>16:10 and 4:3 are fucking ded Fucking why? They were the

>>59881131
the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 is negligible

>>59881265
for you maybe

>>59881131
what's the deal with whiny cunt nerds on /g/ lately? get over it, you fucking faggot. if you were okay with 16:10 but not 16:9 then you need fucking psychiatric help.

>>59881705
I want the redditors to leave

File: Untitled.png (3MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1200px

>>59881265
16:9 can't do this.

>>59881869
win10, jesus...botnet

>>59881882
Did you install a phone OS on your desktop?

>>59881131
I use 1920x1200

anything less is for cucks

File: ss+(2017-04-13+at+08.24.07).png (500KB, 1288x1032px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 1288x1032px

>>59881131
1) Cheaper to produce 16:9 screens these days
2) 99% of all media these days are made for 16:9 since that's the ratio that widescreen tvs use.
That being said, my second screen is a 1280 x 1024p 4:3 second hand DELL that I got for $14 at CEX. I like using it for reading because I couldn't afford one of those fancy portrait monitors years back, and the high resolution has kept me from replacing it since.

My Samsung Chromebook Plus™ doesn't have this problem.

>>59881705
>lately
fuck off newfag

File: 0e1.png (229KB, 500x357px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 500x357px

>not using a 21:9 monitor vertically
boy it sure is fucking pleb in here

>>59881131
It doesn't matter because 1440 vertical pixels are cheap now

>>59882419
define cheap.
also
> 1600p>1440p

>>59882484
For the price of a 24" 16:10 1200p monitor you can get a 27" 16:9 1440p monitor

Also, I've only heard of 30" 16:10 1600p monitors. You can just get a 30" 4k monitor.

My point is pixels are cheap and there's no longer an advantage to getting a 16:10 monitors. Just get a 16:9 monitor with more pixels

Would it be worthwhile picking up one of the refurb 1050p on newegg and using it vertically for reading and shitposting? Main screen is 1440p/144Hz by ANUS.

File: tldr_FUCK_YOU.png (186KB, 433x488px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 433x488px

>>59881131
>16:10 and 4:3 are fucking ded

>tfw shitstation has both
feels good

Macbooks are 16:10, apple wins again

>>59883053
iPads are 4:3. Apple way ahead of its time.

>>59883086

The golden ratio for a tablet

>>59883053
>>59883086
fuck you fags

16:9 needs to die

>>59881131
Yesterday I experienced 16:10 after a long time without ever seeing it. Fuck, that shit is gold, why did 16:9 got popular instead of it?

16:9 monitors make the most sense because most content is 16:9, period.

>>59883509
>Most content

If you only have a computer to watch shit, sell it and buy a tablet.

>>59883509
Most content consumption is web browsing, not video watching. 16:10 and 4:3 are better for web browsing, and sometimes better for video too, because you can have things on the top and bottom of a full screen video.

>>59883560
I also use it to play console ports. :^)

>>59883574
Who wants black bars on your screen when watching a 1080p/4k bluray rip in full screen?

>>59883593
>Who wants black bars on your screen when watching a 1080p/4k bluray rip in full screen?

>modern movies playback in 16:9
2013 wants you back

File: devilish.gif (2MB, 425x481px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 425x481px

>>59883593
>not watching a widescreen dvd on your shit tv, the dvd adding black bars of its own in addition to the black bars your tv likes to include

>>59883509
Only if you watch them exclusively in fullscreen.
Most people don't most of the time, so they'll have some bars like in the screenshot above, and on a 16:10 screen you'd have the video like it would be in fullscreen on an equivalent 16:9, plus the space for the bars with no scaling or forced pillarboxing (which is way worse than having letterboxing when fullscreening a 16:9 video on a 16:10 screen because of the additional pixels.

>>59881131
>Fucking why?
Because chinks.
>>59881869
Stupid gookposter

>>59883618
>Most people don't
Most people are idiots.

>>59881265
The 16:10 is already something awful, faggit.

4:3 is the patricians choice followed by 16:10.
prove me wrong

>>59883631
Well then idiots are those buying those 16:9 screens anyway, so we're not disagreeing here.

>>59883593
Well, on OLED screens or even just screens with good black levels, the black bars aren't distracting at all.

I didn't have someone that loved me to tell me which aspect ratio is best. But mathematically 4:3 is fucking 16:9, how does this change with regard to screen size, lolwut?

>>59883610
>Not watching 21:9 content streamed at 16:9, giving you horizontal black bars, on a phone with a 2:1 aspect ratio, so you have vertical black bars as well
I rented a movie the other day on my LG G6 expecting it to fill most of the screen with small horizontal black bars. But nope, I had to watch it with black bars on both sides with no option to zoom in.

>>59883824
That's fucking shite. Got a screencap? My Tv spergs out and I'm constantly changing the 'zoom' function between watching different movies as many older ones are widescreen and do some dumb shit like that too. Completely horrible. If I watched more I'd get a new screen but alas

samsung's new ARM chromebook has a 12.5 inch 2:3 display and it's cheap
get it

>>59883888
Youtube won't and the play store (where I rented the movie) blocked taking screenshots.

>>59883816
>mathematically 4:3 is fucking 16:9
Please show me how you arrived at this stunning conclusion.

>>59883998
>blocked taking screenshots
Wat

>>59882303
1280x1024 is 5:4 you fucking illiterate. And that's the best aspect ratio, btw. I miss my old 19" LCD.

>>59882303
>>59883509
>99% of all media these days are made for 16:9
Most films I've seen are not in 16:9. e.g. 1:1.78 aspect ratio, so there's black bars even on 16:9.

