Is 16:10 masterrace dead? I really like having a bit of a higher monitor than it is wide.
>>54383995
But I like the fact that human's see 2/3th's as wide as high.
It wasn't a masterrace in the first place lmao
>>54383995
Not dead, but consumers prefer 16:9 for their media like movies. You can still buy 16:10 monitors for work, but you pay a premium.
>>54384202
>he thinks movies are shot at 16:9
lmao get a load of this guy
>>54384240
Some of them are, some of them are shot at aspect ratios even WIDER than 16:9, which is fucking ridicolous.
>>54383995
>>54384268
using an 18-year-old game to decide what monitor to buy
>>54383995
This one as well
>>54384282
Inferring that FOV has changed
4:3 always has been and always will be master race.
>>54384286
>tfw 256x1600 mustard race
>>54384282
>18 year old game
pleb, go home.
You can't even tell the difference between SC1 and SC2 so you don't belong here.
I had a 16:10 monitor for many years.
Maybe it wasn't the best for gaming but I felt when you were on the desktop and had applications opened it was superior.
I was sad when 1080 became the new video standard and manufacturers basically gave up on everything bigger than 1080p
1080p came along and killed off 1920x1200 and others into a niche market and then everyone was stretching out 1080p anywhere from 15 to 27 inch screens.
>>54384424
you a cyclops? why the vertical monitor?
>>54384444
>pleb, go home.
sorry I forgot about that expansion pack
Starcraft (pictured): 1998
Starcraft 2 "Brood War": ALSO 1998
OH LOOK ITS FUCKING NOTHING
>>>/v/
>>54384137
>has clearly never used a computer in a work environment
>>54383995
This picture has the up/down scale incorrect and totally negates the point of 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9
>>54384470
You are cementing your own stupidity right now.
>>54384268 <--- this is starcraft 2 you retard.
>You can't even tell the difference between SC1 and SC2 so you don't belong here.
>>54384261
21:9 is what you're looking for
>>54384507
starcraft 2 "brood war" also came out in 1998, was the point
regardless it's just an expansion pack and didn't change the graphics engine
>>54384532
>2010 release with multiple expansions
>>54384553
kid we played brood war in elementary school, I can guarantee it didn't come out in no 2010
>>54384586
tfw starcraft2 isn't brood war
does it hurt to be so dumb?
>>54384532
no one fucking calls brood war starcraft 2.
BW was an expansion pack.
Since when are expansion packs labeled as '2' ??
an expansion is not a sequel, jesus christ you are dense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft_II:_Wings_of_Liberty
>>54384633
>wikipedia
>>54384661
you got me, i got trolled good.
No one can possible be that stupid to confuse SC1/BW with SC2.
>>54384692
sorry mate, had a good run going there and no one seemed to be calling it
enjoy the rest of your day.
>>54384661
>being this retarded
can confirm nobody calls brood war "starcraft 2"
what are you, fucking 12?
if brood war is starcraft 2, what do you call all of the starcraft 2 games? fucking mong
>>54384762
uhhh starcraft 3? hello???
fucker
This image finally has a home.
>>54383995
For apple? no. For everyone else? pretty much.
>>54384762
Starcraft WoL
Starcraft HotS
Starcraft LotV
>>54386964
>b-but the screen is wider!
>I-it means I can see more right?
no one understands my love for 4:3
>>54387001
I actually think they did the wrong thing when they decided a 1920*1200 showed less than a 1920*1080.
Same width should show the same amount of visible space.
I can force 2560*800 on my U3011 if I want to to make games look like eye-finity, but that's just retarded.
Retarded because they think wide means more, when all it actually is doing is cropping and removing.
I know there were third party launchers that could change the resolution for example the stock starcraft editor would use the game's resources and display it at any resolution perfectly.
However I'm 99% sure that battlenet could detect this and permaban you and you were stuck at the hardcoded 640x480 ?. Seen a lot of hacks over the years, my favorite was the "build anywhere" hack that let you not only turn lights off but build or land terran buildings on any terrain. Just so surreal to see that for the first time, a pylon on a cliff side or some shit.
Other favorite hacks were the nuke anywhere cheat, people who did this sucked so much ass and wouldn't even make it past 5 minutes with no defenses or skills anyway and if they did then they would just fucking nuke the wrong place by a mile.
