>4:3 is gone >5:4 is gone >16:10 is gone >all the

>>60268260
>muh movies

>>60268260
>16:10 is gone
Well, 1080p ruined that

>>60268319
>>60268293
movies and media are fine on 16:10, or just get a tv, you now, they were actually made for that.

samsung chromebook plus NIBBA

>>60268260
Movies and games benefit massively from widescreen, productivity is only somewhat hampered by 16:9.

Plus 4:3 displays were smaller, so a 20 inch 4:3 is about the same height as a 16:9 24" display which is cheap as shit, just with extra space on the sides.

>>60268338
I was just saying that the push for 1080p into the mainstream killed off 16:10.
I'm happy at 16:9

>>60268260
Dell still make 16:10 IPS monitors?

My U2410 from 7 years ago is still going strong.

Surface and Pixels are 3:2 master race.

Sorry your shit laptop isn't.

>>60268260
16:9 is like 16:10, but has more space on both sides. so 16:10 became utterly useless.

File: 3efe74287f02c561c83aed65d606643f8fe71088.jpg (81KB, 1089x550px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1089x550px

>>60268424
good bait

>>60268422
business laptops should be 4:3 like in the old days, there's no excuse.

File: ratio.png (280KB, 460x684px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 460x684px

>>60268408
bought one is November

>>60268451

dumb premise

I could just say 17.7:10 > 16:10

>>60268424
Except that's entirely wrong. It practice, 16:10 usually just adds extra vertical space

See the commonly manufactured resolution pairs: 1280x800 (16:10) vs 1280x720 (16:9)
and
1920x1200 (16:10) vs 1920x1080 (16:9)

>>60268364
why did they decide 16:9 is the standard?

>>60268408
>tfw still using a 30 inch 16:10 dell from almost ten years ago.
If only it wasn't so fucking big

>>60268260
>21:9
>bad

>>60268523
it's fucking terrible, it needs more vertical space

>>60268532
But muh movies

>>60268451
16:9 monitors have the same height as 16:10 models that are a few inches smaller screen size wise, but have more horizontal space. and with current 4k and higher resolutions there is nothing that makes a 16:10 screen objectively better than a 16:9 screen.

>>60268540
get a tv,

>>60268513
16:9 is cheaper to manufacture. I know theres more reasons, but thats one.

>>60268489
>not 3:2 masterrace

>>60268545
>he doesn't compare a 16:10 MBP to your standard windows laptop

You get more screen space with 16:10 in its current usage than you do with 16:9

>>60268570
>>not 3:2 masterrace

>3:2
>masterrace
you mean 2:1 masterrace

>>60268260
I'm already seeing Gigabyte bluray files for phone apps.
Bluray.... for phones....

3:2 is the perfect ratio.

>not 13:8

>>60268781
>4:3 is the perfect ratio
fty

>>60268965
>5:4 is the perfect ratio
ftfy

>16:10 is gone
What? Macbook Pro with Retina Display does not have this problem

>>60270773
it will

>>60270779
not as long as OS X has that silly, tall dock

>>60268532
Two screens at 7:6 that's closer to unity than 4:3 or 5:4 son.

dell 3007wfp masterrace

File: Tommy Lee Jones.jpg (45KB, 814x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 814x500px

>>60268545
>16:9 monitors are bigger than 16:10 monitors that are smaller

File: 2016-macbook-pro-lite-table-hero.jpg (490KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 1600x1200px

>16:10 is gone

Nope.

>>60268260
>21:9
>worse
21:9 is so comfy for programming and design.
Dell 34in 21:9 3440x1440 2comfy4u

>Not being 1:1 master race

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJG9HOQITrg

>>60271361
I'd get one of this if it wasn't so expensive

jesus christ the autism
>my random number is more productive
>mine is easier on the eyes
>mine is cheaper to produce because reasons
do you guys hear yourself saying this shit?

16:9 is superior to all screen formats, you are all autistic

@60271496
@60271516
>>>/reddit/

>>60271496
>>60271516
you need to go back

File: 20170505_142758_HDR.jpg (2MB, 2160x3840px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2160x3840px

>>60268260
>4:3 is gone

What is dead may never die.

>>60270797
this
docks are cancer

>>60270797

You can resize it, auto-hide it, put it on the side. Oh wait, I wouldn't expect anyone here to know such fucking basic starter-guide tier knowledge about Apple products.

