BRING BACK >16:10 16:9 IS A FUCKING MEME

>>60109016
16:10 FAGS UNITE
1440x900 here

>>60109239
I used that resolution for years on my thinkpad until I upgraded to a 4k XPS.

4k is a fucking meme man

>>60109272
Was there ever any doubt?

16:10 is a pseudoscience meme.

>>60109016
glorious 3:2 master race, comfy af for browsing and productivity.

43" 4k guys. It's not that 1200p or 1600p is bad, but 2160p is actually a lot better.

File: monitors.png (17KB, 613x342px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 613x342px

I use my 4:3 for movies mostly and my 16:10 for vidya. Very happy with both.

All my monitors are 16:10, 5:4 or 4:3.

>>60109996
That's a 5:4 you dunce

>>60109016
>16:10
don't you mean 8:5 ;^)

File: turned_vsync_off_once.jpg (59KB, 2048x1280px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 2048x1280px

still using an ancient 305t plus

>>60109016
Just bought a 16:10 monitor and it will arrive today, I had 4:3 untill now
I really hope it's not another /g/ meme

>>60109496
Fourth post, best post. There's nothing inherently special about 16:10, just as there's nothing inherently special about 16:9.

16:10 can be turned into 16:9 by adding horizontal pixels and 16:9 can be turned into 16:10 by adding vertical pixels. 16:9 is the dominant monitor ratio because it's the dominant TV ratio.

Are there any IPS, >60Hz, 2k or 4k, 16:10, with freesync monitors out there?

>>60110203
8:5 is the worste meme yet.
16:9 is rather aidsy too
4:3 f GOAT

>>60110300
It's hardly the dominant TV ratio altogether since most movies have black lines on the top and bottom.

File: monitor.png (1MB, 857x1202px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 857x1202px

>ITT: arbitrary bullshit

>>60109016
>>60109239
No wonder you're stuck with 16x10.

Former 24" 16:10 user to moved to 32" 16x9.
Same DPI, just more desktop space in every direction.

>>60110367
>most TV is movies
It really isn't though...

1024x768 here, the god resolution

>>60110515
Pleb tier.
2048x1536 is where it's at.

>I WANT TO BE DIFFERENT!
>I WANT TO BE DIFFERENT!
>I WANT TO BE DIFFERENT!
>I WANT TO BE DIFFERENT!

>>60109016
Nobody is forcing you to use 16:9.

>>60110886
>Nobody is forcing you to use 16:9.
Yes, but it really bothers OP that someone might be using 16:9 and not know that it's WRONG!

File: varg-vikernes.jpg (92KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 500x750px

>w-we need 19:6 for dem movies!

>all movies are either in 1:1,85 flat or 1:1,239 scope (rarely 4:3 academy ratio)

If 16:10 would be the popularnone you faggots would wsnt 16:9, contratard hipsters

File: portrait.jpg (349KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1080x1920px

portrait for shitposting

what a stupid fucken thread

1:1 master race

>>60110984
I think most of them just haven't moved past 2009 issues.
16:10 WAS superior at most monitors were in the ~23" range and a 24" 16:10 had pretty close to the saem horisontal size as a 23" 16:9, but with more vertical resolution - having had both 1200p and 1080p monitors, I can attest that 1200p is far better than 1080p for general use.

But we're not in 2009 any more, you can get monitors in massive sizes now, the idea that you need 16:10 for desktop real estate is deprecated.

I've been using a 1680x1050p monitor for the past week or so at work and honestly it's a fucking abomination but that's most likely because it's only like 22 inches.

I still use my dell wfp thing from 2007, 1920x1200 at 27". I have to sit back at least one meter to not notice the pixels but it is worth it. So much more screen real estate you can't get with 1080p. I had to force my desktop resolution to 1080p in the past few months because of shitty coded nip games and it was fucking horrible, every single program showed so much less and i had to get used to scroll down for every single fucking thing.

Too bad the backlight already gives out and the color is too warm now. I hope i can get something good below a grand.

>>60111102
HP Envy 32"

>>60111114
>>60111102
Actually scrap that, they've renamed it' the HP Omen 32" and it has Freesync now.
I guess that's neato if you have AMD.

