@@denisblack9897 true. Anything that is fun or makes you happy is also a waste of time tbh. The only thing that matters is being as productive as possible until we die. Honestly, why waste our mental energy on living when the entire universe will eventually collapse, and all evidence of our existence will disappear forever? The most logical thing to do is just kill ourselves as soon as possible
I used to have a 4:3 monitor as a secondary monitor (it died). I have to say, it feels really nice to code or browse websites on : the text naturally wraps at the right place, unlike on 16:9 where you have to put two windows side-by-side and even then, it feels cramped. It's such a shame that modern 4:3 monitors aren't for sale for a reasonable price, and that 4:3 laptops aren't produced at all now.
Its a bit late but you can find modern 4:3 monitors. Dell and Viewsonic have 19 inch IPS ones. Eizo has at least one 1:1 monitor, the Flexscan EV2730. 26.5 inch. They sell expensive monitors since most are color calibrated and come with calibration guarantees and LUT stuff.
4:3 sucks for games and movies, also "you have to put two windows side by side"?, why do you have to do that. I'd recommend buying a 16:9 monitor that can rotate to become 9:16, you will surely appreciate the vertical FOV if you like 4:3.
16 : 10 is the closest to a golden ratio. Windows 11 has a big task bar which removes more vertical space than Win7-10. The first Windows where you can't make the task bar smaller since XP. Today's games often use Hor+ methods for the FOV where the horizontal view is cropped at taller aspect ratios. This is why people even buy 21:9 monitors. :/
Yeah you're talking about that stupid thing where when you try to play a game with a taller aspect ratio rather than allowing you to see more up and down they zoom the screen in to fit so you end up losing the left and right. I hate it. Half life was really bad so I always play it on 4:3 mode.
@@bland9876it's still better than what Overwatch did, which is letterboxing. I couldn't use my favorite monitor for a long time because the game just looks too tiny on it, but now that I quit playing I guess I can go back to my old 5:4 monitor I like
I can't remember any single 16:9 movie, they are all much wider. And one of the reasons for this is the medium. They are made for cinema screens, not for home TVs or computer screens.
@@okaravan Joker (2019) and The Lion King (2019) were 1.85:1, to pick some recent examples. The prevalence of widescreen at home has meant filmmakers have increasingly preferred the cinemascope ratio in order to differentiate themselves from television. But until recently, nearly all mainstream cinema was 1.85:1, with the wider ratio reserved for epic blockbusters.
@@okaravanmovies rarely take advantage of the wide frame. Most of the time it looks as 16:9 with top and bottom cut off. I have a 21:9 monitor, and I still prefer open matte (16:9) to wider cuts whenever available. Yes, I find black bars on the sides less stupid than looking at close-ups with 30% of a person's face cut off
i have a widescreen flipped 90* on the left from my iMac for like 3 years, can't go back it's like a giant phone, super great for programming, web pages and iOS simulator highly recommend, it can give you a birds-eye view over big file - less scrolling - less cognitive drain
The 16x9 thing really shows how tech improvements aren't actually improvements when the engineering is shit. I was able to fit more on my 640x480 screen than my 1366x768 screen. How does that make any sense?
ever heard of scaling, that might fix your issues....16:9 doesn't reduce vertical FOV, it just expands horizontal FOV, whatever issues you have are with improper scaling, also why the hell are you using 640x480 and 1366x768? 4:3 or not you are going to be limited by the low res, upgrade to 4k.
@@yesyes-om1po 16:9 literally does reduce vertical resolution when compared to 4:3. 16:10 is the best of both because it retains the vertical resolution of 4:3 while adding the horizontal resolution of 16:9. Scaling isn't a solution because it can not change the physical dimensions of a display.
i thought i was taking crazy pills. also at the office i get funny looks because one of the screens is set in portrait orientation. looking at code and debugger feels like catching rain with a sieve. at least i could watch a film in the right format at work, but i doubt my boss would welcome that.
It's funny how he danced around the reason without actually realizing why they picked 16:9. It was chosen because it was mediocre. It was a middle ground between movies, 4:3 TV, games, etc. "Engineers settled on this first-time aspect ratio (an average of typical movie ratios), so that an HDTV set could display both kinds of video without much “masking” by letterbox bars."
Mam pytanie do Microsoft: Na laptopie musi być 16:10. Dlaczego do dzisiaj nie ma instalacyjnego systemu operacyjnego Laptop 16:10. Cały czas jest ikona Mój komputer\Ten komputer (Desktop) z przekątną 16:9?
Yeah seems like 16:9 is a bit of a compromise, but if you want more vertical space for things like coding you could always get a 2nd or 3rd monitor that you can use in portrait mode right? Seen plenty of setups like that.
