They're objectively better for desktop usage, and the extra pixels would hardly hurt for movies and games.
Why did they die? Even dell seem to have just about given up on them. All I want is a reasonably price 2560x1600 monitor.
>>53711470
>The primary reason for this move was considered to be production efficiency[3][7] - since display panels for TVs use the 16:9 aspect ratio, it became more efficient for display manufacturers to produce computer display panels in the same aspect ratio as well.[8] A 2008 report by DisplaySearch also cited a number of other reasons, including the ability for PC and monitor manufacturers to expand their product ranges by offering products with wider screens and higher resolutions, helping consumers to adopt such products more easily and "stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market".[2]
This "Wikipedia" site is great. Invest now, it'll be big in a few years.
16:9 as a media format took hold in movies and TV
16:9 yields more panels than 16:10 (I know it sounds trivial, even at 1920x1080/1200, but at the volume OEMs are manufacturing, any little bit helps).
>>53711470
because jews like too fool goys
>sell more incehs, but with smaller screen area and lower production costs.
Cus 21:9 godrace?
>>53711481
But practically no computer monitors and TVs use the same type of panels anyway, or has that changed recently?
Give me 2560 x2560 please.
30" 2560 x 1600 is ideal for me
1680x1050 Master PHI ratio race.
I have a 21:9 3440x1440 and a 1080p monitor in portrait mode next to it. Best of both worlds senpai.
>>53713999
>checked
3440x1440 is so wide, I hope you have a curved monitor bro
>>53713780
What monitor is that on the left?
>>53711470
>TFW still using Dell U3011
I admit I paid the premium back then just because I wanted 16:10. It is glorious.
Fuck 16:9 "TV series" aspect ratio fucking everything up. At least Apple still makes 16:10 laptops.
>>53714190
It is but I don't think I'd miss the curve if it wasn't there. The only advantage to it I can notice is it helps mask some lightbleed on the edges.
>>53711470
because normies and their "why are there black bars when i watch movies!?!"
My monitor is 1440x900 and works just fine for my needs.
16:10 master race
16:10 forever. If 1920x1200 is my final resolution then so be it.
They aren't dead.
You can still buy 16:10 monitors they just come at a premium
>>53714224
Eizo ev2730q
1920 x1920
>>53714756
1600x900 is better than your garbage monitor
dad gave me his old 1680x1050 monitor and i actually like it better than my old 1080p one
>>53713780
This.
I can't wait for when 1:1 monitors become big and cheap
>>53715780
>>53715780
Never.
>>53715815
Why not?
>>53711470
stupid consumers wanted "full hd"
>>53715904
honestly this is the only reason
>>53711470
The died because they look weird being a little taller. Also most content is in 1080p giving black bars more often. Lastly it is easier pushing 4k and other high resolutions. Only slightly but still.
>have 22" 16:10 S-PVA monitor
>when it dies I will have to downgrade to IPS and 16:9
>>53715954
NEC and EIZO still making 16:10 monitors, but they are color critical and cost 800+$
I don't want black bars on my animu
28-32" 3840x2160@60 is the real MVP.
>>53711470
daily reminder one of the only companies that makes a good 16:10 monitor is apple. all MacBooks, iMacs, and displays they use are 16:10
>mfw I can't find all of the following
4K is still immature so I leave that out of the equation.
24-27"
1440p (would prefer 1600p).
Freesync (It's free so it should be in there heh. Yeah I know that is being rather simplistic).
Anti-blur.
Flicker Free.
99%+ color space.
Wide color gamut with sRGB emulation.
PLS preferable over standard IPS.
A polarizer to avoid IPS glow.
10 bit or better.
5ms or less G2G.
5ms or less lag.
Matt finish display.
Thin border.
Physical buttons (not this touch pad nonsense Dell).
USB 3 hub. 2 ports on the side. 2 behind.
DVI (I notice some are dropping this which is annoying because it is useful in multi-monitor setups).
Vesa stand mount.
A solid stand that goes up/down/tilts and rotates.
Less than £500.
>30" 2560 x 1600 is ideal for me
THIS
My 30" Yamakasi Sparta 301 recently started going black when I turned it on. I can't live without it ;_;
how2fix
>>53717969
How black?