>>60109016
Just get a Macbook.

16:10 is better, only reason they switched to making 16:9 was to reduce manufacturing costs.

>>60111161
>>60111155
These are both memes from 2009 though...

Just get a 32" 16x9 and move on anon...

>>60109016
here is how you fix 16:9

was that so hard?

>>60111182
But that's not how it works, you literally have 10% more vertical pixels. Why should that be a meme?

File: windows_vertical_real_estate.jpg (819KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

819KB, 1920x1080px

>>60111198
wow how the fuck did I mess up that so much

>>60110522
this right here
2560x1920 is nice too.

>>60111206
Because get an $30 VESA bracket, mount your monitor in portrait mode and you'll get so much more vertical space, no 16:10 can cover it.

>>60111244
Bullshit 16:10 is ideal for nds emulation in portrait mode. shitty 16:9 gets shrunk because of lacking vertical space. Only integer scaling is where its at.

Also, I'm already mounting my 16:10 27" rig to the wall.

>>60109016
>tfw glorious 16:10 thinkpad

I want 4:3 back

>>60111275
>16:10 thinkpad
not 4:3
faggot

>>60110533
>I WANT TO HAVE LESS PIXELS!
>I WANT TO HAVE LESS PIXELS!
>I WANT TO HAVE LESS PIXELS!
>I WANT TO HAVE LESS PIXELS!

File: LG-34UM95-Ultrawide-Monitor-3-1280x853.jpg (194KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1280x853px

21:9 is the future

>>60111299
>>60111206
I have more pixels though...

32" 4K = more pixels than 0 (ie. the number of pixels in an existing 32" 4K panel)
32" 1440p is also more pixels at roughly the same DPI as 24" 8:5, which is also more than the nonexistent 32" 16x10 panels.

>>60111310
You still see less. Aspect ratio is not about pixels, pajeet.
Also, 32" 16:10 does exist and is even mentioned in this thread.

No
Make all screens 3:2
or better yet 1:1

>>60111477
Are there any 3:2 standalone monitors?
It's not as good as 4:3, but it's a step back in the right direction.

>>60111490
3:2 is actual perfection...
Do you even golden ratio?

>>60109016
Bring back 1:1

>>60111508
1:1 never existed historically, it's only existed as of very recently with Eizo's meme monitor.

>>60111306
>tfw 21:9 has more vertical space than 16:9
Feels a bit good man.

>>60111490
nah, you want a slightly large space horizontally for multiple windows

>>60111552
I use multiple windows without any issue on a 1600x1200 monitor.

>>60111667
you'll see why 3:2 is superior when you do some work on the computer

>>60111716
I'm not sure if you implying that I don't do work on my computer or that I haven't tried working on a 3:2 monitor, which is true.

4:3 is much nicer for working with text than any wide-screen format I've tried, be it 16:9 or 8:5.

>>60109016
Isn't that just 8:5?

>>60111306
21:9. all that horizontal screen space and still they have the dock on the bottom wasting what little vertical space there is...

>>60111904
the latter, on 4:3 monitors the windows and text gets squishy and doesnt make 80 characters, that's why I prefer 3:2

>>60111923

Yes. It's also 32:20.

>>60112362
>not 6400:4000
full pleb

>>60111923
Yes but they're easier to compare when their somewhat in the same scale

>>60111114
>>60111128
That's 16:9 you tard

2560x1600 is 16:10. And 32" is too big.

>not using 21:9

For shame

>>60109016
>Not a 21:9 master race.

LOL!

Enjoy your top/bottom black bars on any block buster movie.

>>60112744
>using a desktop monitor to watch movies
ayy lmao cucked

>>60112744
>Enjoy your top/bottom black bars on any block buster movie.

You're right, how could anyone handle that?

File: Untitled.jpg (555KB, 2560x1080px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 2560x1080px

>>60112790
>tfw pic didn't upload

>>60112800
2560x1080 and 3440x1440 are not quite the same aspect ratio.

>>60112800
Jee it's so short they can't show the top of the ship in the frame.
It's objectively shit.

>>60112800
you have black bars at the top/bottom.
What is the pioint?

