Which aspect ratio does /v/ prefer?

>>384350537
16:9 2560x1440 144hz

>>384350537
16:10 just because of the golden ratio

16:10 for first person, 16:9 for third, 4:3 for top down ideally.

File: 287390_20170618125155_1.jpg (1MB, 2560x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1080px

>>384350537
21:9

>>384350537
21:9

16:10. mostly because i'm used to it. use 4:3 for some games though

Isn't this kind of retarded? Who is going to prefer 4:3 except for people who like old games or retarded cs go "pros" who think seeing less of the game makes them play better? 16:10 is a dead aspect ratio because every one cropped shit for 1920x1200

File: War Thunder 12.13.2016 - 19.38.01.01.png (2MB, 2560x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1080px

21:9 is the ultimate choice

>>384350537
16:10 and 4:3

16:9 was a mistake and 21:9 is a meme

16:10 was baller. Fuck the industry for forcing 16:9.

>>384350901
Praise the indusrty for going wider, not higher.

Why isn't 16:10 called 8:5?

>>384350901
except the industry didn't go wider, just decreased the height.

42:9 it really is the only way.

>>384351068
Because
>Look at us, it's like 16:9 but with more vertical, so we called it 16:10!
Too bad for them, no one fucking want more vertical, because16:9 is ebough, everthing happens on the side edges, not in the sky, not between your boots.

>>384351068
it's more consistent

>>384351186
It's a lie and you know it. I played Enclave on 21:9 not so long ago and it's not decreased in height.

>>384350537
kenny powers fought hard for 16:9, its widely adopted and all the 21:9 fags can jerk each other off all they like, they're never getting fully supported.
But of course, they can enjoy shitty movies without the letterboxing. Bravo.

>>384351283
my ass. its because the consumer is dumb. they'll think 8:5 is worse than 16:9. its all about bigger numbers

>>384351436
Same reason the 1/3 pounder got pulled from McDonald's.
Dumb fucks thought quarter pounder was larger and cheaper.

>>384350537
The one that's not a meme aspect ratio.

>>384350537
I used to 4:3 and now I 16:9, not my choice I just bought the cheapest monitor that looked good at the time, also 16:10 is not the most compatible i think

>>384350537
21:9 is the way to go

>>384350537
21:9

I've got a 16:10 (1440x900), and a 16:9 (1366x768), and of the 2, I like the 16:10.
I'm going to be getting a 21:9 soon. Would also like to get a 4:3, but nobody sells them used in my area, so I guess I'll be looking around for ages.

File: 81AZn1JyMmL.jpg (440KB, 2880x810px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 2880x810px

>>384350537
32:9

>>384350537
The one that's actually a widely supported standard.

4:3 CRT for 6th gen and older.
Triple 16:10 monitors (dual landscape, one portrait) for pc because I do professional design work and extra vertical space is appreciated.

I'll pick up a 21:9 monitor when it's 4k and 144hz.

>>384350537
Really like 16:10 but 16:9 is fine too.

179:85

>>384351881
Third-pounder is not as catchy as quarter-pounder.

File: 124329312.jpg (37KB, 607x608px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 607x608px

>>384354267
21:9 is truly the ubermensch of monitor ratios.

>>384354382
>>384354267
Didn't mean to reply to you.

Why's 16:10 not rounded down to 8:5
Why's 21:9 not rounded down to 7:3

nobody makes high refresh, high resolution 16:10s

>>384354521
Because Americans.
>>384351436
>>384351881

>>384350537
1:5.33

>>384350537
16:10 master rase

4:3
Only because I have a 1024x768 monitor
Not even a laptop I'm just poor

16:10 for productivity and it's really good for small monitors for reading manga in portrait mode

16:9 for videogames

21:9 for video

>>384351230
have you used a computer recently? literally all weg pages scroll vertically.

I still frequently use three 4:3 monitors, though most times I use a 16:9 1080p with a 70-something refresh rate. Shit works, and I like my setup.

>>384354382
Don't you mean 7:3?

>>384354792
So? It's the same vertical for my 16:9. Because you know it's 1920x1080 vs 2560x1080

File: 32x9.jpg (69KB, 914x960px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 914x960px

>>384353684

>>384354992
My monitor is 1920x1200. This is the "1080p" equivalent of 16:10.

>not using the glorious 16/12 ratio

faggot

>>384354521
>>384354658
16:9
16:10
21:9

Because it's easier, which is better

>>384350537
>>384350712
I want 21:9. But isn't there a serious lack of 21:9 support on things? The last thing I want is to have so much stupid everyday shit to be stuck in a 16:9 or 4:3 giving me massive black/white space not being utilized.

But for those game that support it, must feel great.

>>384355126
>giving me massive black/white space not being utilized.

it will be mostly stretched which looks like ass. I usually go window mode for games that don't support the ratio.

File: AspectRatios2.jpg (59KB, 429x632px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 429x632px

>>384350537
Most things are cut for 16:9. I do wish we as people would just move all monitors to the second to last one in this picture.

>>384351881

It's all marketing; 1/3 pounder sounds like your getting jewed for some reason.

