Talk:21:9 aspect ratio

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Comments

It's a common misconception that the aspect ratio of a TV is the same as the ratio of horizontal:vertical pixels. However, TV pixels aren't square. The display itself (in terms of its physical width and height) really does have the advertised 21:9 aspect ratio. Note that this is different to computer monitors, which do have square pixels so the physical aspect ratio is the same as the pixel ratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.136.17 (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the 2560x1080 panels, the pixel aspect ratio is square, and the panel has a picture aspect ratio of 64:27. Christian Wolff (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably mention the fact that the TV is discontinued, as well as the fact that the TV doesn't support inputs at its native resolution, making connecting a PC to it entirely pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.163.9.39 (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of 64:27 aspect ratio

The 64:27 aspect ratio is the logical extension of the existing video aspect ratios 4:3 and 16:9, as it is the third power of 4:3, where 16:9 of traditional HDTV is 4:3 squared. This allows electronic scalers to use an easily implementable 4:3 (1.33:1) scaling factor.

I don't see how this is true. Since the main point of 64:27 (a.k.a. 21:9) TV is constant picture height, using 4:3 scaling factor is only good for 2.39:1 films (1920 × 804 px actual picture area), though that will still make the picture height 8 pixels less than screen height (1080 px) when scaled up. For 2.35 (1920 × 817 px) and 1.85 (1920 × 1038 px) films a different scaling factor is needed (and a fractional one at that) otherwise their picture height will overshoot the screen's height. 1nktr4p (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't scale in both directions, only horizontally. The broadcaster always transmits in 1440x1080. For 4:3 content no scaling; for 16:9 content scale once by 4/3 giving 1920x1080; for 64:27 (aka 21/9) content scale twice by 4/3 giving 2560x1080. 85.212.11.85 (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Even if the broadcaster is chosing to encode the video with a 1440x1080 resolution, to reduce bandwidth, the encoded picture is still fixed at an aspect ratio of 16:9. 4:3 content would still be encoded with black pillarbox bars on the sides, and take up 1080x1080 pixel in the center of the 1440x1080 signal. Also, small black bars (less than 10 or 20 lines) are usually ignored. Just as 1.85:1 movies on a 16:9 TV, where the black bars of 21 lines remain in the picture on most TVs, or are reduced or removed by the overscan crop of the TV. This fact allows for 21:9 displays to apply a fixed crop of 1920x810 and a fixed scale factor of 4:3, for any 2.35:1, 2.39:1 or 2.37:1 content. Christian Wolff (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TVs only?

There is(was) a S300(Iconia Smart) smartphone by Acer which had 21:9 screen. "4.8" HXGA TFT", "4.8" 1024x480" and "21:9 MULTITOUCH LCD" mentoned on the box. Not gonna edit anything (too new to do that imo), but can provide photos of the box and phone itself, if anyone is interested.Mondrial (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just TVs

This article is completely focused on TVs, making it essentially obsolete. It should refer to "flat display screens" or something else. It does not reflect the world as it is today, where the line between computer monitors and TVs is blurred and in many cases completely erased. This is not even considering portable devices as mentioned by a previous poster.

Often, the only difference between a monitor and a TV is the response rate or input lag. A high end computer monitor generally will have a 1-6ms (or possibly even less) response time, a common monitor around 8ms, and a TV closer to 12 or 14ms. Although the actual screen panels are more or less exactly the same and smaller units often use exactly the same panel for both end uses, the fastest monitors and the largest TVs are made just enough differently that the largest panels are unsuitable as monitors (especially for gaming, due to input lag/response time) and the highest response rate panels are too expensive for all but the most discerning (read as: wealthy) TV buyers.

By and large, any form of panel screen today (and for quite some time now) is essentially a computer monitor. Most TVs are now nothing more than a low-end computer monitor (low end referring to the response rate) with built in speakers and a TV tuner, and many units marketed as computer monitors include the speakers regardless, making the difference even smaller. As a matter of fact my personal 4K computer monitor includes both speakers and a TV tuner so I could use it as if it were a TV, though the very high response rate is what makes it more of a computer monitor than a TV. I can even do picture-in-picture without altering how the computer and its GPU "see" the monitor. The computer is completely unaware of the PIP feature and thus does not need a TV capture card nor does it have to redirect an incoming TV signal from said card to a the monitor or a portion of it, the monitor does all the work.

GlassDeviant (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. There's consensus against moving this article. There's also support for moving the other articles to this one's format, so it would be good to start a move discussion to that effect. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:9 aspect ratio → 21:9 – The new name is much simpler, just like 16:9. The new name is redirect to current article page. UU (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Favonian (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant support - All articles in Category:Picture aspect ratios are in this style so per WP:CONSISTENCY, this should as well. Though I personally feel that the "x:y" naming style is less clear than the one used here. --Gonnym (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's just wrong, IMO – rather than moving this one, the other one should be moved to 16:9 aspect ratio (it looks like 4:3 aspect ratio is just a redirect...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would rather support moving the others as well. --Gonnym (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current proposal, support moving 16:9 to 16:9 aspect ratio. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What about 14:9 and 16:10? --Gonnym (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same: should be moved to 14:9 aspect ratio and 16:10 aspect ratio. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current proposal, and support moving 14:9, 16:9 and 16:10 to the "# aspect ratio" format as it makes the title much more clearer.--Gonnym (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support original proposal. Per WP:CONCISE, titles should be no longer than necessary while still unambiguously identifying the article's subject. Since terms like "16:9", "16:10" or "21:9" have no alternative meanings (at least, none that I'm aware of), I don't see how adding the " aspect ratio" part would improve anything, and therefore oppose the alternative proposal. Indrek (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – it's better move the other way, for precision and recognizability, as Gonnym and IJBall suggest. Dicklyon (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Animation of various content on three types of displays

Could somebody add a brief note on what exactly the three different animations on each display purport to exemplify? --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

constant display height when displaying other content with a lesser aspect ratio

The main benefit of this screen aspect ratio is a constant display height when displaying other content with a lesser aspect ratio

Why is such thing a "benefit"? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]