Talk:16:10 aspect ratio

Aspect ratios

Ratios should be presented in lowest-common-denominator form. Therefore the aspect ratio you called "16:10" is actually "8:5". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Criffer (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but due to the 16:9 aspect ratio it was much easier to market as 16:10. 86.3.111.41 (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Since 8:5 isn't used by anyone, should it be mentioned? - Gunnar Guðvarðarson (My Talk) 00:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

16:10 is usually mentioned as 16:10 and should also have that name in this article. Criffers talk about "should be presented in lowest-common-denominator form" is his fiction. There is no such rule./Urklistre (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a math rule — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.102.147.249 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Paper Size

There should also be a section about paper sizes with 16:10 Aspect ratio. Here are mentioened in Paper size article:

Junior Legal = 203 mm × 127 mm Index card = 203 mm × 127 mm Index card = 127 mm × 76 mm

Other sizes are welcomed. --129.7.147.112 (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

2880x1800 as a common resolution

Anonymous editors have been adding 2880x1800 into the common resolutions table. I don't believe it belongs there, since it's only used in a single device so far and barely, if at all, registers on resolution-related statistics as a fraction of a percent. To wit:

• http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey (expand the "Primary Display Resolution" category) - 0.01%
• http://screenresolution.org - 0.003%
• http://gs.statcounter.com/#resolution-ww-daily-20130316-20130316-bar - doesn't even show up (click the "Download Data" link for more resolutions than the chart shows)
• http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=17 - doesn't even show up

I've tried asking the anons for clarification as to why they think 2880x1800 qualifies as a common resolution (which is what the table is about), but so far they've failed to provide any, yet I'm being reverted every time I remove the resolution. So I'm raising the issue here on the talk page to hopefully get some other opinions. My position is that we already have articles that offer a comprehensive list of known display resolutions, there's no need to clutter this table with uncommon (and apparently unnamed) resolutions. Indrek (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the main rationale to keep it is that Apple's MacBook line uses it. The brand is significant enough to warrant its inclusion in the table in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

But the title of the section/table is "Common resolutions", not "Significant resolutions". Indrek (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

15" MacBook Pro has display with actual resolution 2880x1800 and it is quite popular. However, this is a Retina display and it shows up in JavaScrip as 1920x1200 (density 1.5). While this helps to render websites in a better way it hides the real market share in when stats are collected without checking density. (tomi44g (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC))

It's been used in the MacBook Pro 15" in every generation over the past 7 years, that's a fair number of models at this point, and likely many millions of computers using this resolution. It won't show up as a popular resolution on Steam due to the low amount of gaming done on MacBooks, and won't show up on any web-based resolution detection websites, due to OS scaling, websites will misread the resolution as a lower resolution like 1920×1200. At least 2880×1800 is certainly more "common" than 3840×2400 which is on the table, which was used only on a handful of monitors which cost tens of thousands of dollars, highly specialist equipment that was never "common". GlenwingKyros (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Reasons for this transition

Re: "Reasons for this transition were productive uses for such monitors"

the source states that the monitors were available and productive uses for the monitors were as follows, not that the productive uses were a cause of the availability of the widescreen monitors.

I've heard the actual cause to be cheaper manufacturing as well as movie fans viewing the original film formats, whereas productivity was never seen as some goal to be reached through new aspect ratios, even if that happened.

Rewrite this tripe post haste somebody, or I will remove it. 73.180.32.63 (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've rewritten that sentence. Not only did the sentence in its previous form constitute WP:OR, much of it was also a WP:COPYVIO (lifted almost word-for-word from the first source).

That said, kindly consider wording your change requests with a little more decorum next time. Posting what essentially amounts to an ultimatum is not a constructive way to foster discussion and consensus. And if you're really so bothered by certain content as to call it "tripe", be bold and WP:FIXIT yourself.

Regards, Indrek (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Indrek. However, I didn't come for discussion or consensus. I came for truth. As for fixing it, I tend to think that people like yourself would prefer to edit rather than a third party deleting passages. Speaking of which,

"Such displays were considered" by whom?

I could rewrite it to the effect of "allowed the display of two full pages of text horizontally" in a neutral fashion rather than framing this aspect ratio issue as one of better and worse. Because as far as I am concerned, the changes in the monitor/television market are not motivated by public demand for changes or improvements, notwithstanding those movie viewers, but economic and technological reasons.

In fact, as far as I am concerned, this was, in fact, a burden on the public to acclimate to the new variety of aspect ratios and displaying media correctly thereby. Because those black bars are a fact of life now, whereas they basically didn't exist before this marketing action.

But I'm not going to write opinion in the article, even if as I say it is less opinion and more fact needing sources.

