Who would win?

The fpbp

As someone who owns a 16:9 i wanna say 16:10

>>59021986
For the same diagonal, the 4:3 will win on area.
TV was originally 4:3.
There's no equivalent of Cinerama in monitors as far as I know.

If I could have a very large monitor (>32") I'd choose 16:10. I could deal with black bars in games and videos if it meant better FOV.

3:2

>>59021986
doesn't matter
you have to memorize the track to win

The 4:5 would win.

Thanks OP, reinstalling TrackMania

>>59022072
As someone new to TrackMania, which one should I install?

>>59022022
>Cinerama in monitors

There's curved ultrawides already but they're still not as wide as full cinerama was.

4:3 because vertical space is more important to me.

>>59022095
Nations Forever it's free on steam, start there.
I personally love TrackMania United Forever

>>59022095
Not that guy but Stadium and join a fullspeed server.

>>59021986

16:9 literally has more FOV than those other aspect ratios

looks like 16:9 is 0.05 seconds ahead

>>59021986
3:2

>>59021986
10:16

Comparisons like that are silly. Games will either lock the vertical fov—which would mean that a taller monitor would have a lower horizontal fov—or lock the horizontal fov—meaning wider monitors get less vertical fov. Which happens depends on the game. I'd rather 16:10 personally because it's nicer when rotated to portrait mode. However there are some games I love which simply will not run in anything other than 16:9 or 9:16.

>>59022245
How annoying do you find the letterboxing in those games? Does one just forget about it after a while?

>>59022450
you never notice them unless you have autism

>>59022450
I've never found letterboxing annoying. I'm more annoyed when people choose to distort or cut off content to fit their display.

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

45KB, 672x392px

>>59021986
http://www.eizo.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/

File: 1462089498128.jpg (54KB, 600x315px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x315px

>>59021986
16:10 is the only true GOD-TIER aspect ratio. Everything else is shit and just doesn't look good.

File: Surface.jpg (99KB, 1083x609px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1083x609px

>>59022046
>>59022203

>>59022022
>muh diagonal
Never understood this argument. That's about as convincing as saying "for the same vertical, 16:9 will win on area".

The one with the higher refresh rate

I'm just going to say it. Trackmania Turbo is way better.

post some 16:10 papes

File: a.jpg (201KB, 1759x596px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1759x596px

>>59021986
It depends entirely on how you render the game.

>>59024148
Dude... Turbo is to Trackmania what Episode 1 is to Star Wars

21:9

File: wojak.png (18KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 633x758px

>>59021986
>4:3 is dead

1:1 always

>>59025818
fucking this

>>59021986
16:10. 16:9 a shit. 4:3 is deprecated

your car's windshield is closest to 16:10 so 16:10 is the winner

>>59026323
1920x1200 includes perfect scaling at 1600x1200

>tfw TV ruined 16:10 by making 16:9 the standard

>>59026555
Nigger what fucking bus do you drive? Mine is certainly 16x9 if not thinner.

Whoever is the best at TrackMania.

Refurbished BenQ XL2411Z 24" LED Gaming Monitor, 1 Year Warranty - Includes 1 Dead Pixel

>1 Dead Pixel

what does this mean and will it effect me much for gayming?

I love 16:10 but still less popular
4:3 is also nice but hardly around it seems
Haven't got to try 3:2 yet, make more stuff

File: 16x9_Fucking_Sucks.jpg (681KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

681KB, 1680x1050px

1680x1050 16:10 display here I'm using, my fave aspect ratio forever. Humans see wider than taller so, 4:3 is nice for the vertical but too limited on the horizontal whereas 16:9 is too narrow on the vertical.

16:10 is damned near perfection, seriously.

Also, this.

>>59028189

There's a big difference between dead (it'll be black and not functional) and stuck (which means it'll almost always be pure white) pixels. Ask the seller to clarify what the actual state of the one defective/non-functional pixel happens to be.

