whatsmyaspectratio.com

[Zepher]

21:9 kind-of makes sense when LCDs have poor black levels if you spend most of your time watching movies I guess.
Otherwise I'm not really seeing the benefit of 21:9 over a 4K monitor.

for me, 40" 16:9 at my view distance is too tall and probably won't fit in the area.
40" 21:9 5120x2160 would be nice though.
http://displaywars.com/40-inch-21x9-vs-40-inch-16x9

and I do watch quite a few movies on my monitor,

 

[tegirinenashi]

In your [ultrawide] setup you are wasting some vertical space between desk and lower image boundary. 40" UHD is the best flush-mounted to the desk surface. Curved UHD Samsungs can be flush-mounted with zero gap, while for Crossover 404K the gap can be as low as 0.75" (this is an artifact of oddly protruding infrared sensor).

 

[aadik]

Im with tegirinenashi 40'' UHD guys can make 37-38'' 21:9 if they want.
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/TerminatorBGL/media/Mythings/screensizecomparison.jpg.html

 

[zone74]

for me, 40" 16:9 at my view distance is too tall and probably won't fit in the area.

Though your setup is obviously an exception to it, I think most people are likely to be width-constrained rather than height-constrained, if anything.
Height is what matters more for most of the content that people are displaying on monitors. You can show considerably more lines of text with a vertical resolution of 2160 pixels rather than 1440.
Regardless of resolution, when you actually have a display positioned so that you can see the whole thing in your vision at once, the 21:9 aspect ratio feels very short to me when used as a monitor. I'm inclined to agree with the people that miss 4:3 or 5:4 monitors.
If only Eizo's square monitors had 200 PPI variants, and didn't cost so much...

40" 21:9 5120x2160 would be nice though.
http://displaywars.com/40-inch-21x9-vs-40-inch-16x9

That would be an awkward display at 139 pixels-per-inch.
To avoid scaling, a 5120x2160 display should be about 56" (100 PPI)
Or with 2x scaling it should be about 28" (200 PPI)

The current 3440x1440 panels should really be 37" (100 PPI) rather than 34" (110 PPI)
And a 4K monitor should ideally be 44" (100 PPI) but I used 40" for the comparison image to keep the pixel density the same.

 

[a3venom]

4:3 is just the ugliest aspect ratio ever made, so anyone in this thread advocating this has to be in their late 40s with nostalgia.

 

[mejobloggs]

(screenshot of ginormous monitor)
There is enough space to fit two whole pages side-by-side, plus toolbars etc. and none of the horizontal space is wasted. Whereas 16:9 1080p is much less practical than 16:10 1200p, going from 2160p to 2400p isn't necessary, as 2160p will already fit the equivalent of a whole A4 page in height.

At 32", the monitor I took that screenshot on has both more useable area and substantially higher definition than a 24" 1080p monitor.

Yes good point. I'm strongly in favor of 16:10 over 16:9 but I mainly use 24" monitors and find 1080p just too small vertical.

Possibly once you get 1440p and above that's plenty enough vertical.

 

[tegirinenashi]

4:3 is just the ugliest aspect ratio ever made, so...

You should apply for Apple iPad product strategy/design position, and stop that inconvenient flow of 4:3 devices. Or Apple is not sufficiently "cool" or "hipster" for your taste?

 

[jbltecnicspro]

Personally, I love 4:3. But that's just me.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

4:3 is just the ugliest aspect ratio ever made, so anyone in this thread advocating this has to be in their late 40s with nostalgia.

I'm not old enough to have nostalgia. I find it more compact, easy on the eyes, and easier to read stuff on. Nothing wrong with the old box.

 

[Richard Jones]

4:3 is just the ugliest aspect ratio ever made, so anyone in this thread advocating this has to be in their late 40s with nostalgia.

Teenagers be like "everything before my time sucks" lol.

