How/why did we settle on this boring-ass aspect ratio as the gold standard?
How/why did we settle on this boring-ass aspect ratio as the gold standard?
Easton Barnes
Nolan Cox
>boring-ass
What, in your opinion, would be an exciting aspect ratio?
Bentley Ramirez
Triangle
Connor Parker
Something wider
Asher Evans
boomers
4:3, 5:4, 1:1
Ryan Taylor
Movies.
Josiah Gray
Sorry I thought we were talking about monitors, not TVs.
Owen Sanders
>4:3, 5:4, 1:1
If any of those resolutions were the gold standard you just bitch about them too and say we should all switch to 16:9. Contraian fags that think hating on standards makes them special is why tech is so slow to progress.
Oliver Phillips
It started in the 80's then eventually for various reasons everyone slowly crept towards it until the mid-90's when it finally became the golden standard.
sportsvideo.org
Noah Flores
It's just the best middle ground format that allows for all content to play with little compromise if you get a big enough screen. Everything else would hard punish one format over the other.
They made ultra-wide 21:9 tv for a while, they flopped out. Then you have the theory that with the advancement in CGI in everything film makers wanted the 16x9 format for a tighter framing of all shots as it's cheaper with less CGI. Same for TV shows. If they shot 21:9 you would have way more back ground and so on so more cost.
Noah Hall
16:9 is good for external monitors cuz you can have 2 windows open and not feel too cramped, yet it's decent for 1 window too.
3:2 is peak office work & web-surfing screen
16:10 is most well-rounded best of all worlds
Camden Martin
sqrt(2)
Angel Cooper
>How/why did we settle on this boring-ass aspect ratio
Movie theatres and film media. 16:10 is godlike. Once you go 16:10 (8:5) you can never go back especially on laptops.
John Richardson
On notebooks 4:3 makes the most sense. Because you can nicely fit a keyboard under it without num block.
Jacob Watson
consumers like it because it lets them consume
Bentley Johnson
Most AAA movies use 2.39:1, which is much wider than 16:9.
Jace Sullivan
Not exciting but I think 16:10 is the most practical and useful. Should be the standard for laptops. Once you use a 16:10 laptop you don't want any other AR.
On desktop monitors I'd also like having some 16:10 options but don't mind using 16:9.
It's really a shame, back in the late 2000s we had lots of 16:10 options both on laptops and desktop monitors.
Besides media consumption standards, I've also heard that panel manufacturers pushed 16:9 over other ARs because it gives higher yields than any other AR. Don't know how true this is though.
Oliver Flores
Trapazoid
Ryder Johnson
Dat timestamp.
Lincoln Lee
>that awful period of time where literally the only 16:10 monitors being made were on macbooks
Jayden Scott
You sniveled when you got near 1:1
And you'll snivel when the next thing comes out
m.youtube.com
Luke Lee
Use the Golden Ratio, obviously