Black as in no backlight.
Or black as in pixels are only showing black?
>>53717995
Well, it turns on for a second, shows backlight (no image), then turns back off.
>>53718014
Too me, that sounds like a shot power supply. Take it apart and see if there is any faulty capacitors, they're normally the component that fucks shit up in tvs.
>>53717498
B-but I don't want Apple anything
>>53718014
Could be caps or TCON. You should try an electronics repair shop.
>>53715904
Not even that. Look how many people fell for the 1366x768 "HD" bullshit that persists to this day.
If consumers set 1920x1080 as the baseline expectation for computer displays we'd be in much better shape today.
>>53715937
All a matter of perspective. To me 16:9 looks anemic vertically and I don't watch video on my computer often enough for black bars to be a concern. That's what I have a 50" Sony TV for.
>>53717498
sadly iMacs have been 16:9 for quite some time now, likely because it's impossible to find 16:10 hidpi panels that large
>tfw spent good money on them 120 extra pixels for work stuff
>still not enough to fit all my crap on at once
>>53718528
The only answer is a 3D 360° VR/AR workspace. It'd be near impossible to exhaust usable space then, especially if you utilize depth.
>>53718600
I don't need 3D, I just need more space to fit animation data on screen
Also more than 16GB ram holy shit
>>53718632
>Also more than 16GB ram holy shit
b-but i thought that was just a meme
>>53718646
>b-but i thought that was just a meme
it's a meme if you're a turboconsumer
start making things to even a slightly serious extent and you'll change your tune
>>53715856
niche technology is more expensive
like it or not, if its not film aspect-ratio then its not mass produced
>>53718646
I produce video, if you just use your PC for games and browsing you don't need more than 8GB imo
>tfw my CPU supports max 32GB
I'm waiting for DDR4 ram prices to go down. Then I'll build a new rig with dual cpu and 128GB ram
>>53717498
>forced 8bit
>>53718730
The aspect ratio is nice but that resolution is brickpixel tier on 20"+ screens. We need 2560x2048 and up.
4:4 number 1
>>53718730
>mfw silicone asses are hotter than 99% of real asses
Is 16:9 gud?
Im thinking of buying a full HD (1080p) ASUS
>>53719578
No, but it's probably not worth the premium to get 16:10 instead.
>>53711470
Because it was more economical to make larger 16:9 screens.
Personally what I want is for the higher end 21:9 monitors to crash in price because they're ridiculous right now. A 2560x1080 screen is roughly between the prices of decent 1080p and 1440p panels yet a 3440x1440 monitor is twice the price or more of a 4k monitor.
>>53717668
you should try looking in another fucking universe
>>53711470
Is 16:10 same as 1600x900?
>>53719819
no, that's 16:9. the closest 16:10 equiv is 1680x1050.
>>53711481
>16:9 as a media format took hold in movies
almost no movie barring some very recent imax releases ever uses 16:9, it's purely a tv affair
which is odd since 16:10 was dying out long before good mainstream tv streaming services were available legally
>>53713780
>>53715780
>I can't wait for when 1:1 monitors become big and cheap
>>53715856
>Why not?
1:1 is a silly aspect ratio for humans, we naturally have a wider fov, and not to say widescreen should be the norm, but 3:2, 4:3, 5:4 are all far better aspect ratios for monitors than 1:1
3:2 and 5:4 would be preferable because those formats have a bit of history in art and professional photography, but 4:3 has its uses as it's really, really fucking easy to implement on limited hardware (and as a result has been the normal aspect ratio in computer monitors forever)
>>53715937
>Also most content is in 1080p giving black bars more often.
it's tv that's in 16:9/1080p, barring some movies using some imax cameras for gimmicky shit (such as that one bit half way through hunger games 2)
>>53717668
there are plenty of 1440p (they're all 24/27")/144hz/freesync panels, there's plenty of 1440p/freesync ips panels
freesync panels with ulmb are rare, you're better off with gsync for that
wide colour gamut screens are niche and you likely won't find them in high end gaming panels (which is almost essentially what you want), same for 10bit arguably
matte finish is really common, as is dvi (or dp > dvi so long as you don't need analogue) and vesa
wanting it for <£500 though? good luck, that's a shit ton of niche features on a high end gaming panel you want m8, the only logical upgrade from that point is 120/144hz
>>53719967
>>Also most content is in 1080p giving black bars more often.
