing trails on your cursor.

>>56255169
you know what i like to play pc games and i want to have a better quality monitor. so i am going to make a smart purchase and enjoy myself while i laugh at you using the $7 goodwill monitor that still has the sticker on it

File: advice-dog-542.jpg (37KB, 392x392px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 392x392px

>>56255199
>mfw using a 27 inch 1080p factory calibrated ips monitor that runs at 60hz

>>56255208
try a 144hz monitor
just return it if you dont like it geez

>>56252519
this

>>56252519
This

>>56252318
It's often cheaper to buy two 16:9 displays instead of one 16:10 display

enjoy wasting money

>16:10
>resolution

pick two to be a retard

>>56252318
Human vision is 16:9. There is literally no reason to use anything else.

File: φ.png (10KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 150x150px

>>56252318
>not using 16.1803398875:10

agreed 16:10 is god tier
21:9 is meme
16:9 is meh
4:3 is good but not practical for everything
1:1 is only for specifics

>>56255682
>Human vision is 16:9
[citation needed]

>>56255771
google.com

File: ar.png (24KB, 710x882px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 710x882px

>>56255799
First result for “aspect ratio of human vision”

tl;dr you're full of shit

>>56252605
34" is really big for an average desk and your viewing distance from it.
It's nicer mounted on a wall or something or a really deep desk where it can a little further back.
I was going to get two 34" monitors but I was worried I would feel like I'm sitting way too close to a TV so I got two 29" ones and I'm glad I did.

>>56255035
>anime

You need to be 18 years or older to post on 4chan.

>>56255932
>>>/v/eddit

File: ss (2016-08-25 at 12.35.24).png (24KB, 862x795px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 862x795px

>>56254948
>>56254964

>>56254451
>verticality is all that matters
use the monitor rotated 90 degrees if you're that concerned about it

Honestly, how can you people afford to be pick about aspect ratios when there's usually only like 1 or 2 good monitors meeting your criteria?

If the manufacturers decided to make that monitor 16:9, I'll use 16:9. If they decided to make it 16:10, I'll use 16:10. If they decided to make it 256:135, I'll use 256:135..

Aspect ratio is almost meaningless at the end of the day, what matters is 1. display quality and 2. working area

File: IMG_20160731_211839.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>56252318
>Tfw 3x 1920x1200 IPS twenty-odd inch

>>56252318
2:1 is the only God-tier aspect ratio.
Everything else is retarded.

>>56254442
If you need to do stuff use 21:9 faggot

>>56256933
not √2:1

Has a company made a 16:10 1200p 144hz monitor yet? I don't want to step up to 1440p just yet

I hate using OS X on a 16:9 monitor. If I have to, I move the dock onto the side.

File: Untitled-2.jpg (435KB, 645x798px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 645x798px

>>56252318
>using nonstandard shit

>>56254677
Why is it worse in Gaming, though?

File: 1457451614765.png (129KB, 314x278px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 314x278px

>>56252318
>an aspect ratio is a resolution
what did he mean by this

>>56252318
21:9 is elder god

File: 10353699_701872616549928_1652593750427846183_n.jpg (44KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 720x720px

>>56252605
>having a big shitty screen and pretending like you're better than everyone else
i have 2 23 inch monitors in 1920x1080p. if i wanna see something big i go to my 50 inch 3d tv on the wall. if i wanna watch films i go into my home theatre and watch on my 70 inch 4k.

whos poor now.

File: 1281754215616.jpg (11KB, 281x283px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 281x283px

>>56258294
>1920x1080p

>nonstandard aspect ratios
>god tier
Translation
>I JUST BOUGHT A 16:10 MONITOR AND ALL I GET ARE BLACK BARS I NEED TO MAKE A SHITPOST TO MAKE MYSELF FEEL BETTER

File: 1421139501879.jpg (61KB, 420x599px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 420x599px

>>56258328

File: 10846200_954423514584923_6025581899010261073_n.jpg (49KB, 472x960px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 472x960px

>>56253414
th-that looks nice desu i use one of my 23's side ways, i split it up as two 4:3 screens, im gonna have to try this way.
>>56254797
what does clapping have to do with resolutions?
>>56254935
try putting your screen sideways.....
>>56254951
one upright the other vertical, so nice.
>>56254986
had a 1920x1920 CRT back in the day. loved it.
>>56256402
lmfao its just preference
>>56256920
i used to have three of the screen in the middle, its not 1200... but it is a great panel. i switched to two, 3 was way too much.
>>56258301
>not knowing that you can buy 1920x1080i screens too
>>56258328
feel bad for the /v/iddos who dont know how to resolution.

>>56258328
Vertical space is more important for most things besides movies and games. Look at this page right now. In full screen, the longest posts only go half way across the screen. All that space on the right is wasted. Meanwhile only 6-7 posts of average length fit on the screen vertically. An increase of vertical space is more important.

Same for coding. If you are writing it correctly you will not have many lines that run on for the entire length of the screen. The more lines you can fit vertically the better.

Same for writing in word processors, reading books, ect. Anything with vertical scrolling is greatly improved by having a more square resolution. 16:10 is not the best for this but it is a step in the right direction compared to 16:9.