If it's dead you can live with it, if it's stuck well, on a pure black background it could be something you go all fucking OCD on and can't tolerate it.

Personally most pixels are so small on today's high resolution displays that unless there's a large clump of them, like 25+ or more, in a very tight grouping you're not likely to ever notice it unless you're running some solid color backgrounds and purposely hunting for it.

If the price on the monitor is good then I'd say grab it regardless of whether it's a dead or stuck pixel.

>>59028189
it'll be annoying but won't make any difference

Lions win at night.

>>59021986
16:10 is best. No point in arguing in terms of games though, because sane games would allow configurable FOV.

>>59022007
?

>>59029420
this

i never understood why 16:9 was even a thing, 16:10 should have been de-facto and then i wouldn't have to part with my shekels to get a superior display because the market is backwards

>>59022566
>G that looks cool
>that price

I feel like I could buy a 4k monitor for less and still end up with more screen real estate.

As a 16:9 and 16:10 owner:

16:10 is good for secondary screen. But the main things u focus on is better on a 16:9, except for programming

>>59021986
4:3 and 5:4 are best for desktops, 4:3 is best for laptops.

>>59030064
>As a 16:9 and 16:10 owner:
fellow brother here, 16:10 is perfect for secondary screen when the primary is 16:9

i am biased because the 16:10 is a cheap hp tn panel while the 16:9 is a 144hz dell. i have actually always prefered 16:10 as it gives me more space to look at what's above and below the middle of the screen, but i guess that if i was using a 1440p 27' i'd have way more space than the 16:10 anyways. 16:9 is generally lacking in vertical lines tho, this is irrefutable

>>59022140
So many hours making custom cars and skins for TMUF. Oh, my wasted youth.

File: product_photo_01a.png (132KB, 597x341px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 597x341px

godtier 1:1

>>59030747
1:1 is a pretty neat aspect ratio but I don't know if I'd want it on the desktop

>>59021986
21:9 ofc

retards

>>59030747
God that just looks awful

>>59030771
*9:21
Or are you not a programmer?

>>59030794
it's the only display you can set diagonally though

File: ScreenShot01.jpg (575KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 1680x1050px

>>59021986
God i loved TMN

>>59031626
Giocavi a TMNF?

>>59021986
9:5

ala care nu e roman prost

File: trackmanianations_PadaniaLibera1.jpg (76KB, 754x326px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 754x326px

>>59033485
In 2006, with an AthlonXP 3000+, it was the last game i played on that thing before it got retired,

>>59021986
21:9

>>59021986
16:10 user (U3011), but I'd go for the fourth option actually if the available displays support your requirements - 21:9.
Once 38" models with Adobe RGB support and Freesync are available I'm sold.

Games don't take advantage of "taller" resolutions though. If going from 4:3 to 16:9 the only change would be left to right perspective.

>>59021986
21:9 of course

>>59022150
nigga what? It has the same horizontal resolution as 16:10, just less vertical space. It's the hardware equivalent of adding black bars to your widescreen movie on a fullscreen TV

>>59035730
Why 21:9? To me, that seems like taking the worst part of 16:9 (the fucking downs-syndrome wide rectangle) and making it worse. What makes it actually good? I'm totally open to changing my opinion if there's a good reason I haven't heard yet.

>>59021986
>Trackmania

The feels

>>59036706
You would think that games would give you the 16:9 image + vertical, but it's usually 16:9 with the sides cropped.

>>59022022
For the same area 16:9 wins on diagonal.

>>59036827
And is shittier

>>59036809
True and for good reasons.

Vertical FOV should always be the same because there is no point in showing more sky and chopping off the horizon would be terrible.

With vertical FOV fixed, horizontal FOV must depend on the aspect ratio - the wider the more FOV you get.

>>59036919
Not debating its truth, but why is fixing vertical FOV a "good reason"? Is there something wrong with showing more sky? On non-racing games (especially first-person stuff), a bigger vertical FOV is definitely useful.