>it's tv that's in 16:9/1080p
actually disregard this, most content is 16:9/1080p but the trend was pushed by tv faggots forcing their aspect resolution on consumer cameras and camcorders
>>53717498
not with the terrible input lag they suffer from
only the recent thunderbolt displays are any good
>>53717668
>10 bit
You do know the requirements for 10bit right?
Also
>less than £500
>>53711470
Because faggots keep buying consumer trash. Only based Apple and Microlimp can save us.
High res 4:3 where
The price premium demanded for 16:10 panels due to their more limited production means that you can almost always get a larger/higher resolution 16:9 panel for the same price.
The 'advantages' of 16:10 totally break down once we start talking about 38"+ 2160p displays.
>>53714756
>900 vertical pixels
2004 called.
>>53717668
>Less than £500.
and I want a lady to fondle my balls every night for the rest of my life.
Neither of us are ever getting what we want.
>>53715780
Called a projector, project whatever you want on that bitch.
>>53718730
O.O
Now intrigued, but I shouldn't be...
Favorite is 3:2,
16:10 is good,
16:9 is tolerable,
21:9 is painful.
>>53723770
21:9 seems pretty nice actually, perfect for movies, lovely for vidya and you can display fuckloads of documents side by side.
still waiting for 16:10 32"-34" 4K monitors WITH ROTATE
>>53723915
It'll be more attractive when there's a HiDPI 21:9 option IMO.
Having a hidpi laptop, phone, and tablet has seriously spoiled me. The 27" 2560x1440 displays at work feel like stone age tech now and now I can't buy standard DPI displays without feeling like it's a waste of money.
16:10 was so fucking mint in portrait mode
>>53714756
>tfw have to use a shitty 18" 1440x900 monitor at work
>tfw i do level 1 help desk support and have heaps of shit open all the time
its fucking suffering i swear.
>>53724016
Yeah, true this is why I haven't made the switch yet.
With phones it's standard, with laptops too once you spend north of 1k, which isn't that much given how cheap laptops suck but the premium for decent resolution on desktop is like 4x the price of a normal DPI screen.
>>53723770
>>53723915
21:9 is what 16:9 should've been. Less about displaying one long piece of content and more about displaying ~multiple pieces of normal content at once, or displaying one piece of wide, immersive content like movies and games.
>>53724016
I agree but expect 5160x2160 displays to cost $3k+ when they finally come out.
>>53712007
>21:9
You mean 7:3? What the fuck is wrong with you?
>>53724138
Yeah, pretty much, so I don't get the 21:9 hate, the real cancer is 16:9.
So is there such thing as a 27" IPS monitor for around $170?
I found an Acer 25" IPS for $150, the stand is shit, but the display seems fine.
Or should I get a better quality brand, with only a 23.8" display
>>53724164
Do you refer to 16:10 as 8:5 as well?
>>53724169
I think most of the hate comes from the fact that the ones in most people's price range are thoroughly average displays, being slightly wider 1080p displays. And the higher end ones are horrible in terms of price compared to high end 16:9 monitors.
>>53724164
You mean 64:27
>>53724138
21:9 sucks, you don't get enough vertical space. UHD 40" 16:9 is far better as you get the same amount of horizontal space as on a 30" 21:9 display, but with enough vertical space to actually be useful. Not to mention that you're not spending that much more.
If you helps you understand think of it not as 16:9, but 21:12.
>>53717668
you're welcome
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0173PEX34/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl
>>53719819
>1600x900
>1600:900
>160:90
>16:9
>is it 16:10?
>>53711470
they dont i am still using my 9 year old T260R
>>53725517
We can play the "But a monitor that's X inches would have the same vertical/horizontal space with extra of the other" game until it's not reasonable to fit it in your house. If you need large amounts of vertical space a 21:9 monitor isn't for you, but they're really nice for other things.