 

[a3venom]

Well, it ain't coming back, ultrawide is the future.
How can you even debate its better?
The first posts on this thread was bitching about "how can you decide what aspect ratio is good for what?" man he made a nice website appreciate him and move on.
4:3 makes more people throw up than Caitlyn Jenner.
Can't deny its ugly, if productivity was more important than aesthetics, we would have 2 inch thick phones with 10 day batteries and built in coffee machines or shit.

 

[zone74]

Well, it ain't coming back, ultrawide is the future.
How can you even debate its better?

How does width help when you're viewing documents, web pages, or code?

Can't deny its ugly, if productivity was more important than aesthetics, we would have 2 inch thick phones with 10 day batteries and built in coffee machines or shit.

What are you even talking about? How is 4:3 an "ugly" aspect ratio?
Are you aware that every iPad - including the new iPad Pro - and a lot of similar devices are using a 4:3 aspect ratio?
Even Microsoft switched away from 16:9 to 3:2 with the Surface after realizing that 16:9 is a bad aspect ratio for that sort of device - and 3:2 is very close to 4:3. (12:8 and 12:9)

 

[tegirinenashi]

Can't deny its ugly...ultrawide is the future....

Ultrashort TVs and Laptop failed miserably. Desktop monitors are to follow.

Speaking of the future, the first Virtual Reality movie would render visual merits of "Lawrence of Arabia" to the level of the black and white silent films.

 

[rabidz7]

Well, it ain't coming back, ultrawide is the future.
How can you even debate its better?
The first posts on this thread was bitching about "how can you decide what aspect ratio is good for what?" man he made a nice website appreciate him and move on.
4:3 makes more people throw up than Caitlyn Jenner.
Can't deny its ugly, if productivity was more important than aesthetics, we would have 2 inch thick phones with 10 day batteries and built in coffee machines or shit.

Ultra-wide monitors are pieces of trash. I don't know why you bring someone who is suffering from symptoms of a mental illness into a discussion about displays.

 

[zone74]

I actually do think that ultrawide displays have a place.
If they had appeared a few years earlier so that your choice was between 2560x1440 or 3440x1440, they would make a lot more sense.

The problem with existing ultrawide displays is that they arrived after 4K got here, and these 3440x1440 screens are a similar price to larger 3840x2160 displays.
I would much rather have the 40" 4K screen than a 34" Ultrawide.
And I'm not sure that 3440 pixels is enough width that you can comfortably split the display into thirds, which is something that I'd want to do if I had an ultrawide panel.

However once you get to about the 40-46" range with a 16:9 panel, that's about the maximum height a display can get before it starts being uncomfortable to read, in my experience.
Any larger than that, and you have to sit further back and start using display scaling to make text more legible - and we all know that display scaling is far from ideal right now.
I'm using a 46" screen at the moment and while it's partly due to the fact that it was mounted 6" too high, I might actually prefer something a bit smaller if I'm honest.

Once we're at the point where we are limited by height and the choice is between a 44" 4K screen and a 55" 5K (5120x2160) Ultrawide, I would go with the latter. At that point it stops being "shorter" and actually is wider than the alternatives, replacing a multi-monitor setup.
At that size, when being used as a monitor, a slight curve on the display might even start to make sense. I don't see much point in curved 16:9 screens.

 

[a3venom]

Ultra-wide monitors are pieces of trash. I don't know why you bring someone who is suffering from symptoms of a mental illness into a discussion about displays.

This thread wasn't made to be a discussion on usability of different aspect ratios, and ultra wide displays are being received with great positivity, getting awesome reviews, and more companies are stepping in.
I think that has to be because they are really shitty.

On the other hand the amazing 4:3 aspect ratio, if you google it, you will find threads from 2009 for people trying to find one. That has to make them super awesome.

 

[aadik]

If your 21:9 is so great why even youtube still not support it? 40'' UHD 16:9 is the best because you can watch full screen youtube movies and you can play with it 21:9 37-38'' resoluiton. And they are cheaper or same as 34'' 21:9 1440p

 

[a3venom]

40'' UHD 16:9 - Maybe this will be my next display.
But ultrawide seems just as interesting to me because of the possibility of Multitasking. They seem really good in the youtube videos I've seen them in, and most games look really cool on them too.