>>60112941
>being this much of a pleb

>>60112942
Did you get a magnifying glass out to spot them? Other than that screenshot, I've never once noticed black bars when watching stuff. Then again I don't sit watching things with the screen inches from my face.

>>60112962
>Did you get a magnifying glass out to spot them?
no, they are very easy to spot as it contrast the bright sky and we already talked about it.

I wasn't the one who cared about black borders, I often don't press fullscreen on netflix as the borders on the side is tiny and window managers handle it better when it is not technically fullscreen.

>>60109016
>four
>by
>three
please.

>>60109016
16:10 is byfar the best aspect for portrait.
16:9 and 21:9 are too skinny for portrait, lines of text will be too cramped.
4:3 and 5:4 are too square to take advantage of portrait.

>>60111060
>16:10 WAS superior at most monitors were in the ~23"

This. I recently got a 27" 1440p monitor to replace my 24" 1200p for general use and it's fine.
~24" 1080p monitors seem noodle-like, but I don't really mind 16:9 with larger ones.

>>60111351
in 16:9 you see wider than in 16:10, i have more pixels

>>60116214
In 16:10 you see higher than in 16:9, i have the same amount of pixels.

>>60109016
>the actual vertical space is not defined by the height of the monitor but by it's aspect ratio
lol youre an idiot

The squad is a bit more than a few days in the last few years, bit more and more to the extent of the problem. However I am not able to make this a bit more complicated than what you mean by having to get the chance to win a new game. So if I do get it and if it doesn't take a while in the future, I'm sure it will be in the same way as the other side of the house.

>>60111198
>>60111217
I agree, anyone who has the taskbar on the bottom with a 16:9 monitor is really missing out.

That said, whatever flunky at Microsoft set the minimum vertical taskbar width should die in a car fire.

>>60109016

>16:10
FUCKING DELET

File: 14.png (42KB, 2000x1241px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 2000x1241px

golden ratio best ratio

They would rather sell you 21:9 monitors so they can sell you more inches for lower production cost.

>>60109239
>1440x900 is 16:10
>1600x900 is 16:9
>16:10 claim there is objectively more work space
>math shows height is the same but 16:9 has 160px more horizontal space
Explain yourself /g/

would it be expensive for smaller companies/groups to produce some?

>>60109016
Anything but 4:3 is a meme.

>>60116825
1440x900 equivalent in 16:9 world would be 1440x810.
1600x900 in 16:10 would be 1600x1000.
Anyway, both 1440x900 and 1600x900 are pleb tier laptop resolutions. Unless your resolution is at least 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 your laptop belongs in the bin.

>>60119741
Who says it's my laptop and who says my desktop output is anything lower than 1920x1080? :^)

17.7:10 > 16:10

>>60109016
Dual 1980x1200 reporting in.

1600x1200 is fine too.

>>60109016
I really like 16:10 and I still use a 24" 1920x1200 monitor in portrait mode with my daily setup, but at this point it's been pretty much entirely superseded.

The only place where it had a tangible benefit is with 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200, but that's pretty low res nowadays. 2560x1600 monitors are fairly unappealing since the vast majority seem to come in 30" sizes and sacrifice the DPI improvement of 2560x1440 @ 27". Nowadays both are deprecated by UHD in terms of workspace. There's no reason to go out of my way to get a 16:10 screen when a 3840x2160 monitor has more space in both dimensions.

>>60119741
What if my laptop has a resolution of 1280x800? (^:

>4k is a meme
Why I keep seeing this?I'm thinking about returning the 1080p 144hz monitor I just ordered and getting a 28 inch 4k monitor.

For games, the best aspect ratio is objectively 2:1 (which is fairly close to 16:9), because that most closely matches the human field of view.

For movies, there is no real frame of reference other than what is customary, although a good argument can be made that it should be the same ratio as for games.

The issue is that virtually all other human made content that is not games, movies or art/photos tends to be taller than it is wide (everything written, books, webpages, etc). Therefore for productivity, most of the tasks that people do on computers would be best performed on screens around 4:3 or 5:4, unless the work is actually involved in producing/editing 2:1 content.