>>59037053
>Is there something wrong with showing more sky?

It's just a waste of resources.

>On non-racing games (especially first-person stuff), a bigger vertical FOV is definitely useful.

how?

File: snapshot_15.09_[2016.07.29_02.43.43].png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>59021986
16:9 because anime supports it

>>59037226
fuck you isac

>>59028389
A 16:9 display when compared properly to a 16:10 will be scaled to the sides, aka no black bars on the sides, thats a misrepresentation there. Assuming the monitor has a sufficient resolution, the fov it takes up is the prime measurement of usable space. A larger 16:9 monitor will have more screen space vertically and horizontally than a smaller 16:10.

>>59037203
>It's just a waste of resources
How so? Rendering some sky doesn't require showing more objects or (hopefully) polygons than rendering a larger sky. And, if there are more objects than just sky in the "sky", then shouldn't rendering them be useful?

Also, on a first-person shooter, for example, a larger sky means that you can see objects that are higher up. I don't know how much video game discussion is really relevant here, but I can name a couple first-person shooters where you definitely need to watch the sky for threats.

Do they make high resolution IPS 4:3 monitors?
My camera had the same ratio of sensor and I want to full bleed my images on a crisp, accurate screen. Probably flanked by one or two smaller 16:9 verticals.

>>59037431
>he fell for the four turds meme

>>59028389
A 16:9 display when compared properly to a 16:10 will be scaled to the sides, aka no black bars on the sides, thats a misrepresentation there. Assuming the monitor has a sufficient resolution, the fov it takes up is the prime measurement of usable space. A larger 16:9 monitor will have more screen space vertically and horizontally than a smaller 16:10.

>>59021986
5:4

>>59037507
I don't need the fake quality of a full frame digi. I already use 6x7 and 4x5. MFT is the sweet spot for a web quality camera.

File: cdc3cdb2_vbattach180103.jpg (20KB, 800x456px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 800x456px

>>59037518
>A larger monitor has more space than a smaller monitor

Damn, who would have guessed.

If you're a reasonable person, you'll compare monitors based on their advertised width, and then look at the pic to realize that the 16:10 monitor always wins.

>>59021986
16:9 because he starts 0.05 sec sooner

>all these /v/edditors ITT recommending 16:9
fucking revolting, go back to your containment zone

>>59037565
>compare monitors based on their advertised width

Why?

Who not compare monitors in similar price brackets?
Or screens of laptops that can fit similar sized bags? (hint: more rectangular is usually better)

The fuck is an "inch" anyways?

>>59037565
Or you buy based on price/performance because they're not all the same price, then realize that 16:9 is cheaper (on average) due to a higher supply/demand.

>>59037831
>The fuck is an "inch" anyways?
An inch (abbreviation: in or ″) is a unit of length in the imperial and United States customary systems of measurement now formally equal to 1⁄36 yard but usually understood as 1⁄12 of a foot.

>>59037831
Are you just playing dumb or do you really not learn about imperial units in school?

>>59037877
I think he may be making a joke about metrics superiority, I can't quite tell though.

>>59037851
>yard
>foot.

You're making this shit up.

It's 2017, nobody measures things with their feet anymore.

>>59037908
Yeah, he's just being stupid

>>59037909
>>yard
The yard (abbreviation: yd) is an English unit of length, in both the British imperial and US customary systems of measurement, that comprises 3 feet or 36 inches. It is by international agreement in 1959 standardized as exactly 0.9144 meters
>>foot.
A foot (pl. feet; abbreviation: ft; symbol: ′, the prime symbol) is a unit of length in the imperial and US customary systems of measurement. Since 1959, both units have been defined by international agreement as equivalent to 0.3048 meters exactly. In both systems, the foot comprises 12 inches and three feet compose a yard.

>>59037908
No, I was implying that screen diagonal is a retarded and irrelevant figure expressed in a retarded unit.

