Why did 16:9 replace 4:3 as the default aspect ratio, did some soientists figure out the optimal ratio for the field of view of the human eye or was it just coincidence?
>>10880734821:9 master race reporting.
16:10 would be the optimal field of view.4:3 was mainly standard because CRTs were easier manufactured that way. 16:9 was adopted by TV stations in the 90s.
>>10880734816:9 panels dominate because it's closest to that of movies. Since panels of that ratio are being cranked out for televisions, it's cheap to also use them for monitors.
>>108807473Yup, 16:10 is god-tier. 16:9 is too short in landscape and too narrow in portrait. 16:10 is perfect.
>>108807348I am old enough to remember why. When high definition standard was created the plan was to use 3:2 as the new ratio, because it was closer to the field of view of the human eyes, but an asshole proposed 16:9 instead because it was the middle between the 4:3 standard ratio and the retarded ultrawide cinema ratio, so the best to watch both old format and cinema, and unfortunately others accepted his stupid idea. And so shitty 16:9 became the retarded standard for TV. Also, back then first person shooter games were hugely popular and benefited from widescreens, so 16:9 sadly became the standard for computers too despite being absolutely horrible for everything else than shooter games.>>108807351>21:9 master raceYou are an extraterrestrial. Go back to your planet.>>108807473>>10880750216:10 is barely better than 16:9, 4:3 and 3:2 are much better for everything, but you probably never used any such screen because they are extremely rare now.
>>108807348>Why did 16:9 replace 4:3 as the default aspect ratioBecause it's bad for multitasking. Anything wider is better. But, of course there is diminishing returns. >>108807351 <- poor confused soul like that one, where snapping isn't enough and you need things like PowerToys to use it properly.
>>108807599literally anyone can kneecap their aspect ratio to 4:3 and 3:2they fucking suck for content and if you're into office shit you can just get a regular monitor and rotate it
>>108807599>4:3 and 3:2 are much better for everything, but you probably never used any such screen because they are extremely rare now.ipad is 4:3, thinkplus tablet is 3:2
>>108807348Pan&scan formatted movies were a fucking kick in the dick.
my first reply on 4chan!!! how i understand this tread about monitor panels
>>108807662>>my first reply on 4chan!!! how i understand this tread about monitor panels>Pretending to be 8 years oldNice try glowie. Get off my board!
16:9 is the aspect ratio for consuming media slop. They made 16:9 the default aspect ratio to dumb us down.
16:10 is perfect
>>108807788>They made 16:9 the default aspect ratio to dumb us down.Take off the tinfoil, Cletus. Sometimes a good thing is just a good thing.
>>108807502For portrait 16:10 isn't that great either, it's good for landscape. 5:4 is good for portrait. So is 4:3. The latter is much more common, but I'm still using a 5:4 display as my second monitor in portrait.16:9 is basically unusable, you really feel those missing pixels.
>>108807348Flat panels are manufactured on a horizontal roll, narrower aspect -> higher yield, and 16:9 is the value sweet spot for mfgs and most customers.16:10 is objectively the correct ratio.
What happened is TVs got big and the only place to put them was above the fireplace and there's not enough vertical space for a 65" or 80" 3:4 tv above the fireplace.
>>108807599>but you probably never used any such screen because they are extremely rare now.I've had multiple 16:10 notebooks. I used a 5:4 LCD for years and 4:3 CRT before that.
>>108807348but if you go for a bigger 16:9, the height becomes the same.it becomes like a 4:3 but with room for stuff at the sides if you wish.
>>108808127No matter how big the 16:9 screen is, it will never be tall enough. Why would you compare a tiny 4:3 screen to a huge 16:9 screen? You could just buy a huge 4:3 screen.
>>108808239by that logic no 4:3 monitor can be tall enough either. we live in a world with 4k and 8k monitors that we scale down because of our limited meatbag existence. a perfect 4:3 monitor can live inside a big high resolution widescreen, or ultrawide.in the future when our sight is enhanced, you can stare into a megawide monitor and see millions of 4:3 monitors if you wish, because of the mega resolution.
>>108808320A 2560×1920 resolution 4:3 monitor has almost the same vertical space as a 4k monitor so you can get a physically smaller display which is equally good for any use case where vertical space matters (all of them except watching movies).There is no reason to ever use cheap cuck screens at 16:9 besides poverty. If you can't afford something better, it is what it is. Sadly most displays for desktop computers are cuck screens and only laptops and tablets get the good shit.Still even a 24 inch 16:10 screen is a colossal improvement over a 24 inch 1080p screen. You can hardly even browse the web on the 1080p screen unless you make it portrait lmao.
>hurr durr 16:10 is better>look inside>it's just hor- compared to 16:9
Reminder: 14:10 is the best for screens, just like paper.
>>108808491with a ultrawide with high enough resolution (downscaled) and the exact heigh, you can fit any 4:3 or 16:10 monitor inside of it.
