tegirinenashi
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 140
It just occurred to me that for many naive buyers the number 21:9 sounds more impressive than 16:9. Which is ridiculously misleading. Remember when 2560x1440 were the norm, and then suddenly, 2560x1080 become "cool"? Now that 3840 x 2160 is commodity, the display manufacturers peddle 3440x1440? To better reflect this reality, I suggest one of the two aspect ratio renaming alternatives. Either:
1. Stop calling 21:9 ultrawide, but use more appropriate "16:7 ultrashort" label
2. Dub new exciting 32:18 "IMAX-like experiece" for 16:9 UHD.
1. Stop calling 21:9 ultrawide, but use more appropriate "16:7 ultrashort" label
2. Dub new exciting 32:18 "IMAX-like experiece" for 16:9 UHD.