>>56258508
So the best would be getting a big, fat square monitor

I would take a 4k display over 1920 x 1200 any day. The extra resolution makes the aspect ratio unimportant.

>>56258328
> BLACK BARS
In what, movies? Are you a poorfag and don't have a TV for that?

>>56254943
and it feels comfy.
Best aspect ratio for reading imo.
>still rocking with a 12 year old hyundai I70S

>>56258836
This. I don't want to live without this resolution ever again.

For everyone shitting on 21:9 34" 1440p... You do realise it's like the exact same thing as 27" 16:9 1440p but with added horizontal resolution, right? It's a lot different than just having a 32" or 34" 16:9 screen since it's not retardedly tall for desk usage.

Plus at ~3.5 feet away, everything is perfectly readable without scaling.

File: ThinkPad-T450-CinemaReady.jpg (115KB, 900x660px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 900x660px

>>56259045
>>56255031
>>56254810
>>56256480
Following your crude logic, a 50" monitor with a 99:1 aspect ratio would be just fine.

File: 1471301997290.jpg (8KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x250px

>children with 16:9 monitors
Cute, in a way.

File: 1464330844702.png (271KB, 393x383px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 393x383px

>>56255208
>60hz peasant

why is it 16:10 and not 8:5? baka

File: benhur.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

16:10 sacrifices width. i don't like it.

File: dell-p2416d-overview1.jpg (64KB, 673x386px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 673x386px

This is why 16:10 rules.

>>56259638
yes. 16:10 is the greatest resolution.

>tfw 2560x1600 masterrace

>>56259638
(you)

File: mon.jpg (15KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x480px

>>56259635
if you wanna watch TV/movies, get a fucking 40" TV. Why would you wanna watch TV on your computer?

Problem is that when you're not wasting your life on watching TV/movies, you don't get any use out of those pixels on the side. Vertical resolution becomes a lot more important for reading, writing, browsing and programming.

Pic related is my Dell 27" 16:10 pro monitor. It's the greatest monitor I could afford. Worth every penny.

File: fa8.jpg (54KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x500px

>>56259675
>2560x1600
Yes.

File: tard.jpg (71KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1024x512px

>>56259681
>Vertical resolution becomes a lot more important for reading, writing

>>56252318
21:9 master race reporting in.

>>56252318
none of the ratios are good since tv stations cant fucking decide on which ratio to use.

btw since pixel density is less of concern, expect more retarded ratios to be forced down your throat because companies wants your shekles.

>>56254986
>not 4920x1920

File: 1471574160650.jpg (79KB, 1377x1080px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1377x1080px

>>56259851
>tv stations
>monitor

>>56252519
Might as well get a 40'' 3840x2160 display instead unless you prefer a curved display.

File: 1471570575649.gif (873KB, 346x360px) Image search: [Google]

873KB, 346x360px

Have you guys seen 27" 1920x1080 monitors? Who the fuck buys that shit? That's the stupidest thing ever. Even a 24" at 1920x1080 is fucking baka.

>>56252318
Why is it not called 8:5?

>>56259943
I'll never get the golden ratio meme.
Just drawing the golden ratio squares onto something doesn't make it perfect.
Yeah, the partheon looks nice and all, but why the fuck do you have to explain this with the golden ratio?
In your picture, it doesn't even line up with anything.

File: 1280px-Golden_ratio_line.svg.png (38KB, 1280x740px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1280x740px

The Golden Ratio is just mathematically beautiful.
Its beauty is inherent

File: ws_Golden_Ratio_1920x1080.jpg (400KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 1920x1080px

>>56262350
>>56262234

>>56259494
>Following your crude logic, a 50" monitor with a 99:1 aspect ratio would be just fine.
If a 50" display was made at 99:1 display, it probably wouldn't sell, ergo it would be a financial disaster and therefore monitors would no longer get manufactured at 99:1, hence eliminating itself as a possibility in any hypothetical consideration unless 99:1 was either a good aspect ratio (it isn't) or you're deliberately buying a shitty display (which you never would either way).

Your hypothetical reverse logic won't work on my real world observation because mine is based on the real world and yours is based on fantasy

File: 1458658830795.jpg (12KB, 250x201px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x201px

>>56259681
>Why would you wanna watch TV on your computer?

Why not? What the fuck is your problem?

>>56254902

>Video games
>Having a set aspect ratio

Are you retarded?

File: 1443554202696.gif (899KB, 500x371px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 500x371px

>>56261297
I have one
it works

File: lol.png (47KB, 477x477px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 477x477px

>16:9

>>56262434
Believe it or not, many (shitty) games do

>>56258269

He's probably some brain damaged weeb who plays Jap garbage and they are so bad at making games they often lock resolutions to 16:9 only only PC.

File: 1444138311945.gif (811KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 160x160px

>>56261297
I have a 27" 4k monitor, I like it, the resolution works wonderfully with the size, and there's nothing you can do about it.

File: 1425257791917.jpg (22KB, 500x499px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x499px

>mfw I run 27:16

>>56261297
They're for when you're going to be far away from it at all times.

