Aspect Ratios...

Discussion in 'Displays' started by rabidz7, Nov 6, 2014.

  1. rabidz7

    rabidz7 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,238
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    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.
     
  2. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    18,522
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    69:25

    So I can watch Ben Hur in its original aspect ratio without letterboxing :D.
     
  3. Meeho

    Meeho [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,470
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
  4. polonyc2

    polonyc2 [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    16,821
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    16:10 for gaming...16:9 for movies/TV
     
  5. SD45

    SD45 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    164
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    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.
     
  6. Ahriman4891

    Ahriman4891 Gawd

    Messages:
    534
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2005
    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.
     
  7. Beast Mode

    Beast Mode [H]Lite

    Messages:
    83
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2012
    16:9 is fine. 16:10 is better.

    4:3 is disgusting.
     
  8. cybereality

    cybereality [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,686
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    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).
     
  9. SirMaster

    SirMaster 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,122
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2010
    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.
     
  10. Church

    Church Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    371
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    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.
     
  11. Zepher

    Zepher [H]ipster Replacement

    Messages:
    16,887
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    I prefer widescreen and want to get a 21:9 screen as soon as I can afford one.
     
  12. Corvette

    Corvette [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,270
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    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.
     
  13. Odellus

    Odellus [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,696
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2010
    4:3 > 16:10 > 16:9 > 21:9
     
  14. StaticFX

    StaticFX n00b

    Messages:
    7
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2014
    I loved 4:3.. till 16:9 came around lol.. Now anything in that ratio feels old and dated.
     
  15. kasakka

    kasakka [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,212
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    At 2540x1440 or more, 16:9 vs 16:10 is largely irrelevant. At lower resolutions, 16:10 is always better.
     
  16. spacediver

    spacediver 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,503
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2013
    What's the reasoning behind your claim here?
     
  17. jojo69

    jojo69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,395
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
  18. Dcode

    Dcode Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    355
    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Whatever you get used to.
     
  19. lee0539

    lee0539 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,804
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2001
    21:9 immersion
     
  20. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    18,883
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Dont care tbh, as long as the res is high enough.
     
  21. KashunatoR

    KashunatoR [H]Lite

    Messages:
    127
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    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.
     
  22. Saturn_V

    Saturn_V [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,595
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    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.
     
  23. spacediver

    spacediver 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,503
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2013
    what about video content produced for ratios not as extreme as that? You'll get vertical letter bars.
     
  24. ilumo

    ilumo n00b

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    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.
     
  25. jcvjcvjcvjcv

    jcvjcvjcvjcv Gawd

    Messages:
    703
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    You're 15?

    Just tape off a portion of your current screen and you get a 21:9 impression...
     
  26. Saturn_V

    Saturn_V [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,595
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Pillarboxing 16:9 content on a 21:9 screen isn't as objectionable to me as letterboxing 2.35 on a 16.9 screen. The letterboxing forces you to lose a big chunk of vertical resolution and brightness. It's no different than pillarboxing 4:3 content on a 16:9 screen.
     
  27. spacediver

    spacediver 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,503
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2013
    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?
     
  28. evilsofa

    evilsofa [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,078
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    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.
     
  29. HoffY

    HoffY Gawd

    Messages:
    938
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    16:10 (or 3:2 if not).

    otherwise GTFO ;)
     
  30. bAMtan2

    bAMtan2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,480
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    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: Nov 8, 2014
  31. TangledThorns

    TangledThorns Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    265
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    16:9 is best and only standard.
     
  32. kasakka

    kasakka [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,212
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    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.
     
  33. spacediver

    spacediver 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,503
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2013
    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).
     
  34. androsforever

    androsforever [H]Lite

    Messages:
    97
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    I used to love 1920x1200 16:10 on my 17 inch laptop monitor!!! Such a nice PPI density ^^
     
  35. evilsofa

    evilsofa [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,078
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    That's 133 PPI. 4K displays are at 137 PPI for 32", 140 PPI for 31.5" and 142 for 31". You may want to look into those.
     
  36. Church

    Church Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    371
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Laptop is usually held/looked at closer. Hence subjective PPI for those 4K screens is denser, text/UI elements smaller.