Also remember that zerg infinite mineral hack that was based on canceling units. Played against a few guys who lost even with infinite mins because they kept making just stock zerglings and I would have lurkers or bats.
don't think they ever patched out drophacks, fucking pussies wouldn't even let you 5 seconds into their base because they knew they were so fucked. Like, I remember a week went by where I never attacked any of 20 different people because the second any army enters their base I'd get dropped
>>54386964
Bioshock a shit no matter the resolution
Only good thing from that franchise is BUSTY ELIZABETH SFM PORN HOLYSHITSOBASED
>>54386984
HotS = Hot Stuff
Yes.
>>54387374
HoTS?
I've been looking to upgrade from my 16:10 monitor for a while now and have had conflicting feelings about the market. Recently tried out a curved ultrawide display at a store and I'm honestly surprised, I thought I would hate it but the way it fills your field of view is fantastic. Now I'm highly considering getting one and relegating my old one to a portrait side monitor.
They're bloody expensive though.
>all the >>>/v/ in this thread
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE GET THE FUCK OFF MY BOARD
>>54383995
1.61803398875 : 1 masterrace.
Golden ratio is obviously masterrace, but since no monitors are made in that aspect ratio 16:10 is the closest thing to it.
>>54388196
How the fuck do you expect to have a perfect golden ratio from monitors that are a few thousand pixels high/wide at best?
You want 1618:1000 monitors?
>>54388208
That's a start :)
Plus, new monitors with higher pixel density can be even more precise than that.
>>54387556
what is this?
>>54384268
That's because of shitty programming
>>54384240
Yes there are
Tons of movies are shot in FLAT format.
Typically only bigger budget films are in Cinemascope
>>54384268
You do realize the width is actually the same between 16:9 and 16:10, right? That's kind of what the 16 stands for. the 10 just means there's a bit more at the top.
Also
>using some shit video game with shit/no support for the screen being used
>inb4 "REEEE STARCRAFT ISN'T SHIT"
>>>/v/
>>54388596
>You do realize the width is actually the same between 16:9 and 16:10, right?
No because it isn't.
>>54388596
>You do realize the width is actually the same between 16:9 and 16:10, right?
Aren't monitors measured corner to corner? So a 24" 16:9 is going to be slightly wider than a 24" 16:10?
>>54388622
>No because it isn't.
Are you genuinely retarded?
>1920x1080
>1920x1200
Hint, 1920 is the width in pixels.
>>54384268
this is more like it
>>54383995
Mostly. Most of the panels get made at 16:9 because of TVs. It's still possible to buy a few 16:10 but they're very expensive because the economy of scale doesn't apply.
>>54383995
i have a main 1920x1080 benq and a second hand 1680x1050 hp. they work really well together, considering windows taskbar is 31px high so the usable vertical space of both monitors is exactly the same
also because of how fov projections work its more effective to have a high fov on a more square screen than a lower one on a wider screen. which means 4:3 > 16:9 for videogames where you can set your fov
>>54383995
Have a 16:10 and i love it for gaming. Having to shrink my damn window to record in 16:9 for youtube suuuuuuucks so bad.
Whats worse is that youtube does this thing
>video not 16:9???
>i got this.
>Squish video to make fit
>Thanks youtube
I got my 16:10 monitor before 16:9 took over 4:3. I regret it overall because lots of programs don't utilize it properly, so I have to do letterboxed/windowed 16:9 resolutions to get a better experience.
16:10 is really good for portrait monitors but I don't particularly see any reason why it'd be so popular for normal use.
>using video games to decide your screen aspect ratio
but why
>>54384714
I used a CRT at 1600x1200 before switching to flat monitors and have been using 16:10 ever since and I don't see myself ever buying a 16:9 desktop monitor.
16:10 monitors are still around, not in the cheap-ass normie consumer market though.
>>54383995
5:4 actual master race here. Widescreen is for faggots.
A lot of games, likely the majority, have a fixed vertical field of view. That means that a wider display (regardless of resolution) has a wider horizontal field of view.
Resolution is also important though. You can crop your monitor to 21:9 (or even wider) if you wanted and it would technically show more however it could have less detail than a higher res monitor. Thus the true master race is 3840x2160 which you can crop to 3840x1440 for games where a wider horizontal field of view is desired and you'll still see more detail than any other monitor.
16:9 is just 16:10 with a little extra on the sides.