>>59883816
>But mathematically 4:3 is fucking 16:9
4*3 = 16? Those this is the power of primes under 2 million.

God, someone should make a tv or web series where nerds argue with each other unironically about aspect ratios, gpus, and mechanical keyboards. I bet it would be a big hit!

>>59881131
21:9 is perfect for productivity but you wouldn't know that since you're obviously only concerned with retarded number tossing bullshit.

>>59881131
Dell makes new 16:10 screens

>>59884326
I miss Tech TV

>>59881705
square = 1/1 = 1 optimal screen real estate but subjectively "ugly"
5/4 = 1.25 subtle enough to be aesthetic
11/8.5 = 1.294117647 us paper
4/3 = 1.333 still plenty vertical room for taskbar / titlebar
(7/5 = 1.4) A4 approximation, few monitors of this size
3/2 = 1.5, 35mm film
17/11 = 1.545454545 two sheets of paper
16/10 = 1.6 - phi approximation, most aesthetic ratio
16/9 = 1.777 pigshit, this ratio cant be true widescreen or true phi, so it fucks up horrendously at both. at least now you can have a vertical dock with huge icons
1.85 / 1 plen "film" ratio is fine for movies but doesnt belong on work computers
2/1 = humans have two eyes meme, does look ok
2.39 / 1 = pig disgusting
2.718281828459045 oh shit nigga what are you doing
3.141592654.... stahp

16/10 is balance and harmony, 16/9 is squished and narrow - the difference in ratio is small, but its the straw that breaks the camels back IMO, YMMV

>>59884245
They can do that. I press power + volume down and I just get a message that this applications has blocked that feature.

21:9 two windows side by side is the pinnacle of productivity

>>59881131
>16:10
It's 8:5, nigger.

>>59884621
It's 1.6:1, turbopleb.

>>59884326
yeah, sure
fuck off

>>59881131
>They were the best aspect ratios for productivity.
prove it

>>59881869
do what

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (122KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1920x1080px

>not using a 1:1 monitor
It's like you enjoy being suboptimal

File: c8981dd1d629795b4d74e859c7fd0f57-imagejpeg.jpg (23KB, 691x426px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 691x426px

Buy monitors from asians
Wonder why too squashed

>>59883053
>>59883086

Praise (Tim) KUK

>>59881131
They died because tn panels have shitty vertical view angles which would be even more obvious on taller screens

>>59884537

>yfw Apple are the only company to get aspect ratios right on all products
>4:3 iPad
>16:10 Macs

>>59881131
4:3 serves no purpose now when 3:2 exists, we just need to wait for decent desktop monitors to come out in that resolution

>>59881676
bane?

>>59883509
Or you could, y'know, buy a TV that's actually made for viewing content on and have computer monitors that are made for productivity.

>>59884350
>21:9 is perfect for productivity
now this is some kind of bait

>>59881131
jesus christ /g/, your autism is really showing
>this whole shitshow over fucking screen ratios

>>59884537
>>59885716

/thread

>>59885784
>a lot of horizontal space is "bait"

>>59885757
16:9 monitors are good for being productive. Are you too poor to a afford a screen larger than a few inches or something?

File: golden_ratio.png (1MB, 1768x1395px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1768x1395px

I just want my golden ratio back.

>>59882531
>For the price of a 24" 16:10 1200p monitor you can get a 27" 16:9 1440p monitor

No you can't. Where the fuck did you even pull those numbers from? 24" 1200p dell ultrasharp is $250, 27" 1440p monitors start from around $350 for shit tier ones. 27" 1440p Dell goes for $430. Those are prices straight out from Amazon.
Maybe on sales you can get it cheaper, but base prices are hardly the same.

>>59886689
Ok fine it's a little bit more expensive but you're getting a lot of pixels and screen real estate.

$/pixel, they're almost identical ($250, 1200p and $400, 1440p)

>>59886625
>Using the poorfag argument when the reason for why 16:9 monitors are standard over 16:10 is because 16:9 is cheaper to produce
Uh-huh

All monitor ratios suck when you letterbox them into specific use cases.

>>59886824
I see you avoided answering the question, which is as good as a yes in this case. I rest my case. Moving on.

>>59886824
>Not using any arguments
Uh-huh

>>59886822
470, not 400.
27" 1440p for $1 you get 7800 pixels
24" 1200p for $1 you get 9200 pixels with older ultrasharp (the one with bezels, actually better one) or 8500 pixels with bezel-less one.
I mean, it is comparable but no matter how you look at it your argument of 1200p monitors not being viable in terms of bang for buck is flat out wrong.

>>59881899
did you install a phone home OS on your desktop?

>>59881131
Because it's 2017, the only reason to use a PC is for games

>>59887077
Fair enough. Let's also not forget with 16:9 monitors our animu fits perfectly on the screen

16:10 is closer to golden ratio than 16:9.
16:9 was a mistake

21:9?

I think you mean 64:27

>>59887209
16:9 was introduced because it was cheaper to manufacture.

File: 1469125626027.jpg (246KB, 1000x1400px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1000x1400px

16:9 = kike resolution

>>59883509
This is what justifies 16:10 you retard, it means you don't have to watch 16:9 content in fullscreen.

website design is retarded these days, so the extra vertical space is nice to have
doesn't really matter though above 1200

16:9 could have been fine on PC if monitors were 2133x1200. That way it would be compatible with anything designed to be viewed on a screen up to 1600x1200. The issue with 1080p is it reduced vertical space while calling it an "upgrade." I want a 1440p monitor just so I can pass the magic 1200 vertical pixels.

>>59888686
You never have too, jackass.