Like I said, it wasn't due to PC use, only TV use. And yes, 16:9 was chosen because someone or some people made a choice for us. They of course chose something that worked pretty well for it's purpose (TV and movies). It's not exactly because 16:9 was just superior, as there are many other not so different resolutions that could have done the job just as well, but someone had to make a call and did. As you eluded too, it wasn't chosen everywhere either.And why do you think TV standardized for 16:9? Initially, 5:3 was the ratio used for widescreen content. But since in UK and US 1.85 ratio was used for theatrical films, they ended up with the 16:9, a mid term between both standards. So yes, 16:9 isn't popular because someone decided to be it, but because how good it is at being a middle ground to display any type of content.
Well I have always said this regarding monitors that once we get used to something we find the alternative inferior. You will be used to 21:9 I won't so playing a game in 16:9 won't be an equal experience for us. Not to mention until we move to OLED you will be dealing with backlight bleed and grey/black bars when using a 21:9 monitor at 16:9.And the games that don't support it? They're the same 16:9 that I would get with a 16:9 panel...but on games that support it, then I get 21:9 goodness, and you don't. Failing to see the negative here.
Well I have always said this regarding monitors that once we get used to something we find the alternative inferior. You will be used to 21:9 I won't so playing a game in 16:9 won't be an equal experience for us. Not to mention until we move to OLED you will be dealing with backlight bleed and grey/black bars when using a 21:9 monitor at 16:9.
Secondly a 21:9 monitor running at 16:9 is not the same thing as a 16:9 monitor in the same price range because you could have had a much bigger 16:9 screen.
What? You can get a 32" 1440p 16:9 for $500. What's the 21:9 alternative to that?Secondly I see no proof of price differences between aspect ratios, I suspect anyone who thinks this is a problem is imagining or exaggerating.
What? You can get a 32" 1440p 16:9 for $500. What's the 21:9 alternative to that?
What? 27" 2560x1440p is better at having 2 windows side by side than 29" 2560x1080p. Both can be found around the same price, have the same horizontal pixel count, and panel width of a widescreen 1080p 29" is only 13% wider than a 1440p 27", so while being more panoramic, the content displayed is a bit tinier. But with the 1440p panel, you get 360 pixels more in vertical, very helpful in multi window display, and when rotated to a vertical position if the panel allows it to achieve a 1440x2560 resolution, the experience becomes premium at web browsing or document writing.
And btw, multimonitor doesn't count as an argument in a ratio aspect discussion, as there are tons and tons of possible configurations suited for the best use.
the LG 38" 21:9 is pretty tempting but it is the same width as a 40" 16:9. i would probably rather have the extra vertical res/inches.
but if the price dropped enough i could see getting the LG.
I expect the pinnacle of the tech to reach 34-38" 8K 21:9 as the dead end monitor from where there is nowhere else to go without a fundamental change in viewing tech.
If it's all about vertical space to you, why not turn a 16:9 into a 9:16. Some monitors do come with the ability to turn them sideways.I don't know how you guys can stand the uber-rectangles. Unless you buy super big, you're gonna be squinting when reading text. Vertical space yo.
It's a shame that 5:4 has been abandoned. Square is king.
If it's all about vertical space to you, why not turn a 16:9 into a 9:16. Some monitors do come with the ability to turn them sideways.
Basically you like 5:4 because you started with 5:4. For documents, 9:16 is superior, or even 21:9 (two documents side by side), but for gaming, I'd say 16:9 is much better, as it is more immersive, same with movies, as they are made even wider than 16:9.Because then there's no horizontal space. 5:4 is a great balance.
Basically you like 5:4 because you started with 5:4. For documents, 9:16 is superior, or even 21:9 (two documents side by side), but for gaming, I'd say 16:9 is much better, as it is more immersive, same with movies, as they are made even wider than 16:9.
Everything is a compromise in the end.
Most competitive games will never support 21:9. Games like Overwatch force the game to run in 16:9 because it otherwise gives a huge advantage to people using 21:9 displays.
Mhmm, such as...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcowJYevuXU
More and more people will be getting these monitors and it will become standard for PC gaming. The old square screens are pretty square in comparison.
Wrong.gif
Any 2 documents that will fit side by side at 3440x1440 will fit side by side at 3840x2160.
And I don't think I could find a 21:9 27" screen immersive. Just too small.
if i want to look at my documents in a 1720x1440 window then i'll make the windows that size. and still have extra real estate left over.Except the aspect ratio is way off. 3440x1440 with 2 = 1720 x 1440 each
3840x2160 = 1920 x 2160, so you have more vertical than width.
I don't see 21:9 becoming a standard. Sure there will be people that use them. Admittedly I cannot stand ultra wide monitors as I highly dislike the lack of vertical space. But with just about all content being pointed towards 16:9 going into the semi-far future (1080, 4k, 8k, all 16:9) 21:9 is going to be a nitch.
What lack of vertical space? Its the SAME as a 16:9 monitor with extra on the sides. Nothing is taken away.