 

[tegirinenashi]

If your 21:9 is so great why even youtube still not support it? 40'' UHD 16:9 is the best because you can watch full screen youtube movies and you can play with it 21:9 37-38'' resoluiton. And they are cheaper or same as 34'' 21:9 1440p

At the end of the day cost effectiveness is the argument that wins no matter how emotionally people attached to their favorite aspect ratio. Let face it, 16:9 is one or two orders of magnitude more common than closest competitor. And when you have volume, you have competitive prices. Even if manufacturers suddenly start producing 16:10 and 4:3 displays, they would be costly -- the same situation as with ultra-wide displays. But not giving that option to consumers at all?

As for youtube, it publishes 5-7 pages of new UHD movies every day. Perhaps only couple of them are worth watching, but the experience is nothing short of incredible/lifelike. Sadly, there are some "cinematic" ones which play with black bars. Please vote those bastards down to oblivion.

 

[xorbe]

My friend has 21:9 for programming. He seems to like it. I guess it's not typical consumer usage.

 

[Zepher]

If your 21:9 is so great why even youtube still not support it? 40'' UHD 16:9 is the best because you can watch full screen youtube movies and you can play with it 21:9 37-38'' resoluiton. And they are cheaper or same as 34'' 21:9 1440p

Youtube supports it, it comes down to how the content creator made the file.
Some do 21:9 in a 16:9 frame so you are stuck with black bars but if it is uploaded in 21:9, it will fill the screen like this trailer,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alQlJDRnQkE

 

[aadik]

There will be never more videos @ 21:9 format than 16:9. 90%+ average joe cams cant even record 21:9 format.

 

[Saturn_V]

If your 21:9 is so great why even youtube still not support it?

YouTube *does* support 21:9 full screen playback. Has for over a year now. Vimeo too. Not just movie trailers, but but indie films too and even uploaded 21:9 gameplay footage.

But users with 16:9 monitors would never know that- you still get letterbox bars.

 

[tegirinenashi]

YouTube *does* support 21:9 full screen playback....But users with 16:9 monitors would never know that- you still get letterbox bars.

OK, the next thing they should add is an option to crop 21:9 to 16:9, like any decent player does (e.g VLC). If movie director is arrogant or just stupid enough to shoot the film in aspect ratio which doesn't fit the majority of devices, then his "masterpiece" deserves to be cropped.

 

[zone74]

There will be never more videos @ 21:9 format than 16:9. 90%+ average joe cams cant even record 21:9 format.

Maybe not on YouTube, but almost every movie in my collection is wider than 16:9.
Watching films on a 21:9 screen is great because you have a constant-height setup where the only thing that changes with aspect ratio is width, rather than the image getting smaller with 2.37:1 films as is typical on a 16:9 display. Very few films are 1.78:1 native.
Ultrawide just doesn't make much sense in the context of monitors right now, because watching a letterboxed 2.37:1 movie on a 40" 4K screen still produces a larger image than full-screen on a 34" ultrawide, and those 4K panels are less expensive.

A 55" 5K ultrawide (5120x2160) panel would be amazing. Probably my dream monitor until it's feasible to make that 10K. (a high DPI version)
16:9 5K (5120x2880) panels don't make sense at large sizes, as that would be a 58" screen (~100 PPI) which is far too tall to use as a monitor.
16:9 5K at 29" as a high DPI display is great though. The current Dell/Apple 5K screens are just a bit smaller than the ideal in my opinion. (220 PPI rather than 200)

 

[tegirinenashi]

It is really Hollywood problem that they made movie watching experience so pathetic. Yes, most of action movies are 2.35:1 or so, but once in a while there comes a great film where director feels that there is not enough height. So, how am I supposed to view it? Or am I supposed to buy a dedicated device for every aspect ratio Hollywood ever created?

