16:10 or 16:9?

>>58860209
4:3

>>58860209
16:10 is very, very welcome at 24" and below. At 27" and at least 2560x1440 16:9 is just fine too, you have a lot of vertical pixels anyway so it doesn't feel cramped like the lower 16:9 resolutions.

>>58860209
>16:10
>Not 8:5
shiggydoodiggy

Good luck finding anything above 1080p60 in 16:10

3:2 is best ratio though.

>>58860209
I would say 16:10. Why 16:9 is the standard is beyond me.

>>58860209
16:10, it lets 4:3 stretching look less abnormal.
t. 16:9 user.

>>58860251
Not displaying content in its normal aspect ratio is underdweller tier anyway.

>>58860209
21:9 vertically is the patrician setup

File: 1462961946394.jpg (107KB, 702x810px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 702x810px

>>58860209
16:10 is the closest to a literal GOD-TIER GOLDEN RATIO dimensions.

That's why 16:10 screens look so damn good and so damn pleasing to the brain.

16:9 just looks like something's a bit off. Whoever came up with that shit resolution should be made suffer till the day they die.

>>58860247
basically panel manufacturers forced it so they could jew manufacturers an inch at a time.
lots of tech companies pushed for 16:10

16:10 or 3:2?

>>58860265
I know

>>58860272
Truly this tbqh famiglia, nothing like a wide ass screen and another one vertical for reading.

16:10 imo
Wouldn't say no to a 16:9, but if I'm paying I'm picking 16:10 over 16:9 every time.

5:4
take nothing less

>>58860209
21:9 or nothing

File: imagesCAX1SX4V.jpg (5KB, 200x193px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x193px

>>58860209
4:3

>>58860242
It's referred to as 16:10 for easy comparison to 16:9.
>autism

For a tablet should I get a 16:10 or 3:2 screen for reading?

>>58860242
2560x1600@ 30"

its nice

>>58860614
16:9 is what I like for tablets

>>58860233
best post
would love that 1920x1920 eizo monitor though. sadly 999 burgers in my country.

>>58860209
16:9 monitors are dear to the unimaginative peasant-burgher whilst
16:10 monitors appeal to the sensitive poet-aristocrat-philosopher. This will be clear in a moment when we reflect on the matter of association.

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

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

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

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

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

>>58860209
16:10 is a meme.

>>58860726
Is this pasta or did you actually type all that

>>58860907
Pasta based on H.P. Lovecraft's essay on cats and dogs.
http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/essays/cd.aspx

Two 16:10 here. I've been 16:10 since 2005 or so or whenever the Dell 2405FPW released.

>>58860907
>being this new

21:9 master race

maximum productivity

>>58860372
>>58860242
Those actually exist?!?

File: MacBook Pro.jpg (307KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 2000x2000px

>>58860242

>Good luck finding anything above 1080p60 in 16:10

Have you heard of this computer called the 'MacBook Pro'? Is everyone here this fucking dumb?

File: 1340469192534.png (97KB, 1440x851px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1440x851px

>>58860976
>Is everyone here this fucking dumb?
Average IQ on /g/ is 63 and average age 14

>>58860213
Stretched

>>58860530
>>58860213
>>58860251
>>58860530
GB2/vr/

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

94KB, 800x800px

1:1 is best but I'm too poor to afford $1000 monitors

>>58860943
>I have no active dislike for dogs, any more than I have for monkeys, human beings, negroes, cows, sheep
Kek

>>58861003
multireply fags are the worst.

>>58861018
Lovecraft writes so ingeniously beautiful texts that most people let his racism slide.

File: who me, rage.png (28KB, 291x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 291x300px

>>58861006
Dafuq?!? Now, for a CRT screen that would actually make some sort of sense!

>>58860209
21:9.

File: square science.png (216KB, 1024x658px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1024x658px

>>58861092
Why would it make less sense in LCD form?

16:6.

24:9

Don't settle for halfbaked compromises

/thread

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

115KB, 900x660px

Cinema Ready laptops when?

>>58860209
Both. At the same time.

>>58861006
>not using an ex FAA air traffic control Barco 20" 2048x2048 CRT

>>58861115
With LCD, people are free to have whatever ratio they want. Like 16:9, 21:9, 2.35:1, 1.85:1m, and further along that line.

With CRTs, the diagonal is a hinderance, hence it only makes sense to use squarer resolutions like 5:4. Though I'd say you do have to respect modern expressive trends, so make it 16:13. That's a decent minimum.

>>58861214
>With LCD, people are free to have whatever ratio they want.
Yes and 1:1 is objectively the closest to the human near-peripheral field of vision.

File: playing-diablo-3-on-dual-monitors.jpg (170KB, 968x535px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 968x535px

>>58860975
yes and it's comfy af son

16:10

>>58861333
But those are 4:3, not 3:2.

Two 16:10s

16:10 desu. Its almost as good as 4:3

>>58861151
Where's the full sized keyboard? It's got plenty of room for one. And that would still not be enough, so it should have an extra trackpad or something. Better include 3 trackpads, to make it ... uhh ... ummm ... ready for multiplayer gaming, yeah!

>>58861333
Looks horrible, kill you're self

>>58860539
so sd ratio is 16:12?

>>58860209
21:9

File: water.png (353KB, 671x692px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 671x692px

>2560x1440
>$200-$400
>2560x1600
>$900+
jews.......

>>58860209

16:10

Moves most of that cancerous corner notations that would usually be all over your videos to the black border. Also pop up video controls don't interfere with subtitles and stuff along the bottom corner.

For gaming and reading it's nice to have a litte more vertical space to work with.

I hope the 4k equivalent comes soon.

File: 1610.png (273KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 2560x1600px

16:10

>>58861223
>

>>58860213
this

File: Cover_road.jpg (171KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1024x683px

>>58860209
21:9

16:10. Too bad it's not very popular.

>>58865848
Yes it's a damn shame. This anon >>58860242 however is correct unfortunately. I had to replace one 16:10 monitor and my only option was a 1080p 60 panel that wasn't absurdly priced.

i have a core2 duo laptop with 16:10 1440 by 900 and it's the best resolution

the newer laptop is 16:9 1600x900 and is just fucking wrong despite the extra pixels

my desktop monitor is 16:9 as well because it was the cheapest one after my 4:3 blew out

not much of a resolution fag, I just don't get the widescreen thing, I like my windows to be a little bit squarer than that

OH WELL only a complete faggot would care

>>58860209
1:1