Why did display resolutions end up being such weird uneven numbers rather than, say, 2000x1000?
Because 2:1 is way too fucking wide?
>>53919453
16:10 is because it approximates the golden ratio
16:9 is because hollywood needed something wider
https://eewiki.net/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=15925278
>>53919523
>hollywood needed something wider
why?
>>53919453
https://vimeo.com/68830569
>>53919523
>>53920212
16:9 was created because it's roughly inbetween 1:66:1 and 1:85:1, two popular cinema aspect ratios.
>>53919453
For many algorithms (i.e. FFT) it's an advantage if the arrays you work with are multiples of powers of 2. Also it's often a good idea for indexing. So many resolutions are just 2^k*a : 2^k*b when the aspect ratio is a:b.
>>53919453
Because pixels have a size and monitors have a size and a limited amount of aspect ratios is viable (your 2:1 shit isn't), you mongoloid.
>>53920252
That was very interesting, thanks anon
>>53919453
>best resolution for working is 1:1 and there is only one (1) desktop monitor with it
>>53920483
This isn't true at all... LCD pixels are squares (full RGB), and they range considerably in size. You can make any ratio you want. 2:1 is possible.
>>53920640
Looking at a 1:1 display makes me want to vomit.
Also, it isn't the best for working, you've pulled that out of your ass. At no point in history have humans produced written language best exploited by a 1:1 canvas. It's always been vertical or horizontal, producing wide, and tall, aspects respectively.
>>53920676
That isn't my point. It's that you can't have an arbitrary "even" pixel count and then still expect our current monitor sizes. I.e. if OP thought 1000x500 was some magic number because it's "even", he shouldn't expect 27 inch monitors without them looking like utter shit, both due to aspect ratio and pixel density.
>>53919453
but this picture is wrong you fucking retard
>>53921184
ebin
>>53919453
>>53921184
fix'd
>>53921138
You just scale it though. Go to 1200x600, 1400x700, 1600x800, whatever gets you your preferred size and density.
>>53921649
TFW you zoom in and can only see the 1366x768
>>53919523
>>53919517
>>53920212
>>53920772
>>53920772
Did someone say wide?
>>53919517
>>53920483
it's only slightly wider than 16:9
(although I think 2:1, 16:9, and probably 16:10 are wider than they need to be)
>>53920640
Actually it's more like two or three. If I remember correctly, they're Eizo, Dell, and Samsung.
>>53920252
that was great, thanks
watching lawrence of arabia in 2 weeks in cinema, im hyped
>>53919453
>resolutions end up being such weird uneven numbers rather than, say, 2000x1000?
it's easier for computers to deal with things in even power-of-two sizes a relatively small multiples thereof, and with the exception of the first resolution, you can see this in the horizontal resolutions:
> 1600 = 64 * 25
> 1920 = 128 * 15
> 2560 = 512 * 5
> 3840 = 256 * 15
The exact resolutions tend to be determined by the resources thought to be available at the time of a standard's creation, like how much video RAM can fit on cheap VGA card back in the day, how large an image can fit on a standard 6 MHz NTSC/ATSC radio channel with MPEG2 compression at acceptable quality, etc.
16:10 is my favorite.
have been using 4:3 (1600x1200) literally for decades but 16:10 is fine, too. too bad it's almost gone.
1920x1200 is pretty sweet on a ~21" display
Fun fact, not all pixels are square. plasma pixels are rectangular, at least the old ones