I can have two columns on vscode that shows two code files. Granted, both need to be at most 80 character long lines. I have my task bar in the bottom, hidden when my mouse pointer is not near it so I still use all the space on my monitor. I can agree with his points, but I don't think it's nearly as bad, all aspect ratios have their problems.
I wish everything was 4:3 still. I **** hate widescreen. It looks bad, my tv still usually has those annoying letterboxing and if I watch old content I get black pillars.
I can’t work on laptop screens. I had a period owning a bulky Acer 9920G laptop with a 20in screen which was perfect for coding, gaming, movies and easy to move around (unlike a desktop) but I couldn’t find another large screen laptop to replace it so switched to a laptop connected to desktop monitors, mouse and keyboard. Couple of Benq 27in monitors vertically oriented in 2K does it for me… each screen carrying an Eclipse IDE window. Word documents look like A4 pages and code fills out most of the page with everything feeling wide enough. Had this setup for 5 years and now my brain struggles with horizontal monitors - especially two side by side which appear to take up an unacceptable amount of space when my warped perception perceives them 🤷♂️
The 16:9 aspect ration doesn’t bother me too much. When I need vertical space, I just use my super special custom ordered 9:16 secondary monitor! Problem solved!
because that's what he uses, he explained that all the best monitors being made (4k, adaptive sync, etc) are being made in 16:9 only, or are very expensive
If this guy hates 16x9 he's going to definitely hate the screen I had that was 1680x1050 basically a shorter screen so even less on each side when multi tasking.
Still hoping Microsoft will sell their Surface Studio 3:2 screens separately. Apparently they were surprised when people asked them if they could buy just the screen.
For coding you want vertical space, horizontally humans can comfortably read 60 columns. So even 80 - 100 columns is bit of a stretch. That said, widescreen is better for "consuming media".
It’s so annoying to linebreak at 80 columns. I’d like wider monitors for my dual-view text editor. On my laptop, I split 2 text editor views into *rows* (reducing vertical space) because I want longer lines. (I find it worth verbose variable names and not worrying about nested indentation so far)
the pros of 16:9 far outweight the cons compared to 4:3, some more vertical space, but at the expense of width, this would reduce the FOV in any live rendered content or anything that has visual information. 16:9 doesn't exactly shrink the vertical FOV on this content anyways, it just adds more screenspace compared to a 4:3 monitor. You could simply lower the scaling or resize the windows to accommodate. 4:3 makes no sense for anything else. Our eyes have a far greater horizontal FOV compared to our vertical FOV, this is why everything made the transition to 16:9, arguably I think we should also transition to 21:9 in the future, when 4k becomes the minimum standard and 8k becomes a regular resolution, this probably isn't coming anytime soon though
I got an OLED monitor and just run it in 16:10, because it's OLED I don't ever notice the black bars I even used to try to run it in 4:3, but many newer games or software no longer support it properly
10:7 is nice aspect ratio, it is an approximation of paper size ratios. This is equivalent to, 16:11.2 or 4:2.8 The cool thing about this ratio is half the screen is almost the same ratio, 5:7 = 7.1:10
Cant you just rotate a horizontal monitor 90* and set it to vertical? doesnt solve the side-by-side, but then again horizontal 16:9 would be good in that area.
The problem is (at least with the LCD monitors that I used) that you're going to look at it from the wrong angle and the screen won't appear evenly bright.
The way scaling works on displays is that actually the wider the screen is, the more things you'll see horizontally, instead of seeing less veritcally. So what John says is technically not true, because on a 16:9 display, you'll still see the same amount of text horizontally as on a 4:3 screen, but you can also have more space on the sides. However, I agree on that 16:9 is a little bit weird and dumb aspect ratio. It was actually a compromise that was standardised in the late 80's or early 90's, because this was the mathematical middleground between 4:3 television screens and 2:35:1 cinema screens. Basically, on a 16:9 screen, you see the same amount of black bars regardless if you watch wider or narrower content. But 21:9 is the most ideal aspect ratio in my opinion.
IMO, 21:9 is a bit too wide to be the standard. And it's multiplying by 3 again. 2:1 would be the best. Best for mobile, great for desktops. RUclipsrs are jumping aboard (because of mobile). Will do both the cinematic and 16:9 well. Easy to design and develop for.
"the wider the screen is, the more things you'll see horizontally, instead of seeing less veritcally" But not with the same amount of pixels, which is what he said. Of course you can see more things if you're allowed to reduce the number of pixels per thing or increase the number of pixels overall, what is the point of arguing that.
16:9 is almost the perfect ratio as far as human sight is considered. Rest is "just" the size and resolution. If we take the same screen width and pixel count, 16:9 would be better than 21:9 simply because it would fill your vision more evenly.
