Why is nothing being done to solve the aspect ratio problem?

Why is nothing being done to solve the aspect ratio problem?

Attached: ratio.png (800x603, 37K)

It was solved. It's called "16:9"

>open old content
>huge black bars on the side
ebin

4:3 is associated with old and bad by retards.

16:10 is better than 16:9

Yes and? It's a compromise between movies and standard def. Both get black bars.
Meanwhile mainstream content is produced for 16:9 which is the perfect ratio.

Folding screens.
:^)

For computing, yes.
16:9 is fine for media. 16:10 is better for computers.
Although 3:2 is the most correct aspect ratio for computers.

A compromise is not a fix

What would you want, a monitor that magically changes dimensions based on the content you're watching?

It exists

Attached: rollable-oled.jpg (810x456, 63K)

>not using 1:1
Why is it 4:3 instead of 1:1?

You mean a projector?

I use a 3:2 laptop and I could never go back to 16:9, once you free yourself from shit aspect ratios it's great

This 16:9 is the standard. Everything else is wrong

Let's use a weighted average
60% for 16:9 since most modern shit is in that
30% for 4:3 since most shit was mastered to that for home releases (dvd/digitised vhs)
10% for 21:9 since although many movies were shot in that, not many had releases for home consumption in that aspect ratio

So 21:9 is: 0.1 + 0.4547 +0.1698
16:9 is: 0.0757 + 0.6 + 0.2247
4:3 is: 0.05687 + 0.4501 + 0.3
Totals are:
0.7245, 0.9004, 0.80697

You can weight your averages differently, but just keep in mind what you are consuming. This is also presuming that cost will scale with maximal video area. Some people will prefer 4:3 more as they watch a lot of digitised VHS or the like, while others will have 16:9 at 0.8 weighting or higher as most of their shit is at that.

>not all games have unlimited aspect ratios
AAAAAAA

>16:9 is the standard.
Movies are wrong? Most movies fill up most of the screen on 21:9 monitors

>Glowing black bars
Terry would be triggered

>30% for 4:3 since most shit was mastered to that for home releases (dvd/digitised vhs)
>10% for 21:9 since although many movies were shot in that, not many had releases for home consumption in that aspect ratio
From the advent of DVD onwards, pretty much every movie has been available in its original aspect ratio.

>magically
never post on this board again

Attach little theater curtains to your monitor and cover up the unused parts

doeas that do 4/3 though?

Not really. TV controllers usually only have a strict set of resolutions they support.

16:9 is the perfect and most balanced aspect ratio, hence is in the center.

Attached: the power of science.gif (442x258, 1.86M)

Just make a 1:1 screen that rolls down into any other ratio necessary, have software detect black bars and move the content accordingly. Hell it doesn't even need to be rollable, it could just be a regular rigid display that slides into an enclosure below it, wouldn't even have to be a big enclosure since 21:9 is realistically the widest ratio you'll need.

This. Anything else is for brainlets.

why is 16:10 not named 8:5?

It's a matter of preference, not a problem.
Don't like it? Don't buy any.

I would say 16:9 is the best because it can display 4:3 and 21:9 with the smallest black bars
Yeah well every ratio gets black bars depending on what content is displayed.
16:9 just looks less unsightly

Just have one of each. Modern video cards can handle 4 monitors at once and cheap 4:3 panels are extremely common if not already in your basement. Just buy a 16:10, 16:9, and 21:9 and you're set for life.

The correct opinion. 16:10 is worlds better than 16:9, and 3:2, even more so.

If Lenovo would stop with the huge bottom and top bezels and return to the ways of the ThinkPads of yore, we would be getting somewhere. I'd buy a 3:2 ThinkPad P53 in a heartbeat.

Attached: image.jpg (400x419, 24K)

>not changing your pillarbox/letterbox to 50% gray

>multiple displays
How uncouth

And I bet plebs like you think that in 8 bit color from 0 to 255, 128 is 50% gray too. Heh, nothing personal kid but no to both.

this is the main reason why I can't upgrade my 16:10/dual 3:4 setup, there's no ultrawide I really like that could replace it

32:20 is higher = better than your shitty 16:10

Anything other than 4:3 (specifically 640x480 VGA 16 colors) is for reprobates.

based
cringe

Unironically brilliant

>saying a better aspect ratio is better is cringeworthy
no

(4:3) = (16:9)
:^)

congrats on the trips. because of marketing and making it easy to place in the timeline i guess

>better
Then why did 16:9 annihilate it?

Because manufacturers favoured media consumption devices with 16:9 over productive 16:10 displays. As far as I know there are only two manufacturers putting out 16:10 laptops—Apple and Panasonic—and one manufacturer's devices are only available in Japan

Software doesn't care about aspect ratios. Neither do computer graphics. There's nothing to solve, the choice is purely aesthetic.
>hurr movies
Fuck off with your boomer shit.

true
4x4 is 16 and 3x3 is 9

>the choice is purely aesthetic
No, it has functional consequences. 4:3 display of the same surface will be more portable than a 16:9 display. I mean, I find it easier to carry squares because the maximum length is smaller. Just by adding a few centimeters to the shorter side of 16:9 you get a significantly bigger display.

>the choice is purely aesthetic.
no