I can go to some movie theater and find that typical cinema multiplex has screens that are width constrained. Today they have some odd aspect ratios, such as 2:1, and sometimes they show 2.25:1 movie with black bars on 1.78:1 screen! So if movie venues are confused, what do you expect from consumer?

Forget about theater, and let's try reproduce elevated movie watching experience at home. A typical projector is 16:9, so am I supposed to cough extra $1000 for anamorphic lens just for the privilege to see some stuff on the sides (which is important for 0.01% of the scenes)? Or should I suffer the whole movie with black bars and smaller image? Alternatively, I can use zoom method and loose 30% of image brightness due to the simple fact is that projector optics aspect ratio is 1:1. Why can't they just make all movies 16:9 and be done with it? We live in digital era where nobody cares about anamorphic lens, masking and zooming anymore.

And, finally, somebody should put those poor business travelers out of their misery who watch movies on the plane on their laptops and iPads.

 

[tegirinenashi]

As for various future resolutions here is google number of hits:

5120x2880 (AKA 5K) - About 384,000 results
5120x2160 (ultrawide 4K) - About 194,000 results
7680×4320 (8K) - About 512,000 results

Chances are 8K would become commodity before ultrawide 4K.

 

[xorbe]

OK, the next thing they should add is an option to crop 21:9 to 16:9, like any decent player does (e.g VLC). If movie director is arrogant or just stupid enough to shoot the film in aspect ratio which doesn't fit the majority of devices, then his "masterpiece" deserves to be cropped.

Or drag a box to select the crop area manually.

 

[zone74]

It is really Hollywood problem that they made movie watching experience so pathetic. Yes, most of action movies are 2.35:1 or so, but once in a while there comes a great film where director feels that there is not enough height. So, how am I supposed to view it? Or am I supposed to buy a dedicated device for every aspect ratio Hollywood ever created?

I'm not sure what you think is happening.
There is no "taller than 2.37:1". Movies are shot with a constant-height projection in mind.
Theaters are typically designed to natively support at least 2.40:1 and use drapes to mask any light spill when viewing anything shot in a smaller (narrower) aspect ratio.
Films only appear "shorter" on your screen at home because it's the wrong aspect ratio.

16:9 screen on top, 21:9 screen below:

When all else is equal, 21:9 displays should offer a superior viewing experience.
As I've said numerous times now, the issue with current ultrawide displays is that most people are not feeling height-limited by 27" monitors, so for many people it is preferable to get a larger 16:9 display (40" 4K) rather than making the 27" screen wider. (34" ultrawide)

However those 40" panels are really the upper limit of how tall a standard ~100 PPI monitor can be, so the only option for more workspace is to go wider - which would be a 55" 5K ultrawide. (5120x2160)

5120x2880 (5K 16:9) is only suitable as a high DPI display.
If used as a standard display without DPI scaling, it would be a 58" panel which is 27" tall, and that is simply too much to fit in your field of vision when sitting at a distance appropriate for reading text at 100 PPI.
When you are sitting back far enough to fit a screen that size in your vision, you will have to use DPI scaling to make text large enough to read clearly. Vega has said that he needs 120% scaling with his 55" 4K OLED for example, so 5K would need ~160% scaling.

I can go to some movie theater and find that typical cinema multiplex has screens that are width constrained. Today they have some odd aspect ratios, such as 2:1, and sometimes they show 2.25:1 movie with black bars on 1.78:1 screen! So if movie venues are confused, what do you expect from consumer?

I don't think I've ever seen a theater that was not able to handle at least 2.40:1 natively.

Chances are 8K would become commodity before ultrawide 4K.

Perhaps, but once we go beyond 4K we're no longer looking at expanding the workspace.
A 100 PPI 8K display would be 88" in size. That is far too big to ever be used as a monitor.
The "8K" resolution will be used to create "high DPI" variants of existing displays, not to expand the workspace available.