I only look at screen width and height, which usually gets expressed in mm.

That feel when always used 1920x1200 on desktop and laptop

That feel when needed new laptop last year and no 16x10 options that werent 100% garbage and have pleb 1920x1080 laptop

>>59037967
>I only look at screen width and height, which usually gets expressed in mm.
Depending on your region. When I see it, it is usually in inches.

Also, go fuck yourself for thinking that you're superior for looking at two different measurements instead of just one.

16:10 always, fuck off with your retarded arguments of
>hurr less FoV on vidya games
>hurr black bars when watching shit
It's still more pleasant to eyes and if you exclusively use your computer for games and media without doing any work, buy a fucking 16:9 TV and a console
Also hating black bars is autism tier, they're black, not fucking rainbow coloured, they don't distract you and can even be useful(you can make subtitles go on the lower black bar, accidentally moving your mouse won't block the movie with the appearing bar

>>59021986
none
all for cucks
5:4 masterrace
if you arent posting on a 5:4 monitor now you should kys

>>59038065
I'd like to point out that in game fov can usually be changed without regards to monitors, and your black bars argument holds, black bars are only shitty on small screens like "muh iphone".

16:9 won

The other 2 are already dead

>>59021986
4:3 is best

Next time I upgrade I'll probably get something in the 30" range and just pillarbox/windowbox it at 4:3 at a native resolution.

I feel like 24" @ 1920x1080 is fairly shitty at 4:3.

>>59037345
That image is arguing (somewhat stupidly) about productivity based on loss of vertical screen space.

Two screens with equal area should theoretically cost approximately the same, since the materials would be approximately equal. A 16:10 monitor with the same total area as a 16:9 monitor will have more vertical. Where the majority of productivity relies on vertical screen space (eg. webpages, documents, text editing, etc are all taller than wide), it is beneficial to have more vertical screen space than horizontal (within reason). This means at a given price point, a 16:10 monitor should have more vertical screen space than a comparable 16:9. This is the same reason why people so frequently use even 16:9 monitors in "portrait" orientation.

Why the image is stupid is because 16:10 and 16:9 are both virtually the same when you are comparing vertical/horizontal screen space. For productivity purposes, 4:3 or 5:4 would both be much better.

420:69

LOL who w/ me??

>>59035550
LOL
I was in the top 3 Veneto's players and in top 20 Italy

>>59021986
16:10
I have two of em

>>59022514
Autists prefer letterbox.

>>59042283
Can you back this claim up?

>>59021986 Curved 34" 21:9.

will more 3:2 be made since 16:10 sadly isn't?

>>59021986
21:9 is THE FUTURE

>>59021986
4:3

>>59021986
I'm partial to 4:3 since I own one, but I'd happily go 16:10. 16:9 is fucking retarded.

>>59022053
This.

The game is more about track memorization than reaction to visual cues.

>>59044811
seems to be

>>59044811
Could see it happening if manufacturers decide to meme it up, which they might because both apple and ms' retardedly expensive aio pc use it

File: sony-vaio-p.jpg (331KB, 1280x896px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1280x896px

>>59044811
>3:2

One can hope.

Either that or we go full retard like pic related. And don't tell me you don't want one of these with modern internals. Because that's a lie.

>>59046525
Don't you fucking tell me what I do and do not want. I would kill for a modern one.

>>59039869
>For productivity purposes, 4:3 or 5:4 would both be much better.

Completely wrong. The whole reason we got rid of those monitors for widescreen ones is because they offer better productivity.

>>59048088
Completely wrong. The whole reason we rid of them for widescreen is because TV shows and movies are widescreen.

>>59037908
>metric
>superiority

Pick one.

>>59048104
It's better for everything but measuring indoor and outdoor temps.

>>59030064
You got that backwards. 16:9 is good for secondary screen to watch videos/streams on so you don't have to worry about black bars while 16:10 is main screen for actual work/gaeming.