>>54388835
This
>>54388196
so, 16:10?
>>54388835
This is so wrong it makes me angry
>16:9
>16:9
>4:3
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV-E2GJApmY
>>54390764
Dota2 was like that before
What's the best time to buy a new 2560x1440@144Hz monitor? Does Black Friday, Cyber Monday and around Christmas time have the best sales, or is it best to find one on sale at a random time or on Ebay?
Wish they weren't so expensive in Canuckland. ;_;
>>54388684
Pixel width is the same but a 16:10 monitor at 24" is slightly taller and a 16:9 monitor is slightly wider, because you know, they're not the same fucking shape but have the same hypotenuse length.
![attachment[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/mz4yRlD.jpg "attachment[1].jpg")
You fucks need to get in on the 21:9 goodness of UWQHD.
>>54388230
Looks like Medieval Engineers.
>>54388596
>what are aspect ratios
1920x1440 is 4:3 and the same goes for 1920x240 being 8:1
what I'm trying to say here is,
1920/x = a where a is ANY aspect ratio has a solution for x
>>54388622
Yes because it is, It's just a 1080p screen that has a bit more top and bottom if you didn't buy A POS screen.
Anything under 1920X1200 and you're an idiot really.
>>54392108
No thank you.
This is why T60s are the last true ThinkPads, regardless of what /tpg/ says. It's the 5:4 screens (well, that and you can put libreboot on them, as long as they don't have ATI graphics).
More vertical space is useful for almost everything.
You can still get 30" mustard race IPS Monoprice 16:10 for around $500. It's the best monitor going for the price by far.
20 30 20 PLP is the optimal multi monitor setup. Pic related.
>>54384202
Consumers prefer 16:9 because it's what's easily available and they don't actually give a shit
>>54390855
Wait until the monitor revolution is over friendo
>>54383995
>I really like having a bit of a higher monitor than it is wide.
>higher monitor than it is wide.
16:10 is wider than it is tall you retard.
yes, unfortunately 16:10 is dead as soon as you go above 1200p... which you'll have no choice but to give in to, because it's 2016. 1440p seems to be ideal for 24". for 28" and above, 2160p is a good choice.
Someone here needs to learn what "hor+" and "vert-" mean, when talking about FOV.
>>54391508
Nobody is talking about physical dimensions, so "wider" is obviously intended as measured in pixels.
>>54384261
Most are 21:9
>>54383995
16:9 is wide and high enough.
>>54384261
>some of them are shot at an aspect ratios even WIDER than 16:9, which is fucking ridiculous
>this pleb watches movies cropped to 16:9
Fagspotting 101 here, lads.
16:10 1920 x 1200 24 inch or 16:9 2560 x 1440 25 inch?
It only matters that much on portable devices. Don't worry about it. Get a large 4k monitor and you'll have more space than you can handle
>>54392998
16:9 24" 4k from Samsung
>>54392286
what side monitors are those? I'm thinking about buying one or two.
>all these filthy commoners
Personally, I'm using a 17:9 display next to a 5:8 display.
All I want is a high dpi 20 inch 4:3 monitor.
Is that so much to ask?
I have 16:10 here at home, had one at my last work place and it's excellent for programming on. New work has 16:9 and it really does feel different.
it does fall short on video games, don't mind the letter boxing on videos. Just wish I could get a 120/144Hz 16:10 monitor, doubt it'll happen tho
>>54394385
that'll be $899.00
>>54394741
>1600x1200
>high dpi
Call me when it's 3200x2400.
>>54384286
Sweet I'm Asian so I'll be sticking with my 16:9 then
>>54394385
Buy a high dpi 26 inch 16:9 monitor and use it as a 12:9 one.
I don't understand the aspect ratio fanaticism. Just buy whichever is the cheapest in a size that gives you the amount of vertical/horizontal workspace that you want.
>>54396437
>that gives you the amount of vertical/horizontal workspace that you want.
Which would be a 16:10 monitor.
>tfw still using a 1280x1024 5:4 monitor
it hurts
>>54396530
>tfw no higher resolution 5:4 monitors
It hurts
>>54396509
But for the premium charged for that you could get a bigger 16:9 monitor that has more?
>>54383995
if my old math teacher is still alive he'll be raging every time he hears 16:10 instead of 8:5
>>54396437
I want a monitor that's the shape and size I want. I don't want a monitor that stretches out way fucking farther than the shape and size I want. How is this difficult to understand?