>>53718161
1024x768 was the standard pretty much forever before the 16:9 768p became common.
for me 4k@60hz on 40" does the job desu
>>53725674
Yes, except that 40" 16x9 4k displays have a number of distinct advantages.
~110ppi so no scaling required but slightly sharper than a typical display
as wide as most dual monitor setups
as tall as a typical vertically orientated display
resolution scales cleanly for 1080p and 720p games/content
16:9 is the standard aspect ratio and so the panels are cheaper
also good for watching movies and tv
>>53725741
>dem 250 lines of code at once
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
>>53711470
They're not compatible with other aspect ratios
16:9 is the standard and always has because of TV's
it is far simplier to make content for a 1080p TV then transfer that same logic to a monitor
>not on the 64:27 masterrace (21:9 if you're a normie)
>>53725791
Meme aspect ratio.
Most of these monitors are 4k with the top lobbed off.
>>53723770
>3:2
literally the only good thing google has contributed to technology is the resolution of the Pixel C
>>53725820
(4:3)^n
who else here 256:81?
The only good use for 1:1 monitors would be using them in portrait mode.
>>53719819
How did you even goto school being that retarded?
![01bba7b5a69e[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gzPWao3.jpg "01bba7b5a69e[1].jpg")
>>53711470
I'm using one right now. Lenovo Thinkvision 24520p. It's great.
Macbook Pros still have 16:10 screens. They're pretty popular.
Tons of people still have 16:10 monitors from the last few years. It's not like you just throw away good working 1920x1200 monitors.
Some fun facts I learned when I was researching what monitor to buy:
>24" 16:10 monitor has 5% more area than a 24" 16:9 monitor.
>Some 24" 16:9 monitors are actually only 23.5", but all 16:10 monitors are really 24". This means a 16:10 monitor is actually 9% larger overall than those cheapo 16:9's.
>16:10 provides 10% more resolution compare to 16:9 when the horizontal resolution is the same.
Sometime soon I will nab a 27" 16:10 monitor as they begin showing up on the used market when companies switch over to 4k.
>>53718678
> Film aspect ration
> Desktop computer monitors
If this is how any manufacturer company makes choices then I don't want to live on this planet any more.
>>53714845
this guy gets it
16:10 for life
>>53715856
Because its a niche technology.
1:1 (generally 2048x2048) displays are basically only used for air traffic control and special military applications. Only a few thousand are made every year.
>>53715904
Right, and more people are waking up to this.
"HD", at least how the word is used today, is a fraud.
> Bought an ASUS 1920x1200 in 2009.
> Board goes bad 5 years later.
> Go back to amazon to get a new one, notice there are no more monitors in that resolution, only "lesser" 1080 vertical pixels.
What the hell? Screen resolutions are going DOWN, while prices are stagnant? This is the biggest fraud in the history of the modern computing industry.
I highly recommend this blog post from a programmer about the "HD" scam, who demonstrates that screen resolutions are actually regressing in some ways (pic related):
http://tiamat.tsotech.com/hd-sucks
>>53728570
Just imagine how much worse it would be without based Apple pushing HiRes screens back into mainstream.
>>53728630
That's actually even worse, since >1080p screens are considered high-end only because Apple is the main supporter of these, whereas these should be standard by now. But the industry has decided: 4K or 1080p, nothing in between.
>>53731428
That has more to do with Windows still not being very good at resolution independence. The same reason why the majority of Windows laptops ship with 1366x768 displays.
>They don't have a 16:10 laptop
>>53731428
Laptop resolutions had been in decline for almost a decade until The rMBP. What the fuck are you talking about?
I have a samsung t220hd 1680x1050
Just give in and get a 40" 4k monitor guys (they're great). You can even put things in a 1920x1920, 3440x1440 or 2880x1800 windows if you please... and still have pixels to spare.
>>53732355
But that would require me to work with a low PPI.
I want high PPI.
The only way I'd get a 40" monitor was if it was 8k.
>>53732081
post wallpaper pls
>>53733853
>>53728036
16:10 monitors will probably become once 4K monitors with larger vertical space becomes widely available in price and quality.
