>Ultrawide Is this a worse meme than water cooling PC components?

>Wanting bezels
Also it's convenient for streaming and editing.

>>61805237
Streaming is not convenient for ultrawide monitors, are you dumb? Do you even own one? You have to run your games in windowed mode at a small resolution to have the chat open

You're correct about editing though.

File: makesuthink.png (82KB, 700x320px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 700x320px

Hmmmm

File: ev2730q-flexscan.jpg (50KB, 1053x702px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1053x702px

>>61805202
1:1 is the resolution chosen by god, anything else is devils work.

>>61805385
redpill me on the 16:9 meme /g/
who started it?

>>61805394
Oh god, I fucking came.

>>61805409
16:9 is better than 16:10

if it wasn't, people would be buying 16:10 and manufacturers would sell it more often

>>61805274
16:9+16:9+we is best for streaming

>>61805438
what did he mean by this

File: xdgfhndfgj.png (6KB, 1200x545px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 1200x545px

4:3 is true god tier.

Think about all of the non-video content you consume and what shape it is.

>>61805303
>>61805458
4:3 is the ultimate.

>>61805409
Judaism with their filmmaking

>>61805409
Normies doing nothing but consuming media like movies on their screens and not doing actual work

>>61805508
FIlms are slightly bigger than 21:9, they don't give a shit about TV resolutions anymore considering movies shown on TV are letterboxed now.

File: a best aspect ratio.png (44KB, 574x349px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 574x349px

>16:9
>4:3
>not superior 16:10
Get a load of these faggots.

>>61805454
Two 16:9s plus anything else?

>>61805437
The reason why nobody makes 16:10 monitors anymore is because the manufacturers realized they could save like five cents if they made the panel that much shorter. Me and anyone else with a functioning brain would kill for new 16:10 monitors but the manufacturers care more about cost cutting than making products people actually want to buy.

>>61805639
Pythagorean 4:3 (two 3-4-5 triangles) > 16:10 approximate (read: not actually equal to) golden ratio

>>61805639

16:10 > 16:9 but still ultimately suffers from the same problem, 99% of content you consume is waaaaay taller than it is wide. DVD players in PCs tricked us into scrolling way more than we should be.

16:10 in portrait is the best

I just use 16:9, it's the most popular ratio and most applications, games and films/series adhere to it. But in my heart I'm convinced that 16:10 is the best. You're just short on vertical space on 16:9.

>>61805761
True, but the human field of view is closest to 16:10. With 4:3 you're constantly looking up at the top of the screen, and with 16:9 a good portion of your FOV is not occupied by the display. 16:10 for life.

>>61805697
might wanna visit a doctor to see if you have schizophrenia

>>61805458
thanks doc

>>61805202
ultrameme is garbage

16:10 is the best, but upgrading to 1440p solves a lot of the issues with 16:9 since you have >1200 vertical pixels. 1080p was always a scam since high res CRT's could 1600x1200, 1080p doesn't have enough vertical space. 1440p is the first usable 16:9 screen.

>>61806014
i don't think it's the dpi. the shape of it always looked a little too long and it irks me. then again i just bought an S8 so i'm probably just retarded.

File: 1502038011778.jpg (55KB, 552x459px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 552x459px

>>61805202
Enjoy your god tier black bars fagtron

Human field of view is 210 degrees by 150 therefore the best is 7/5 or 16:11.4285714

>>61805202
>16:9
end yourself, 16:10 is the true master ratio

>>61806156
16:10 is the closest without going over.

>>61805842

No, 4:3 was actually originally chosen for TV because it's closest to the human FOV. VR HMDs also all use taller-than-wide displays for the same reason. Cut out a 16" by 9" piece of paper and hold it in front of you eyes until you cannot see past the sides, you'll still be able to see over and under it.

16:9 was created specifically to give filmmakers a wider canvas to make movies on.

>tfw no sqrt(2) ratio

>>61806156

or make it an even 16:12, AKA 4:3

File: peripheral_vision.png (65KB, 600x577px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x577px

>>61806156
Well, here are 220 degrees of horizontal vision. How does a 16:10 screen fit into there? Cause I haven't yet seen a one bending around my head. There is much more to consider here. The question we should ask is: what is the field of view usable for work? I guess near peripheral vision could be the one, but I don't have data for vertical vision and I don't bother to look for it.

>>61805394
Ridiculous.

>>61806291
wtf did you say about my wife?