@@hmwndp Well there are four 21:9/ultrawide formats being used, and almost all of them have a slightly different aspect ratio in reality. 2560x1080 and 5120x2160 are the narrowest, 3440x1440 is a little wider, and 3840x1600 is the widest. 3840x1600 is 24:10, and it is the exact resolution / aspect ratio of many movies. But yeah, 21:9 was probably chosen as a name because it's way easier to compare it to 16:9 screens, but the so-called 21:9 screens are very close to being 21:9 in terms of aspect ratio anyways.
Good to see you're uploading, Fan. Keep 'em comin'. Leave links to vods if you have them. On the video itself: it is kinda dumb, but there are ergonomic reasons for it. Human field of view shape, laptop shape. I agree that there are problems with screens (notch/cutout and dimension problem on mobile are horrible to develop for, all-screen mobile paradigm has robbed apps of some gestures, density standards clashing, Apple doing whatever the hell with dimensions, color accuracy), but 16:9 isn't really the most prominent one. Imo. Jonathan should try vertical orientation. Also, there are plenty of wide gaming monitors he can use. Or a whole damn TV (i do, as a second screen).
You want computers to good at everything, and that makes it less than optimal for most things. But honestly, typing code and viewing it on a screen is lame. I'm just waiting until my nervous system can interface directly with computers, and I can download viruses onto my mind.
4:3 + 4:3 = 16:9 (4:3 + 20:9) /2 = 16.9 16:9 is a compromise aspect ratio that was chosen to best display 4:3 TV and wider movie formats. The TV industry still primarily uses 16:9 natively along with video games. While the movie industry uses wider aspect ratios from 18:9 up to as wide as 2.39:1 (Aka...2.40:1)
The guy told you he likes to open two different files at the same time. How is he going to do that on a portrait mode monitor? Also, is he supposed to keep rotating his monitor whenever he wants to program or watch youtube / movies? Dumbass.
How is this peripheral vision thing supposed to work anyway? Without turning my eyeballs, I can see over 90° left and right, and pretty close to that up and down. Not far off from a hemisphere, and not _much_ wider than it is tall. If I do allow myself to rotate my eyeballs, I only get some more horizontal range, but not 16:9 wide (speaking about angles, not planar distance which falls apart entirely at 90°). Any normal monitor in a normal position can only create massive tunnel vision. 4:3 is actually a fairly balanced match. Yes, horizon scanning is important, but you shouldn’t underestimate the value of seeing what’s above and below. It’s just more subtle, manifesting more as an unknown unknown than a known unknown. And that’s just the peripheral vision argument. Central vision is narrower still. Framing people in widescreen is awkward. Even if you cut off their feet, you have so much horizontal space to fill.
16:9 doesnt sucks because its best for gaming and watching Hollywood movies! 16:10 is best for gaming & editing but suck while watching movies which has large bars! 3:2 is best for coding, multi window tasking, editing, work etc but suck while playing game and watching movies!
And why would one need a movie to cover the entire screen? If one needs to control video options, then the movie's view is disturbed by the interface of the options menu.
I agree that 16:9 is less than ideal, but I disagree that 4:3 is where it's at. My line of thinking is that we as a society knew about stuff like "the golden ratio" in the early 1800's, so why the heck did 4:3 even end up existing in the first place? It should've been 16:10 standard from the start, with 24:10 (ironically, the "silver ratio" counterpart to the golden ratio is within margin of error to this number) being what hollywood moved to in the 50's/60's as a panoramic sort of view. Then in the 90's when widescreen TV became a thing, they would've gone RIGHT in the middle at 2:1. Then smartphones and tablets would've started at 16:10, with the former moving to 2:1 over the years, with maybe a dabble in 18:10 (which might as well be 16:9) like how they're dabbling with 2:1 and slightly wider, now. Laptops would resolutely remain 16:10 in this theoretical alternate timeline, while desktops would have a mix of all three ratios, but they would all be readily available with similar potential specs for similar prices, mostly because there are only *3* standards to choose from instead of the, like, *8* we have today. (5:4, 4:3, 3:2 on some laptops, 16:10, 16:9, 21:9, 32:9, 32:10) This is in contrast to today's "economy" where basically everything except 16:9 and 21:9 is either extinct or a combination of lacking in features and overpriced. Prime example, you can get 1920x1200 24" or 2560x1600 30" IPS displays, but they won't be high refresh, adaptive sync, and in the case of the latter, they'll be $800-$1000. Meanwhile, I recently bought my Gigabyte 2560x1440 144hz IPS, 10-bit, adaptive sync, HDR400 panel for $220. Literally 1/4 the price for 2x the features. Sometimes I wish I could just edit reality in all these small ways, lol. But nope. Oh, and don't even get me started on frame rate and resolution standards, lol.