>>54396561
The extra horizontal pixels are a waste. I'd rather just pick up a used 16:10 monitor
>>54383995
it could be worst. i bought this a few years back, and it's what i'm currently using as i type this.
http://www.philips.de/c-p/200W6CS_00/brilliance-20-zoll-wsxga
>>54383995
Human eye can't see more than 16:9
>>54396547
Yes there is, in Eizo and NEC medical lines.
Also there has been few 5:4 CRT monitors that can display higher than 1280x1024 resolution as well.
8:5 is just as shitty aspect ratio as 16:9.
>>54396778
>Yes there is, in Eizo and NEC medical lines.
Yeah but you have to pay out the ass for them, they may as well not exist.
>8:5 is just as shitty aspect ratio as 16:9
It's an improvement, but 5:4 and 4:3 are both much better.
>>54396670
Because people in these threads always cry about the holocausting of vertical workspace by changing to wider standards despite screen size also increasing making the vertical grow as well. The only real exception to this is when 16:10 died out early on, but once larger 1440p monitors came out that argument fell flat.
How does having additional horizontal space impede you in any way? At the very least it allows you to display multiple instances of vertical content.
>>54396869
>How does having additional horizontal space impede you in any way?
I don't know? Do you want to have a monitor that stretches out 50 feet horizontally? At some point you have to understand that extending the horizontal space too far is awkward and goofy-looking.
It's like if suddenly the furniture industry stopped making chairs, and only made couches. Then you ask "why do you want a chair, how does having extra sitting space impede you in any way?"
>>54397048
If you're limited horizontally then why not get a larger monitor and turn it portrait? Very few people are limited vertically and a UHD monitor will give you close to the same horizontal with a shit load more vertical.
>>54397048
Obviously a 50 foot wide monitor would be cumbersome but we're talking a handful of inches not football fields. Chairs serve a similar yet non-identical purpose to couches, while widescreen monitors serve the identical purpose to non-wide monitors, to display content.
>>54397256
Because I don't WANT a monitor that is extremely tall either.
I want a monitor that is reasonably sized and shaped all around.
>>54397392
You're clearly not interested in listening to what I'm saying.
>>54392286
I still don't understand the point of portrait monitors that aren't any taller than the landscape monitor.
>>54397463
You act like there's a gigantic difference and it would be a huge inconvenience to use one over the other.
>>54397583
The point is that they're the same height, it's for people that can't afford or don't have room for three 30" monitors.
>>54397610
I find 16:9 monitors uncomfortable to use. I don't know what else more I can say about it.
ITT: retards comparing 16:9 and 16:10 by fixing aspect ratio by height or by comparing screen size over using resolution in pixels
>>54387556
>>54388230
>>54392123
it's wurm online/wurm unlimited (probably wurm online)
>>54397048
Boy are you going to be pissed if the market shifts to 21:9.
>>54397610
This >>54397654
It's a preference. It's cool and all if you're okay with using a 16:9 monitor, but don't whine because others aren't.
>>54397760
If that happens, I'm buying an ipad pro.
This is purely an issue of how the developer handles rendering. Games that are designed to only show so much of the screen will fuck up at anything other than their designed aspect ratio. There's numerous games that I can think of that work phenomenal at pretty much all resolutions and aspect ratios, but there's just as many that suck at anything except 16:9.
But that's just vidya, outside of that it's really about whether you'd prefer more horizontal or vertical screen real estate.
>>54397823
At least buy a chromebook pixel to put linux on instead.
>>54398010
>to put linux on instead of linux
>>54398056
To put GNU/Linux on instead of Botnet/Linux*
Happy?
>>54398076
>2560x1600 screens rare, shit and too expensive.
>3840x2400 screens all but don't exist.
>>54388230
>>54397747
It is wurm unlimited
There is a faction in it called horde of the summoned.
>>54397620
Or in my case, I prefer to have my side monitors be vertical since they're almost always used for document viewing or IRC or browsing Reddit while watching Netflix on my main.
>>54384692
This was so much better than fucking SC2
>>54383995
No, not dead at all. Plenty of monitors still being sold with this aspect ratio.
What made you think it was?
>tfw im still on a 1st gen 120hz TN monitor
1050p but fuck it, viewsonic has amazing warranties.
>>54388835
ayyyyyyy