>>384355292
that's 21:9

>>384350537
oldass 2008 samsung t260r here

1920x1200x60hz 16:10 master race

this stupid fucking screen wont die, stupid reliable first led backlit no dead pixels !

>>384355126
>But isn't there a serious lack of 21:9 support on things?
I guess it's like 50% games support it from default. 40% can be modded.

>>384355289
>it will be mostly stretched which looks like ass
1% games stretch image. If it's above 1% for you, then it's your monitor. Tweak it to use original aspect ratio of games through monitor config or gpu config.

>>384355289
Well pretty sure you can enable in both Nvidia or AMD control panel whenever or not you want the aspect ratio of games / software scaled or forced. So I doubt that would be an issue for anything other then old games.

>>384355289
>Random guess from a random anon
Well the guess sounds nice, but I would need more proof for to believe that. I'm just afraid of wasting money on something. 16:9 and I believe that 90% will work.

File: microsoft-surface-book-super-high-resolution-photo-gallery-493923-5.jpg (430KB, 3000x1685px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 3000x1685px

I'm using two bigass 16:10 monitors and I refuse to get anything with a lower height than that.

I'm personally praying the 3:2 aspect ratio will take off with new ultrabooks using it more and more.

>>384350537
21:9
Master race.

>>384354775
16:9 for video*
21:9 for games*

>>384355908

I own a surface book, it's a super comfy size.

>>384355908
Are you a facebook surfer? I can't think a reason to like 3:2 over wider ratio in games.

>>384350537
34" 3440x1440 21:9 100 Hz. How about you poorfags?

>>384356442
29" 2560х1080 60 Hz. Call me when gpus can hold 120 fps on ultra.

>>384350537
It's not like we have a choice now, is it? An almost absolute percentage of the monitors and TVs being sold today is 16:9, it's the defacto standard for video output nowadays. 4:3 is considered as outdated by mouthbreathers and 16:10 (more like 8:5) never really took off and is relegated to a minuscule percentage of the market. Wider aspect ratios are niche at best.

>>384356886
>Wider aspect ratios are niche at best.
No more than a 4k.

3840 x 2160 0.86%
vs
2560 x 1080 0.60%
+
3440 x 1440 0.26%

File: 4-3 aspect ratio.png (275KB, 640x352px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 640x352px

i have 16:9 monitor 144hz
for trihard games i use 4:3 resolution with black bars
for casual garbage i use on 16:9

>>384357420
>for trihard games i use 4:3
How is this disease called?

>>384357174
We're discussing aspect ratios, numbskull, not resolutions.

>>384357661
21:9 aspect ratio is popular as much as 16:9 4k resolution.

21:9 will always be this goofy more expensive option. 16:9 will let you go larger and higher resolution for the same money.

34" 3360x1440 vs 40" 3840x2160 for about the same price where the 40" screen is actually wider without sacrificing any of the height you need for a display to actually be worthwhile.

>>384357661
Yeah i lovemy 21:9 1920x1080 monitor

>>384357926
monitors are cheap as fuck these days and last a decade. just buy the one you like using.

>>384357926
>is actually wider
It's just bigger, picture is the same as 19" 16:9. 21:9 output wider picture.

>>384357803
Both of which aren't popular at all, according to your statistics.
>>384358004
You get dumber by the post.

>>384358197
>according to your statistics.
It's not my, it's steam's http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

>>384350597
>
dumb fuck

Triple 21:9 monitor is the way to go

>>384358168
Not sure what you're not understanding here.

16x9 = standard aspect ratio = more screens produced = lower costs for larger / higher resolution displays
21x9 = non-standard aspect ratio = fewer screens produced = higher costs for smaller / lower resolution displays

A 40" 3840x2160 16x9 display is both physically wider, and has a larger horizontal resolution than an equivalently priced 34" 3360x1440 21x9 display.

>>384358631
Maybe if you're a pigeon or a rabbit

>>384350537
16:10 is truly the masterrace of resolutions.

Most games support it natively, and you don't have to be cucked by 16:9 faggots "muh media" excuse. (By the way, media looks just fucking fine, black bars aren't a big deal at all.) You get more space for all your other activities (multitasking is great), and it's of course close to the golden ratio.

4:3 isn't good for much in 2017 anymore, it's kind of an aged resolution. It's alright if you do a lot of single document work and programming, though

>>384358954
>A 40" 3840x2160 16x9 display is both physically wider, and has a larger horizontal resolution than an equivalently priced 34" 3360x1440 21x9 display.
Still, 3840x2160 fov is lower, than 3440x2160

Whatever is native for the game.

If you use "widescreen hacks" and other such garbage, you don't know shit about vidya.

File: ss+(2017-07-17+at+09.09.30).jpg (101KB, 960x648px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 960x648px

3 : 2

16:10 is closest to ideal but it's not necessarily best for gaming because 16:9 is most supported resolution.

>>384350537
For (most) games, wider is better as long as it's a supported resolution.

For work, I'd rather have a square monitor (or two) since you get more usable surface.