At 44" you get a 3840x2160 workspace with 2x DPI scaling.
At 29" you get a 2560x1440 workspace with 3x DPI scaling.
At 22" you get a 1920x1080 workspace with 4x DPI scaling.

These screens would focus on having amazing text and image rendering, rather than expanding the workspace.
4K is about as big as it's ever going to get, unless we get an ultrawide variant.

 

[Zepher]

I don't think I've ever seen a theater that was not able to handle at least 2.40:1 natively.

IMAX theaters don't do 2.35:1 native, but all normal theaters I have been to do.

 

[tegirinenashi]

Today we spend virtually all working/slacking time in front of monitors. There is no more piling papers on our desk. Therefore, ergonomics of typical desktop setup should be revisited.

I currently have 40" UHD nearly flush-mounted to desk surface. When jumbo 8K monitors appear, I will simply rebuild/remove most of the desk, leaving only mouse surface.

 

[kache]

I'm not sure what you think is happening.
There is no "taller than 2.37:1". Movies are shot with a constant-height projection in mind.
Theaters are typically designed to natively support at least 2.40:1 and use drapes to mask any light spill when viewing anything shot in a smaller (narrower) aspect ratio.
Films only appear "shorter" on your screen at home because it's the wrong aspect ratio.

16:9 screen on top, 21:9 screen below:

When all else is equal, 21:9 displays should offer a superior viewing experience.
As I've said numerous times now, the issue with current ultrawide displays is that most people are not feeling height-limited by 27" monitors, so for many people it is preferable to get a larger 16:9 display (40" 4K) rather than making the 27" screen wider. (34" ultrawide)

However those 40" panels are really the upper limit of how tall a standard ~100 PPI monitor can be, so the only option for more workspace is to go wider - which would be a 55" 5K ultrawide. (5120x2160)

5120x2880 (5K 16:9) is only suitable as a high DPI display.
If used as a standard display without DPI scaling, it would be a 58" panel which is 27" tall, and that is simply too much to fit in your field of vision when sitting at a distance appropriate for reading text at 100 PPI.
When you are sitting back far enough to fit a screen that size in your vision, you will have to use DPI scaling to make text large enough to read clearly. Vega has said that he needs 120% scaling with his 55" 4K OLED for example, so 5K would need ~160% scaling.

I don't think I've ever seen a theater that was not able to handle at least 2.40:1 natively.

Perhaps, but once we go beyond 4K we're no longer looking at expanding the workspace.
A 100 PPI 8K display would be 88" in size. That is far too big to ever be used as a monitor.
The "8K" resolution will be used to create "high DPI" variants of existing displays, not to expand the workspace available.

At 44" you get a 3840x2160 workspace with 2x DPI scaling.
At 29" you get a 2560x1440 workspace with 3x DPI scaling.
At 22" you get a 1920x1080 workspace with 4x DPI scaling.

These screens would focus on having amazing text and image rendering, rather than expanding the workspace.
4K is about as big as it's ever going to get, unless we get an ultrawide variant.

While I'd definitely support a 10240x4320 55" to use with 2x scaling, I don't understand why a 110" version of it to use with 100% scaling would not be an option as well, considering that professionals now already use 4-6 monitors setups for various work purposes, setups which obviously do not fit into the human vision.

 

[Zepher]

While I'd definitely support a 10240x4320 55" to use with 2x scaling, I don't understand why a 110" version of it to use with 100% scaling would not be an option as well, considering that professionals now already use 4-6 monitors setups for various work purposes, setups which obviously do not fit into the human vision.

I'd use a 105" ultrawide, but I don't have $100K to blow on a screen,

 

[tegirinenashi]

Let me be as blunt as possible: Constant Image Height idea is bullshit. There is nothing in space geometry, or human eye physiology that supports it. If you dig in CIH section of avsforum a little, then you'll find out what really motivates widescreen propeller heads. Somehow, they are extremely offended by suggestion that one can have bigger image for "Modern family" [or insert other popular dumb TV show here] compared to "Lawrence of Arabia".