>>60268513
It's the HDTV aspect radio, and on all devices from phones and consumer laptops to business laptops and cash registers multimedia playback is the most important aspeect.
Similarly to how you'll get 6-bit color on your desktop when using HDMI because lelel le HDTV plug t. your retard GPU drivers
Note that your anime is now in 10-bit which is a professional grade color depth and not even supported on hOmoSeX, the system faggots think is superior for multimedia production.

Everything about modern display technology standards is stupid and the highest resolution monitors produced for desktop use went EOL somewhere in 2005 and SED is dead because of patent bullshit

2560x1600 is better than 1440p but nowhere near worth the price jump, you could get 2-3 1440p screens for the price of one 2560x1600 assuming you're buying new. But I'll take 1920x1200 over 1080p any day. Ultrawide is dumb.

File: 30-bitcolorscreen.jpg (39KB, 640x446px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x446px

>>60272148

>https://petapixel.com/2015/10/30/os-x-el-capitan-quietly-unlocked-10-bit-color-in-imacs-and-mac-pros/

As usual, people on this board have knowledge which is at least 2 years old on anything. The 5K iMac would be the best computer to watch chinktoons on for the wide color support.

>>60272182
2015? Very quietly indeed.

I've seen these threads for years and not once has anyone offered any logical reason why one aspect ratio is any more productive then another. Does anyone have any idea what their arguing for in this thread?

File: Moshe_Dayan.jpg (18KB, 390x259px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 390x259px

Just get a bigger screen little goy

Forget widescreen and tallscreen. Deepscreen is where its at.

File: 1421161952775.png (218KB, 608x388px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 608x388px

>tfw I unironically
[x] vape
[x] have a 16:10 and a 5:4 monitor
[x] use GNU/Linux exclusively

>>60268260
We still have more lines with a 4k or QHD 16:9 than pretty much anyone had when 4:3 was popular.

In the 4:3 days 1024x768 17" was where most people topped out. There days only cheap laptops have 768 vertical pixels

>>60268512
1280x720 is far less common than 1366x768. Most 720 tvs even have a 1366x768 panel

>tfw got an hp zr30w
GOAT monitor
30" 2K with GOAT colours

>>60275266
2K is just around 1920x1200

>>60268260
If you've never used a 3440x1440 monitor you can't claim it's worse for productivity. It's fucking incredible for multitasking you faggot.

>>60268260
>Muh black bars
1080p destroyed society.
16:9 is USELESS for productivity.

Thankfully 3:2 is bringing us closer to 4:3.

>>60268260
4:3 and 16:9 are the same thing

>>60275727
>x/y = (x/y)^2

>>60268260
>16:10 is gone
My Retina MacBook Pro 15 inch doesn't have this problem.

>>60275727
4/3 = 1.3333
16/9 = 1,7777

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

115KB, 900x660px

>>60275727
4:3 = 16:9 = 64:27 = 256:81 = 3.16

1:root(2) is objectively superior.

>>60271177
>1440x900
>1600x900

>1650x1050
>1920x1080

>>60271931
None of that removes it though. It just hides it until you get your mouse close enough

>>60276823
>1600x900
>1650x1050

>1920x1080
>1920x1200

>>60276823
>1600x900
>1680x1050

>1920x1080
>1920x1200

>>60268260
>not using 8:5

Why do they say 16:10 and not 8:5?

Soon there will be even wider screen with 200Hz TN panel.

>>60271192
wtf i love apple now

>>60268260
21:9 is practically dual 5:4 monitors

>>60276890
>>60276922
probably because of the popularity of 16:9

>>60268408
Same with mine, beyond more space, vidya that actually takes advantage of it and doesn't force letterboxing always lets you use comfier FOV's, I don't ever see myself replacing it unless we somehow get another 16:10 IPS on the market with some flavor of adaptive sync

>>60268710
What?

>>60277118
He said Blue Ray for phones

3:2 > all else
we need more 3:2 screens

>>60277319
My laptop's 3:2, for those I'd prefer 4:3 but for a desktop monitor 3:2 seems like a nice aspect ratio.

>>60268513
16:9 was agreed upon as the standard for widescreen TV because it's a """nice""" compromise between the wide format of cinema movies and old tv programes on 4:3. Then when the demand for flatscreen TVs spiked, it displaced 16:10 from computer monitors because of economy of scale of panel manufacturing

Just use 9:16, you plens.

>>60276861
>>60276871
This shit is all so relative. If you compare the two aspect ratios using the same height 16:9 comes out with more space, if using the same width 16:10 comes out with more. In the real world it came out most of the time that width was what was the same between the two and so 16:10 came out ahead, but it's not like it's an inherently superior ratio because of that.