>>56262493
Same for mainstream american AAA crap

File: 1460800972927.jpg (25KB, 552x539px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 552x539px

There's a reason we dropped 4:3. Because it's not W I D E enough.

The important thing with aspect ratios is how W I D E we can make them. Nobody gives a shit about vertical. Case in point: We dropped 4:3.

16:10 should be on top of everyone's "memes that need to die" list.

>>56262652
>16:10 should be on top of everyone's "memes that need to die" list.
That should be Windows desu.
>nearly everyone uses Windows because lots of programs are only on Windows
>all those programs are only on Windows because nearly everyone uses Windows
It's an ouroboros of garbage.

>>56252343
>nowhere in ops post does it say "resolution"

>this faggot cant read

>>56262652
Your post should be on top of everyone's memes to die list FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCKING FAGGOT MUH WIDE-SCREEN IS BETTUR MAYMAY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ASDGHJASDADSASDSDSF

>>56262746
>nowhere in ops post does it say "resolution"
>16:10 is the only God-tier resolution Anonymous 08/24/16(Wed)23:04:01 No.56252318

File: lol.png (21KB, 853x154px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 853x154px

>>56262746
I think it's time to kill yourself

>>56262728
Oh, I get it, this is a thinly veiled Macfag thread.

No hard feelings bruh, even Windows is better than your shit.

File: 1369945427090.png (431KB, 800x733px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 800x733px

>>56262775
>triggered

>>56262794
Hilarious, but OSX is worse. Developers make programs for OSX so people can use OSX. People use OSX because... uhhh.... USE OSX OR YOU WON'T GET LAID. GIRLS LOVE APPLE.

I agree, 16:10 truly is the greatest aspect ratio.

File: Capture2.jpg (64KB, 819x460px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 819x460px

>>56262234
>I'll never get the golden ratio meme.
>Just drawing the golden ratio squares onto something doesn't make it perfect.
You're a fucking baka. Educate yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GkxCIW46to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtIf4ky1XJ8

>>56262234
It's pretty much the technology equivalent of bible codes

>>56264735
>It's pretty much the technology equivalent of bible codes
except golden ratio is all around us (and even in us) and all over the nature as well. bible codes are just fucking bullshit.

even beautiful human faces have golden ratio in them. ugly ppl don't. look it up.

>>56252484
I hate those stupid fucking reddit tier reactions in this type of pic. "Hold me is getting dark" hands have really? Seems like something from tumble

2:1 is the true master race aspect ratio.

File: simpleFrameEngine[1].jpg (41KB, 350x248px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 350x248px

>>56259943
I feel like people don't understand how this ratio works or what makes it appealing.

As an artist, this object is entirely symmetrical, meaning it's not utilizing the ratio at all.

This is a much better example, and things actually get denser in the eye of the curve.

>>56264884
Including the part where bible coders vehemently defend their codes and find it incredulous that others call it bullshit

Arguing that the golden ratio is more natural than other ratios because you can find it everywhere in nature is like arguing that even numbers are more natural than odd numbers because you can find them everywhere in nature

File: 1471578145722.jpg (196KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x720px

>>56264990
>Arguing that the golden ratio is more natural than other ratios because you can find it everywhere in nature is like arguing that even numbers are more natural than odd numbers because you can find them everywhere in nature
What a retarded analogy, anon-kun. No wonder you failed at math. Should have paid closer attention. Now your life is gonna be shit because you suck.

>>56265078
>t. failed maths major
golden ratio occurrence is probably more of an accident relating with the fibonacci sequence (which is naturally generated by a simple process) than anything else

Even more absurd than the claim that the golden ratio is somehow fundamental to nature is the self-assertion that this somehow plays into our sense of aesthetics, probably still going back to that widely held belief among clock photographers..

16:10 is nicer IMO, but since everything has standardized around 16:9 there isn't much benefit to going 16:10.

>but muh vertical space!

If you need vertical space that bad you should be using a portrait mode monitor anyways.

>>56252318
>16:10 is the only God-tier resolution
You seem to be forgetting about 4:3 and 5:4.

>>56266505
>If you need vertical space that bad you should be using a portrait mode monitor anyways.
Not enough horizontal space. I don't know about you but my eyes are side-by-side, not one on top of the other.

>>56266767
then get a 4K display and stop complaining

>>56254442
Pros, at least in video editing, prefer 21:9 so you don't have to be navigating the timeline so much. I mean if you're doing spreadsheets or something then maybe?

>>56266934
Disgusting

>>56256413
>having only 1080 pixel width on a typical display is acceptable

>>56257751
>tfw even apple has abandoned 16:10 displays on its desktops

>>56257751
>using the dock

File: programming[2].jpg (45KB, 672x392px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 672x392px

>>56258773
gotcha covered

>>56259675
this, only thing left is samsung ativ book 9

>>56264966
well to be fair the bible shit is all made up, at least golden ratio shows up in more than just the ancient world's harry potter.

File: 1449776107978.jpg (71KB, 619x363px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 619x363px

>>56267221