The sad joke is that 16:9 became so common that it is now standard even in office environments where it is far less efficient.

I have no problems at all watching movies or playing games at 16:9 - but when it comes to producitivity like coding or writing memos I would take 5:4 instead every time.

File: george-side.gif (917KB, 200x300px) Image search: [Google]

917KB, 200x300px

>>60110988

parabolic screens covering 100% of your field of view at a comfortable distance as a standard when

i want to become one with my shitposting

>>60110496
FOV is larger sideways than up, down

>>60110960
https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/71922/reasons-to-use-an-aspect-ratio-of-21/71946

"Schwartzman, an anamorphic advocate, wanted to shoot the film in 2.40:1, but executive producer Steven Spielberg preferred 1.85:1 because that ratio provided enough headroom for the dinosaurs. “Director Colin Trevorrow and I felt like 1:85 was too much like high-definition television in terms of an aspect ratio,” the cinematographer says. “That's where we conceived a 2.00:1 aspect ratio. We made a ground glass and shot some tests. It was such a great way to frame. It has the benefits of 2.40 without losing all the headroom."

The future is 2:1.

Check the screen ratio on the iPhone 8.

>>60109239
1680X1050 LIFE

>>60120808
>because that most closely matches the human field of view.
citation needed, faggot

>>60109016

Is 2017 grandpa.

>>60112696
Manlet detected

>>60109016
Have 2 monitors
One is 16:9
Other is 16:10

The 16.9 is what a play vidya on still

>>60121135
Human FOV is approximately 200 degrees horizontal, 100 degrees vertical.

Look it up, you stupid faggot.

>>60109016
I got a 16:9 and 21:9 connected to my desktop and a 3:2 on my chromebook pixel. I really like the 3:2 ratio the most atm.

>>60120752
28" is too small to be useful for 2160p.
38" - 48" is what you want.
Best user experience you can have right now.

>>60110367
>It's hardly the dominant TV ratio altogether since most movies have black lines on the top and bottom.
Movies are not TV.

>>60116530
>In 16:10 you see higher than in 16:9
You can add pixels horizontally to turn that 16:10 back into 16:9. Your argument is meaningless.

>>60124854
I would rather maximize the screen real estate where it matters and not to something I have more than enough of, like horizontally. The argument in favor of 16:9 is bullshit and will stay bullshit for any configuration you can think of. Portrait mode is better in 16:10, any sort of document/manga viewing is better in 16:10 (two pages at once) and watching movies too is better in 16:10 thanks to player controls not obstructing the view and subtitles can be below the actual video. Gaming is of course also better but only with games that know how to utilize proper fov depending on aspect ratio.

In short you guys are getting cucked out of a better experience because you can't afford proper displays and need to justify your poor purchase.

>>60124828
>>60110512
movies are watched on TVs.

>>60110886
Except for all the companies producing nothing but 16:9 monitors, sure.

>>60125037
I know for sure Dell and Eizo still make 8:5 panels, Eizo also has 4:3 and 1:1 models.
Don't buy 16:9 if you want other things on the market.

>>60124955
>Portrait mode is better in 16:10, any sort of document/manga viewing is better in 16:10 (two pages at once) and watching movies too is better in 16:10 thanks to player controls not obstructing the view and subtitles can be below the actual video.
>In short you guys are getting cucked out of a better experience because you can't afford proper displays and need to justify your poor purchase.
None of those are objective arguments in favor of 16:10. Your arguments in favor of 16:10 would support 4:3, 5:4, and 1:1 as an ideal ratio more than they would 16:10.

There is no objective argument to be made regarding ratios other than ratio preference is just that: a preference. Believing otherwise is stupidity.

>>60125453
Nah, it is objectively a better screen real estate in a logical sense. Why would being even wider as it is be better than being higher? You also gain additional pixels so what's the deal with you 16:9 fags? 1920x1200 is objectively more than 1920x1080 and no mental gymnastics will change that, 4K also doesn't change shit.

More is almost always better in the real world.

>>60111959
its a macfag, what did you expect?

>>60112790
anime is 16:9

checkm8

>>60109016
>Posting transparent PNG

Fuck you nigga!