This sentiment has its merits, but today quality TV series easily outnumber movies. Want first class drama/thriller? "Breaking Bad". Want epic scenery? "Lost". Witty, intellectual development? "Curb your enthusiasm".

Videophiles imply that there is some kind of exclusive club where you are admitted if you like embrasure framed films. Blasphemy if you crop it to fit your device. This is ironic because the majority of scope framed action movies are nothing more than collection of CGI effects. There is rarely a believable story or character development. Stanley Kubrick, whose films entertain more than two neurons in your brain, shot everything in 4:3 even at height of scope hype.

 

[Zepher]

Let me be as blunt as possible: Constant Image Height idea is bullshit. There is nothing in space geometry, or human eye physiology that supports it. If you dig in CIH section of avsforum a little, then you'll find out what really motivates widescreen propeller heads. Somehow, they are extremely offended by suggestion that one can have bigger image for "Modern family" [or insert other popular dumb TV show here] compared to "Lawrence of Arabia".

This sentiment has its merits, but today quality TV series easily outnumber movies. Want first class drama/thriller? "Breaking Bad". Want epic scenery? "Lost". Witty, intellectual development? "Curb your enthusiasm".

Videophiles imply that there is some kind of exclusive club where you are admitted if you like embrasure framed films. Blasphemy if you crop it to fit your device. This is ironic because the majority of scope framed action movies are nothing more than collection of CGI effects. There is rarely a believable story or character development. Stanley Kubrick, whose films entertain more than two neurons in your brain, shot everything in 4:3 even at height of scope hype.

Kubrick's 2001 is presented in Cinerama, so did he shoot it in 4:3 and just cropped the shit out of the image? It says Filmed in Super Panavision at the end of the credits.

Here are 3 Kubrick films in red 4:3 boxes,

 

[zone74]

While I'd definitely support a 10240x4320 55" to use with 2x scaling, I don't understand why a 110" version of it to use with 100% scaling would not be an option as well, considering that professionals now already use 4-6 monitors setups for various work purposes, setups which obviously do not fit into the human vision.

Not that it couldn't be done, but I don't think it would be very practical.
20-22" display height is about the limit of what is comfortable to view with a 100 PPI display at 100% scale in my experience.

When the display height is larger than that, you have to start sitting further from the display to fit it all in. Some would argue that this is already too large.
Sitting further from the display means that you need to start using DPI scaling to read the display comfortably.
Using DPI scaling reduces your physical workspace on the display.

So the practical limit for workspace - at least if you are treating it as a single monitor - is a 44" 4K display or a 55" 5K ultrawide.
Making the screen bigger, or increasing the resolution doesn't actually increase your workspace beyond that point, because it's offset by the required DPI scaling.
I think that the nature of it being ultrawide makes the display sound a lot larger than I'm suggesting: 55" ultrawide is just a 44" panel made wider.
Considering how relatively inexpensive 40" 4K panels are now, I can see a panel of that spec being somewhat affordable in a few years.

I don't think that 110" panels will ever be practical or affordable - nor do I think that many people would be trying to use one as a monitor.

Let me be as blunt as possible: Constant Image Height idea is bullshit.

It is the way that films are intended to be viewed.
Do you think that film directors are intentionally shooting everything to make the image smaller?
No, going beyond 1.78:1 is intended to produce a wider image, it's just that 16:9 displays don't support it.

 

[tegirinenashi]

It is the way that films are intended to be viewed.
Do you think that film directors are intentionally shooting everything to make the image smaller?
No, going beyond 1.78:1 is intended to produce a wider image, it's just that 16:9 displays don't support it.

"Intended to be", "Meant to be" -- these phrases contain too much religious zealotry for my taste. IMAX people would insist that 2.35:1 image is "meant to be" extending up and down to give viewer truly majestic experience. And in 21st century recreating IMAX experience at my desk is really easy, so why should I settle for less?