>>53734057
>become obsolete once*
>>53734057
1920x1200 has been dead for years.
2560x1600 is currently being murdered by 40+" UHD displays, since anybody who could afford a 30" display 5+ years ago before 1440p took over can easily afford a 40" now.
Philips is coming out with a 43" IPS monitor soon (same panel as LG 43UF7600 TVs?) for like 800E.
I'll probably jump on the first comparable model to support UHD@120Hz over DP 1.3/1.4, which could realistically hit next year.
>>53734169
YOU SPEAK AS A SUPER JEWISH CEO ON A SHITTY LEFTY BOARD
I HAVE 800 x 600 SCREEN
IT JUST MAKES SENSE
YOU
DENSE
MOTHERFUCKER
>>53713999
That sounds amazing.
>>53711470
1280x1024 (5:4) MS reporting in this thread. I have to ask, why do people actually use monitors wider than 1280px for reading webpages and writing text documents?
>>53734492
They become blind lol
>>53723251
And they want their shitty "xxxx called" jokes back.
>>53715767
No you don't
>>53717668
>Anti-blur.
Every single goddamn monitor has an "anti-blur" measure built-in. Called "overdrive". Implementations vary.
>99%+ color space.
>Wide color gamut with sRGB emulation.
That "99%" you put there usually refers to sRGB coverage. Wider gamuts that you're after are therefore more than 99%. Make up your mind.
>PLS preferable over standard IPS.
You'd be disappointed to hear they're pretty much the exact same thing. PLS is just what Samsung calls it when they make it.
>A polarizer to avoid IPS glow.
Difficult to find. Polarizers often come with view angle issues of their own though.
>10 bit or better.
You'll find your animu is perfectly watchable even without a 10bit panel.
>5ms or less G2G.
Official G2G measurements are often kind of bullshit.
>>53714845
>60hz
ehhhhh
I have a 29" 16:10 monitor but I am about to buy a 34" 7:3 3440x1440 monitor. Good idea? Thoughts?
Seems like I am going from one extreme to another
I am still salty that they don't make 4:3 monitors anymore. 1600*1200 was so good.
>>53712007
this
they're objectively worse than 21:9 and 99% of people who are willing to buy non-16:9 monitors would prefer 21:9
>>53713999
this, but my 1080p one is TN and looks like garbage in comparison so I don't use it for anything other than IRC
>>53734676
don't buy one now you retard.
DP 1.3 displays coming out later this year will have markedly higher refresh rates.
even then, consider killing yourself.
3440x1440 is basically cropped UHD 4k, which is the next real standard resolution beyond 1440p for monitors and 1080p for TVs.
>>53737138
Just because the refresh rate is possible doesn't mean there's going to be any good monitors that take advantage of it any time soon. Plus a 120hz ips 4k monitor would cost a gorillion dollars.
>>53738307
>a 120hz ips 4k monitor would cost a gorillion dollars.
I hope not, since they're gonna be shipping late Q4, and I don't wanna have the global economy crash.
> don't know anything about >144Hz lower res models tho
not enough aspect ratio autists and special needs cases to sustain the demand required to economically justify mass production
there are still a few of them being produced so its not totally dead yet.
I would think in the future we might have even more streamlining of aspect ratios. it makes things more simple and universal. if there were only square, standard widescreen, standard tallscreen, and oval, things might be more easily interchanged, upgraded, or repaired.
>>53738380
Given the fact that 1440p ones are like $600 I wouldn't bet on 4k ones being affordable for at least two years.
>>53738671
IDGAF. the last 5 monitors I've purchased over the last 12 years or so starting in college have all been $1000-$1200 or so, and I'd be willing to pay as much for a UHD@120Hz IPS, and I know I'm not alone.
>>53738801
This. As soon as there's a UHD 120Hz IPS monitor for around 1k - 1.5k I'm getting one.
>>53734676
How much is that, you could probably buy a 40" 16:9 2160p display.
>>53737138
>1440p HDR display
im sold
>>53713780
>30" 2560 x 1600 is ideal for me
THIS
16:10 is for cucks. I use 1:2