I have a ultra wide 21:9 monitor for games with a 16:9 monitor above it in case i want to have my browser open at the same time along with 2 16:10 monitors either side of the 21:9 monitor in portrait, one for discord and one for steam.

Can you deny this is the perfect setup?

>>61806309
Your wife has a penis.

>>61806156
16:10 is closer and ultimately better.
16:10 is the ultimate patrician choice.
I hope the retards responsible for the 16:9's popularity die from testicular cancer. 16:9 is worse than not having buttons on your fucking trackpad on a laptop.

>>61806315
Doesn't you neck hurt? I have a 4:5 screen to the side of a 16:10 one and I think it's near the comfy horizontal movement limit. I can't imagine having to lift my head up to look to a screen, vertical movement is so much worse than horizontal.

>16:10 portrait
Disgusting.

>>61806332
thank god

>>61806420
The 21:9 is as low to the desk as possible and the 16:9 is directly above it, so no my neck it pretty cool, if i look directly forward i look pretty much directly in the middle of the monitors

16:10 is perfect for monitors as to extra length as oppose to a 4:3 means i can see more history of a discord chat also for looking at a list of steam friends/a steam message window/steam profiles the long display is also king.


>>61805394
my mother warned me about people like you

>>61806509
I like 4:5 as a secondary because it can match the height of the main display while being just the right width. Even if I move some messaging windows onto it, I usually don't make them full height because there is no reason to and it looks better.

>>61805394

for real though, how fucking gorgeous would an 8k by 8k panel be?

>>61805761
>Get a 16:9 monitor
>Rotate it 90°
Best fit

File: valley.jpg (766KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 2560x1600px

It's really not that big of a difference, here's 1440p windowed on a 305t plus

File: 1500847536705.jpg (50KB, 416x280px)

50KB, 416x280px

>>61805202
>:9 anything
>godtier

>>61805394
Son you just got my dick hard

>>61805639
I bought a refurbed Asus 4k 27" 60hz monitor and am seriously considering switching back to my trusty Samsung 2233rz 120hz 16:10 from 10 years ago.

File: BLEMPF.jpg (20KB, 620x392px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 620x392px

>>61807020
>60hz
>2017

Ultrawide is equivalent to 2x 4:3 monitors, which is fairly nice for multitasking.

I have 1920x1200 flanked by two 1600x1200. I like it a lot. I want to get a 2560x1600 and turn the 4:3's vertical, but I don't really know where to get a 2560x1600.

4:3 died due to the increasing prevalence of multitasking. It doesn't matter how many lines you can fit vertically if you have to keep swapping between programs.

>>61807237
Yeah, it kinda does. Most applications, when faced with a narrow horizontal resolution, will pile user interface elements atop one another. This can create clutter, exacerbated if you have only 768 or 900 vertical lines, which many poorfags have to deal with. Even with a reasonable resolution I end up maximizing everything and flipping through them anyway.

I have a 16:9 main monitor and a 4:3 secondary monitor, with a vertical taskbar on the 4:3 and the 16:9 being completely free for programs and full screen stuff.
I think I would multitask worse with an ultrawide monitor.

am i a pleb for falling into the 26:9 resolution meme? My head hurts like a motherfucker now

File: Screenshot (20).png (3MB, 2560x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1080px

>>61805202
>watch a 16:9 movie
>it has black bars top and bottom because it was filmed in cinemascope
>watch it on an ultrawide monitor
>it has black bars top and bottom because it was filmed in cinemascope AND THE BLACK BARS WERE ADDED TO THE VIDEO TO FILL THE 16:9 RATIO BECAUSE PLAYERS ARE TOO DUMB TO CENTER IT IN THE DISPLAY THEMSELVES
Literally Hitler.

Of course, the panscan feature can save you here but it's still stupid.

>>61807524
Should has said "it has black bars top and bottom and sides because it was filmed in cinemascope".

File: 36:9_master_race.jpg (299KB, 1113x480px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1113x480px

>>61807443
you haven't gone far enough

16:10 is obviously the superior choice, whoever argues that is an idiot beyond redemption

File: 1502239237599.jpg (256KB, 1936x480px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1936x480px

>>61807550
>not 51:9
Top beb.

>>61805394
Problem is, modern web and application designers are designing for 16:9. 1:1 is going to be shit for running modern applications side-by-side. Ultrawide is pretty much the way of the future.

That said, 29" Ultrawide at 1080 lines is pure shit. 34" at 1440 is entry level.

>>61805202
What about my 5:4 monitor guise

>>61807815
>>>/out/

>>61805697
Stupidity at its finest.