Why can't the consumer market handle the term "8:5"? The have to hear "16" to know it's widescreen.
>>110334687Non-Americans can't into fractions.
>>110334687Probably same reason as pic relatedForcing money on people should be a crime, most cant matg
>>110334781>Non-Americanslmao. Americans are the ones who struggle with numbers in general. They are even confused by digital clocks.
>>110334781>>110334929It's not really because of this. It just makes more intuitive sense for quicker comparison, since 16:9 has been market standard for almost 20 years now
why didnt they just call it 1.6 and 1. 7
>>1103351204chan stripped the U+0305 COMBINING OVERLINE from my post
>>110335127newfag
Why can't they just give us the actual pixel dimensions instead of trying to hide them in the fine print like it's some dirty secret?
because it's more immediately obvious that 16:10 is slightly taller than 16:9. just wait 'till someone figures out 4:3 can be expressed as 16:12
>>110334687>Why is 1080p "full HD"?
>>110335234Why did YouTube de-classify 720p as HD when they have no say on the matter?
>>110334687Because of 16:9. Talking about 16:10 gives normies a better frame of reference.
>>110335234because there was a more budget (cope) version which was called HD (720p). 1080p was the premium/"full" version.yes, HD means 720p
>>110335244because they never claimed to be part of the HDTV standard, so their use of '"HD" is not technically the same thing
>>110334687Should have just called it 4:2.5
>>11033468716:9 came before 16:10
>>110334687why not 6:7 haha get it guys
>>110336875?
16:9 was such a shitty standard I'm glad it's slowly getting phased out. Especially for laptops, when the first 16:9 laptops came out I laughed out loud when I saw one, it looked absolutely ridiculous.16:10 is a marginal improvement, we need to go back to 4:3 or at the very least 3:2.
>>110334687It immediately tells you its 16:9 but taller.Everyone knows what 16:9 looks like, so it's the most intuitive reference point.
>>110335234Because 1080i was "half HD".
>>110334687Because retards like >>110336957 exist who go "hurr derp must be taller because 10>9" but if they used 8:5 the same mongoloid would think it was smaller.
>>110336921The lack of pure vertical height is missed.>hurr just have a thinner windowThen what's the point of the rest of the screen?
>>110336960The fuck are you talking about? 1280x720 was marketed as HD and 1920x1080 was full HD, it was never about progressive or interlaced.
>>110336921No, laptops should be 21:9 to closer match the aspect ratio of backpacks and keyboards.Maximum screen size for the backpack size and allow for full width keyboard.
>>110336984On laptops it's not just that you lose vertical height for the screen, but it constrains the design of the laptop deck itself, a keyboard, trackpad and speakers take up vertical space, so you either add an extra thicc bezel or you sacrifice the touchpad size, put down firing speakers etc.
>>110336989720p, 1080i and 1080p were all "HD" but only 1080p was "full" because it could handle the full range of all 3 HD formats.
>>110337001idk what kind of backback you use but back in the day my 5:4 laptop fit nicely in my backpack
>>110337023Yeah you don't reduce the height.You make it as tall as possible while still fitting in a bag.Then you make it as wide as possible to also fit in a bag which let you end up with around 21:9.16:10 laptops are the same height (limited by the typical bag), they just lack width.
>>110337025Stop already
>>110334687same reason they can't handle 43:18 or 21:9. It isn't as common as 16:9.
>>110337029I use a backpack that is roughly the same aspect ratio as my back i.e. around 21:9.If your back is 5:4 you're really fat and/or short.
>>110334687Making one part of the fraction the same makes it easier to compare them at a glance.
>>110336983>would think it was smaller"Having an obvious reference point" and "Takes more than one second of thought, I'll just make shit up" aren't the only two options. Use your brain.It would just take slightly longer to get a frame of reference since 16:9 isn't an instant comparison.
>>110334687big number good