It is up to Hollywood movie directors to stop peddling their 2.35:1 nonsense.

 

[tegirinenashi]

Check out this long discussion of various aspect ratios, "meant to be", and butchering Stanley Kubrick work (by theaters!):

http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html

So why deep in 21st century, where imaging has been digital for more than decade, we still discuss those masking, cropping, zooming, and "meant to be"? Wouldn't life be just much simpler for everybody to compromise upon standard aspect ratio, even if it is not perfect in eyes of some purists? Oh, there is such ratio; it is simply that Hollywood people stubbornly refuse to accept it.

You know, in any other area the mess of dozen competing aspect ratios would be plain sign of incompetence. What your reaction would be if power company told you: "Today, I feel like providing 90 volt power to your house, and tomorrow, maybe, 130"

 

[zone74]

"Intended to be", "Meant to be" -- these phrases contain too much religious zealotry for my taste.

What are you talking about? There's nothing "religious" about it - it's how theaters are built and why films are shot in 2.37:1. I'm stating facts.
The reason that directors shoot wide aspect ratios is because it's supposed to make the image wider.
It's not intended to be displayed on a 16:9 screen where the image gets shorter (or cropped) once you go beyond 1.78:1 - it's intended to be shown in a theater where that wider image is bigger.

Wouldn't life be just much simpler for everybody to compromise upon standard aspect ratio, even if it is not perfect in eyes of some purists? Oh, there is such ratio; it is simply that Hollywood people stubbornly refuse to accept it.

I can't think of the last time I watched a film which was not 2.37:1 - it's standard across the majority of films out there.

A 21:9 display is wide enough to display 99% of the films in existence with little-to-no letterboxing.
With the arguments you are making I can see two possibilities:

1. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about how any of this works.
2. You seem to believe that 16:9 is the "correct" aspect ratio for things and that everyone else should conform to that because it's what you currently own. What makes you so special?

If we had stuck with that mentality, everything would still be 4:3 today and 16:9 would be those odd wide displays.

Not that I think 4:3 is a bad aspect ratio - I sure wish that 4:3 notebook displays still existed. 16:9 notebooks are horrible in smaller size machines. But it's a bad aspect ratio for watching movies, and not ideal for games.

You know, in any other area the mess of dozen competing aspect ratios would be plain sign of incompetence.

Again: theaters are constant height setups.
As long as the aspect ratio is no wider than they are able to handle natively - and most theaters can handle at least 2.40:1 - the image height never changes, and the only thing that change with aspect ratio is the width of the film.
I'm not sure why you seem to have difficulty grasping this concept.

 

[kache]

Not that it couldn't be done, but I don't think it would be very practical.
20-22" display height is about the limit of what is comfortable to view with a 100 PPI display at 100% scale in my experience.

When the display height is larger than that, you have to start sitting further from the display to fit it all in. Some would argue that this is already too large.
Sitting further from the display means that you need to start using DPI scaling to read the display comfortably.
Using DPI scaling reduces your physical workspace on the display.

So the practical limit for workspace - at least if you are treating it as a single monitor - is a 44" 4K display or a 55" 5K ultrawide.
Making the screen bigger, or increasing the resolution doesn't actually increase your workspace beyond that point, because it's offset by the required DPI scaling.
I think that the nature of it being ultrawide makes the display sound a lot larger than I'm suggesting: 55" ultrawide is just a 44" panel made wider.
Considering how relatively inexpensive 40" 4K panels are now, I can see a panel of that spec being somewhat affordable in a few years.

I don't think that 110" panels will ever be practical or affordable - nor do I think that many people would be trying to use one as a monitor.

I don't understand your point to be honest: why would you have to sit further back? A 110" 8k ultrawide display would be basically a huge screen that can be used as multiple monitor setups, so rotating your head to look at the various parts wouldn't be an issue.
Of course it would be useless for gaming, but unless we get a huge increase in GPU performance by the time said displays are available that kind of resolution would be unusable in games anyway.