4:3 crt
im poor

>>384357420
>black bars
I will never understand why people do this in games like Counter-Strike:GO unless it's just for FPS.

>>384350537
Just looked t up and human vision is about 5:3 so 16:10 (4.8:3) is pretty close to the natural aspect ration

>>384358970
Stay butthurt you poorfag

>>384359268
I have a 16:10 and literally everything supports 16:10 except a few artsy indie games with hand drawn backgrounds. In those cases the 1cm black bar doesn't kill me.

File: CXd9xX_WwAA64yP.jpg:large.jpg (132KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1024x768px

1:1

>>384350537
16:10 for productivity, for gaming / media 16:9 is fine

>>384359965
It's so weird that it's a square but it looks tall. Probably because even 4:3 was widescreen and we're just not used to an actual square.

>>384359553
Yeah, but you don't allign your face to the screen, you know. I'm using 21:9 and can see edges pretty clear.

>>384359171
Depends on how you set the FOV. Its entirely possible to set it up so its better in every way.

>>384359971
Years ago when we were stuck with ~24" displays 16x10 was essential, now that we have 40" displays it doesn't seem like the extra little bit of vertical space matters as much.

16:9 1440p IPS 72Hz

>>384360390
I had a 27" a decade ago and changed it to a 24". I wouldn't want a 40" as my primary display.

>>384359553
Peripheral vision is much wider though. Your brows, cheeks, and nose cut off your vision, but you can see way off to the left and right.

>>384350593
This would be me if I weren't a poorfag but for now I'm content with 16:9 250x1440 overclocked to 80hz.

>>384359869
dark souls

>tfw had a 16:10 monitor for almost 10 years
>had to replace it with a 16:9 because devs are retarded to implement proper 16:10 support

Fuck consoles and fuck tvs

"16:10", or 8:5 you dumbasses.

>>384360428
72?

>>384360542
You don't see what's actually going on that widely. The target is to have a display that you can fully see every part of without moving your eyes around and where in video games you move the camera instead.

>>384350712
>>384350767
>>384351386
I'm close to buying an ultrawide but this looks like ass

16:10 is the best since it easily shows 16:9. however im talking from a designers perspective. that way i have a 1:1 of the image

>>384361054
Overclocked my 60Hz screen
Most 60Hz screens will reach 72Hz

>>384350593
Same.

4:3 for older games, CRTs are a must-have

16:9 is good for movies and television, however
16:10 is the objectively superior videogame ratio
It's way easier to have everything in a central sight instead of the wide 16:9 where more often than not important cues show up on the sides of the screen but since your eyes scanned elsewhere you miss it.
>21:9 fags

The more square the better

>>384360390
>Depends on how you set the FOV. Its entirely possible to set it up so its better in every way.
You can't set fov in every game. 21:9 render more space, so it's always five you more game space for the same fov.

>>384361215
>but this looks like ass
How's that? It's the same as 16:9 but with additional fov.

>>384361358
How can you tell which ones? I noticed mine goes up to 75Hz because CCC reported the highest refresh rate as that, though I can't use it in 1080p because of DVI bandwidth so I'm limited to 1760x990 custom res I made with CRU.

>>384362058
That is entirely dependent on whether the game locks up the horizontal or vertical FOV.

>>384362321
Vertical is always the same for the exception of old games. Vertical is depend of the aspect ratio. Low resolution 21:9 gives more fov, than 4k 16:9

4:3 is gonna make a comeback soon

>>384362525
I bet you jerk to keyhole porn.

>>384362476
>Vertical is depend of the aspect ratio
Horizontal ofc.

>>384362292
I just increase it until it starts showing errors or skipping frames

>>384358970
No you scrub, you stack them on top of each other.

>>384360735
There are diminishing returns past 75hz, you can and will see a clear difference at 144hz, but upwards to 90 is a massive upgrade over 60.

>>384362525
It's called IMAX now.

>>384359965
This. If you don't like the default, you can just switch to any other res.

File: 107410_20170626095659_1.png (3MB, 2560x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1080px

21:9 is best aspect ratio. Square fags cant keep us down forever.

>>384361358
can you fuck up your monitore by trying to OC the refresh rate?

>>384354382

Is this the adult swim guy who got his show cancelled?

>>384351068
Why isn't 21:9 called 7:3?

>>384359517
FPS and it lets you focus on the center easier and brings your hud in closer so you can glance at it quicker. Different FOVs also affect how your sens feels and different resolutions change how your crosshair looks. Any decent player shouldn't ever really need the extra FOV anyway.

>>384365115
normies are retarded
news at 26

>>384350593
This. Too bad you gotta settle for 1920x1080 most of the time

>>384350537
just got 21:9 display, it's pretty cool. Especially for racing sims, i had multi-display setup before and i never thought that i won't feel the pain of losing so much of my field of view.

>>384355126
The only game i checked so far that doesn't use 21:9 is MGS TPP. Even Nier Automata works in 21:9. If anything, i'd bitch about how hard it is to find TV series for 21:9. Everything is for 16:9, leaving me effectively with 24" 16:9 display out of my 29" 21:9. Movies that use 21:9 look glorious though.