Vote your favorite aspect ratio

Discussion in 'Displays' started by tegirinenashi, Sep 13, 2015.

What AR you like the most

  1. 4:3 (=16:12)

    2 vote(s)
    2.1%
  2. 16:11

    1 vote(s)
    1.0%
  3. 16:10

    46 vote(s)
    47.4%
  4. 16:9

    22 vote(s)
    22.7%
  5. 2:3

    1 vote(s)
    1.0%
  6. 21:9

    25 vote(s)
    25.8%
  1. tegirinenashi

    tegirinenashi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    140
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
  2. zone74

    zone74 Gawd

    Messages:
    621
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2015
    Favorite would be 21:9
    Right now I'd be more inclined to buy a 40-46" 16:9 3840x2160 display instead of a 34" 3440x1440 21:9 display however.
    Those 3440x1440 panels just aren't enough to replace a multi-monitor setup yet in my opinion.
    I'm hoping that there will eventually be 5120x2160 ultrawides in the region of 50-55", because that would be large enough to replace the need for multi-monitor setup without being too big. (it's a 40-46" 4K made wider)
     
  3. jojo69

    jojo69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,424
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    21:9 baby

    though as was pointed out in the other thread, why it is not called 7:3 I do not know
     
  4. Vega

    Vega [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,310
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Having tried just about everything, I keep coming back to 16:9. It has a very good aspect ratio that fills your vertical and horizontal vision on high resolution displays almost equally. Good for immersion.
     
  5. Tyler-Durden

    Tyler-Durden 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,302
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    I preferred 16:10 until getting my new Samsung 4K TV.

    Now, I'm all in with 16:9 and 40" of 4K screen real estate. :)
     
  6. aadik

    aadik Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    281
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
  7. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    19,088
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    You havent given an option for no preference.
    As long as the image consumes a large part of my vision, enough to give good immersion, I care little.
     
  8. Meeho

    Meeho [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,592
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    16:10 all the way.
     
  9. Richard Jones

    Richard Jones Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    385
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2014
  10. Betaboy1983

    Betaboy1983 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,264
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    I've only tried 4:3, 16:9 and currently using 16:10. So 16:10, (computer) but I'm curious to try a 21:9 monitor and see if I like it. If it were a TV, it would have to be large though as Zone74 pointed out.
     
  11. elelunicy

    elelunicy n00b

    Messages:
    14
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2014
    Maybe because neither 2560x1080 nor 3440x1440 is actually 7:3?
     
  12. waderunner

    waderunner [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,073
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    16:9 is fine for TV screens. For PC screens up to 24", I much prefer 16:10.
     
  13. LurkerLito

    LurkerLito 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,155
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    16:10 for me. I am kind of hoping for a 4K equivalent 16:10 monitor to show up around 40"-44" ideally but for some reason I don't think I will get it only because monitors have pretty much standardized on 16:9 and if they do make a 16:10 it'll probably cost a lot more.
     
  14. chili dog

    chili dog Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    214
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    16:10 definitely. Selection keeps getting smaller on them though.
     
  15. mejobloggs

    mejobloggs [H]Lite

    Messages:
    86
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    I think favorite ratio changes depending on screensize. Needs more options on the poll

    Below 27" 1440p I'd chose 16:10 any day.

    27" and above I'm happy with 16:9 (such as 1440p)

    40" and above I'd probably go for 21:9.

    I've never used anything above a 27" 1440p, but the other discussion thread had photos of people working splitscreen on 40"+ 21:9 monitors and it look perfect for coding/multitasking

    However, I don't think I'd like to game on a 21:9. To me it just seems too wide vs height... Like if I walked around in real life squinting all the time.

    I think my perfect setup would actually be 2 monitors. Then I could get the benefit of split-screen multitasking, and then switch to gaming on just a single monitor at my preferred size (which would probably be 27" 16:10 but I've never seen those, so I'd settle for 27" 16:9 1440p)
     
  16. SD45

    SD45 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    164
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    16:10, the Golden Ratio.

    And I have maintained this preference since my first 19" monitor.
     
  17. Vega

    Vega [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,310
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    16:10 was nice back when resolutions were quite low. 1920x1200 it was nice to have those extra vertical pixels versus 1920x1080. 16:9 is crappy on low resolution but comes into it's own at high resolution.

    In the era of 2560x1440/3840x2160/5120x2880 you aren't as wanting as much for vertical real-estate.

    16:10 is on life support.
     
  18. XoR

    XoR Gawd

    Messages:
    834
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    obviously the one and only 8:5 :cool:
     
  19. mejobloggs

    mejobloggs [H]Lite

    Messages:
    86
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Also, I bet no one would want 21:9 on a 20~24" monitor :p

    So def think poll needs to include screen size AND ratio
     
  20. jojo69

    jojo69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,424
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    3@24"

    works great
     
  21. mejobloggs

    mejobloggs [H]Lite

    Messages:
    86
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Multiple monitors is much different though. Way better control over apps/windows etc, and then you can choose to use just one monitor for a game etc etc
     
  22. rabidz7

    rabidz7 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,279
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    4:3 for desktop use. 16:10 for games. 3:2 for systems that are used for both games and desktop use.
     
  23. Pirx

    Pirx n00b

    Messages:
    12
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    i'd like a 16:10 monitor with 120+ hz and ULMB, but have to settle with 16:9 as i don't see this becoming available.
     
  24. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,013
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    The good old 5:4 is missing.

    My favorite ar is 16:10. I don't like unnecessarily wide screens, it's just a waste, I'll never put two windows side by side on a single screen anyway.

    And I prefer 16:10 over 16:9 because I do a lot of video editing, and 16:10 provides space for controls below the actual video. But It's also better to do cad work on a less wide screen as the layout of most cad programs is like that, that the actual work area will be close to square which is the best.

    I'd rather have two screens side by side if I need more desktop space than a single hideously wide screen.
     
  25. Mr. Bluntman

    Mr. Bluntman [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,408
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    16:9, simply because I hate letterboxing and most games are now properly formatted for this aspect. 16:10 is great for content creation, and 4:3 for old school stuff, because that's all there was (with the exception of NeXT cubes and the Sharp X68000/68030 which used almost square aspect ratio monitors) back then.
     
  26. xmadror

    xmadror Gawd

    Messages:
    740
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    I really like my 3440*1440 display so I voted 21:9.
    I would love to eventually get a monitor with a 5120x2160 resolution at 40 to 45".
     
  27. Garretta

    Garretta Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    332
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    .
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2019
  28. rabidz7

    rabidz7 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,279
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    A FW900 would be a good choice. Supports 2560x1600@72Hz, 2048x1280p@90Hz, 1920x1200p@96Hz, 1536x960p@120Hz. All resolutions have zero motion blur (ULMB-equiv), IPS-level color and viewing angles and far better than even VA-level contrast.
     
  29. plugwash

    plugwash [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,532
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    If the choice was with the same pixel count in each case i'd probablly chose 4:3 for screens up to 1920000 pixels and then widen out above that.

    but that is never the choice. You get a choice of standard resoloutions and pricepoints with wildly varying prices per pixel. I have a pair of 1600x1200 screens which I love but I could never justify buying another pair new given that 1920x1200 costs LESS than 1600x1200. When buying new screens for secondary machines 1920x1080 is a no-brainer because it has a far lower cost per pixel than any other resoloution.
     
  30. Yippee38

    Yippee38 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,816
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2000
    I like the little bit extra height that a 16:10 gives.
     
  31. sblantipodi

    sblantipodi 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,527
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    it's clear that 16:10 is the preferred one, can't understand why manufacturer continues to produce 16:9 instead.