73.180.32.63 (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

However, I didn't come for discussion or consensus. That's too bad, because consensus is how decisions are made on Wikipedia, and discussion is how consensus is (normally) reached. If you are disinclined to engage in either, you may find Wikipedia less than accommodating. While we don't bite the newcomers, we do expect them to learn and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

As for fixing it, I tend to think that people like yourself would prefer to edit rather than a third party deleting passages. I don't know what you mean by "people like yourself" (registered users? experienced editors?), but personally I have no such preferences. If your deletion of the passage is deemed erroneous or counterproductive, it can be reverted very easily.

I could rewrite it to the effect of "allowed the display of two full pages of text horizontally" in a neutral fashion rather than framing this aspect ratio issue as one of better and worse. The edit you suggest amounts to removing from that part of the article a significant viewpoint (as expressed by the sources) that the 16:10 aspect ratio is better suited to productive uses than others. Therefore, it would be a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which states that all significant views must be represented fairly and proportionately.

But I'm not going to write opinion in the article, even if as I say it is less opinion and more fact needing sources. If it's a notable fact then you should have no trouble finding reliable sources. If you cannot find any such sources, then it's either not fact, or not notable, and in either case does not belong on Wikipedia.

Regards, Indrek (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

15:9

Why does 15:9 redirect here? The equivalent 5:3 does not. — Christoph Päper 21:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The criticisms are justified, 16:9 is inferior for production

As a programmer, web developer, graphics designer, modder, a general PC geek that deals with all kinds of utility and application work I would like to inform everyone here that the criticisms against 16:9 are well known in this industry, I do not need any input from other peers, this was my opinion from the get go, I didn't join any group of fanboys on any side. I have noticed some wikipedia goons are trying to tone down this valid criticism of the PC monitor manufacturers forcing annoying consumerish TV standards to the whole PC market, 16:10 was obviously meant to be tailored to the PC desktop environment needs well after 16:9 was already established for HDTVs, as well as being compatible with the 16:9 as it is obviousy from the moniker, it is larger therefore it can accomodate a smaller aspect without any distortion. And just because some trendy journalist didn't pick his nose to make an article about this for some reason niche issue, doesn't mean it's not valid to be discussed in the talk page.

Wikipedia's opinion and especially the opinion of the anonymous editors who are known to be paid agents by various corporations, who have no field experience don't frankly doesn't matter. Wikipedia does not control reality.

There is no such thing as black bars, it is a childish imagination of the average mainstream technically-ignorant person, it is only empty unused space. If we compare two monitors which are similar in size and pixel density, and they use similar resolution, with one corresponding to 16:10 and the other to 16:9, and they are in the corresponding resolution cross aspect group, and that is 1920x1080 for 16:9 and 1920x1200 for 16:10, why is this the corresponding resolution, because both have same amount of pixels on the horizontal axis. In this case the 16:9 content on a 16:10 monitor would display practically the same as on the 16:9 monitor, except the 16:10 monitor has extra space horizontally compared to a 16:9 monitor therefore some of the pixels would be inactive because they aren't needed.

A different monitor size would have different pixel density, so you can't compare different sized monitors and claim the content is not the same when doing this, like choosing 4K vs 1920x1200, there's a big size difference there, obviously on a smaller monitor the whole image will be smaller, but still, even with the size difference, what is key is that aspect never changes for 16:9 content, the 16:9 content is still displayed properly and DOES FIT without distortion on a 16:10 monitor, nothing is lost, nothing is manipulated, the monitor doesn't stretch or tighten it, there is only some extra space left on the horizontal axis, which happens in this case to be 60 pixels on the top and bottom simply because the playback software centers the rendering output for esthetics, you could have it aligned to top and you would "fix" the "top black bar" and have 120 pixels of empty space at the bottom but I bet that would look even worse as the uneven proportions to the proximity of the bezel will probably enhance the unnatural feeling, and yes it is just a feeling with no technical backing. There are no black bars "added" of any kind, it is an illusion created by this unused space.

16:10 therefore supports both the 16:9 camp of consumers and movie buffs and TV zombies, as well as developers, programmers, and designers and various PC geeks. With the monitor industry forcing the TV standard on the PC market it has substantially hampered the experience of developers, programmers and designers, while the mass consumer crybaby camp gained nothing of techical significance except a spoiled-brat estethical gain of imaginary riddance of the so-called "black bars".

And I just hope DisplayPort survives against HDMI. Xowets (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting read. I don't quite know what you're on about, but interesting nonetheless. – Jetro (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A key benefit of 16:10 I haven't seen mentioned is a benefit for video editors. With a 16:10 display, you can display a 16:9 video project at the full screen's width and have space at the top and bottom for the editing software's user interface. For instance, at HD resolutions, 1920x1200 lets you display 1920x1080 video without scaling, and leaving 120 vertical pixels for menus and toolbars. At 4K resolutions, a hypothetical 3840x2400 display (do these exist? I couldn't find any for sale) would let you display 3840x2160 without scaling, leaving 240 vertical pixels for UI. Shamino (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:16:9 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)