Aspect Ratios...

rabidz7

rabidz7

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
1,331
What aspect ratio do you prefer, and why? This assumes that all other aspects of the display are the same and total pixel count is the same? Personally, my favorite is 3:2 because it is a compromise between height and width. I don't mind 4:3 or 16:10, but I despise 21:9 and 16:9 because they feel excessively wide and feel vertically cramped.
 
69:25

So I can watch Ben Hur in its original aspect ratio without letterboxing :D.
 
16:10 (24 inch) so I can put two 8.5x11 pages alongside each other on the screen at 1:1 size and have just a tiny little bit of unused space vertically and horizontally.

Example: A Word document in which I am writing, alongside a PDF file containing research.
 
16:10 seems like a nice compromise to me. At this point though, with large-sized panels being so ubiquitous (meaning they'll be wide enough to fill my field of vision), I could go back to a 4:3 or maybe 3:2 in e.g. 30-35" size with 3072p resolution.

EDIT:
If I had a dedicated gaming rig, I'd probably go with an ultrawide curved display.
 
I'm totally fine with 16:9. It feels the most cinematic (for movies or games).

I'd even say wider is even better (never tried 21:9, but looking forward to try out Nvidia Surround).
 
I like 16:10 the most for pretty much everything. I don't watch videos on my PC so I don't need 16:9.
 
Given choice of high-res/big-size/good other params, i'd choose 4:3. But there is no new one which would be competitive for all of that. Hence i'd go for next least wide, that offers said other qualities. Be it 16:10 or 16:9. Certainly NOT 21:9.
 
I prefer widescreen and want to get a 21:9 screen as soon as I can afford one.
 
If the 21:9 was large and dense enough then 21:9.

My current (modest) screen is 16:10 and it's great too, but only 1200p. I don't mind the black bars though.
 
I loved 4:3.. till 16:9 came around lol.. Now anything in that ratio feels old and dated.
 
At 2540x1440 or more, 16:9 vs 16:10 is largely irrelevant. At lower resolutions, 16:10 is always better.
 
Dont care tbh, as long as the res is high enough.
 
lee0539 said:
21:9 immersion
Click to expand...

Yep, curved 21/9 is the sweetspot IMO. I would like something even wider that can replace my triple monitor setup. I don't think their will be such thing though. At least things might get better with the rift.
 
21:9.

Two years ago, I laughed out loud at this form-factor / aspect ratio. Thought it was utterly ridiculous. Then I got a Dell 21:9 at work when the leases on my Dell 1680s ran out last summer. Didn't take long to realize the advantages in running the wider aspect ratio in Adobe Premiere. But it wasn't until I played TF2 on it that I was really sold on the AR. So now I have a LG 34UM65 on my primary rig at home.

Then I started playing 2.35 aspect ratio videos on the damn thing and I was REALLY sold on it. The Avengers Ultron trailer on Youtube is native 21:9 (1280x534) screen is filled. The video cutscenes to Diablo 3, same thing. Now I'm plugging my Roku in and watching Netflix on it with no more letterbox bars, evar.

I'm seriously looking at 2.35 projector screens now.
 
I like 21:9. My eyes prefer wider rather than tall. As long as it meets a minimum height. The 34" is minimum. 37-40 would probably be ideal.
 
interesting, i can see how pillarboxing (learned a new word!) is less objectionable. Can you explain the resolution and brightness loss?

I can see how you lose the use of all available pixels with both letterboxing and pillarboxing, but surely you lose a big chunk of horizontal resolution with pillarboxing right?
 
rabidz7 said:
Personally, my favorite is 3:2 because it is a compromise between height and width.
Click to expand...

I'll assume you set up a custom resolution on a CRT since you have such a strong fetish for them; what resolution do you tend to choose when you do that?

When I look up 3:2 in the List of common resolutions, all I find in modern non-phone displays are the MIcrosoft Surface Pro 3 at 2160x1440 and the Apple Powerbook G4 at 1440x960 or smaller.
 
shake your hand around in your peripheral vision until you can see the motion well

I think the ideal desk monitor for immersion is something close to 34" 21:9. it's 31.25 wide and just barely sufficiently tall. give it a fast panel and a sexy curve to stop the bad TN viewing angle and you've got the most immersive gaming platform

a 37" 16:10 would be even better though!
 
Last edited:
spacediver said:
What's the reasoning behind your claim here?
Click to expand...

At 1920x1200, you have a fair bit more space for the Windows or OSX toolbar compared to 1920x1080. Same is true for smaller resolutions. With 1080p I find myself putting the toolbar to the side to gain enough vertical space.

However, at 2560x1440 there is so much desktop space that this becomes a non-issue. There is always plenty of vertical space. The extra pixels of 2560x1600 don't change the experience noticeably and the 1440p usually benefits from slightly smaller display size and thus sharper text due to smaller pixels.

Overall I think those 21:9 at high enough resolution might be great. Lots of desktop space to put windows side by side. Unfortunately there are none at the market that are in any way gaming oriented or have G-Sync and so on. I'd love to see a 21:9 version of the panel on the ROG Swift.
 
ah, I was assuming display size was equal. So what you're really getting at is that 2560x1440 displays tend to be so large, that aspect ratio becomes less relevant for workspace. So it's not resolution, but display size that is the factor you're referring to (if I've understood you correctly).
 
I used to love 1920x1200 16:10 on my 17 inch laptop monitor!!! Such a nice PPI density ^^
 
Laptop is usually held/looked at closer. Hence subjective PPI for those 4K screens is denser, text/UI elements smaller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top