16:9 also is trash in the vertical format!!!! It is a nightmare for photographers with cinematic vision. The vertical format is and has always been shit- used only when necessary for architecture or to fit in tall object in still photography. This Tik Tok and Instagram fad is ruining media to the sake of the idea that people cant turn their phone sideways (landscape) to accommodate a wide screen format- which most simulates humans natural vision. Humans do not see in a narrow vertical plane- we have wide peripheral vision, more of a landscape format.
Most smartphones have incredibly wide views in landscape and with the scaling of the UI, it is impossible to do any task, aside from watching (widescreen) videos.
Some good points, but the 'waste' incurred by 16:9 mostly isn't an issue outside of laptop environments (which you probably shouldn't be relying on for serious productivity programming). Also, going wider is really valuable and clearly better than taller 4:3 because of the landscape nature of human vision. I borrowed the ultra-wide monitor at work for testing PC builds, but I'm trying to keep it now because getting two code editor windows with ample space open at once is SO nice...
@@incaseofimportantnegotiationsWhat on earth is that combination of numbers? By "65 4k screen" I assume a 65 inch 4K TV, as I don't think there are any monitors with that size. Such TVs should cause ~1000 USD, so 3 should cost ~3000 USD. It seems you are from Russia by the term "putler", so 3000 USD ≈ 277 605 ₽. Note that this is a currency conversion, so prices in Russia are expected to be different.
@@hmwndpbruv wake up it's 2020s my 4k 65 costed 400$ 6 years ago when they were more expensive. same for my 49 4k monitor later it seems you are in usd, so ask your government why they started tax wars so your tv costs that much instead of how it costed literally everywhere else, including democratic countries that don't support mao because they were too busy brownosing pukin you do your math in your head i've bought a 3080 ti on release and planned to get 3 big screens until pukler ruined everyone's life because he is a senile coprolite. and i'm on hobo salary with 7 screens. my rich friends are on 4090s and can get as much screen as they want right now under sanctions with tripple tariffs grey import Philips 70PUS8108 70 4k 749$ 65 4k Supra STV-LC65ST0045U 419$ Hyundai H-LED65BU7000 429$ Xiaomi TV A2 569$ GRUNDIG 65GGU8960 619$ LG 65UP77506LA.ARU 659$
Most of the things he complained about here can be fixed by changing various settings. If the text doesn't fit when you resize the window to use up half of the screen, resize the text, for example. Beyond that, he's missing out on the absolute chad aspect ratio of 9:16 which is big enough to fit an entire page of a document on at once and is super good for programming on. Or he could pick up a 1280x1024 monitor and use that as his dedicated reading/coding monitor if he's really married to aspect ratios narrower than 16:9. He has the means to fix his inconveniences
Yeah, he is mixing aspect ratio with use of space. The aspect ratio of 16:9 matches the human vision pretty well, the rest is just a problem of size of the monitor and its resolution.
@@GonziHere yeah dude, totally... A guy like Jon, who makes a living dealing with 3D graphics and writes professional game engines for sure doesn't understand jack shit about aspect ratio. As for the dumb weeb above, who's whole life revolves around depictions of underage girls and heavy usage of dumb made-up terms like "Chad": the guy clearly said he wants to open and work on two files at the same time. Good luck doing that in portrait mode. Also rotating your monitor everytime you switch the use case isn't a solution. Also, using two monitors in portrait mode is again not a solution because of the same problems that come from watching content on a single portrait mode screen. And the 1280x1024 sarcasm just shows how fking stupid you are.
@@hmwndpI know, but I don't actually prefer that on a big screen. I have 40" 4K monitor and I can comfortably use the monitor and look at the desk, etc - I DON'T want it higher, nor "slimmer" so that it would approach 4:3 more. I 've confirmed that even with "limitless" monitors in VR. Anyways, my main point was that he talks about how wide both texts side by side are... that has nothing to do with AR. At this very moment, I'm using three walls of text next to each other. 60 lines vertically, about 110 characters wide, Visual Studio toolbars over and under it, and it could be much more if my font wouldn't be zoomed to 150% of default VS size... so his rant is misplaced. That was my point. He mistakes real estate for aspect ratio.
I disagree, partially. 16:9 is indeed not ideal but one can easily have 2 source files opened side by side if one sticks to 80 characters max width, no auto text wrapping. Old standards are still useful...
16:9 monitors are fantastic for watching movies and playing modern videogames. Nobody is pointing a gun to your head to use them for programming If you want more vertical space you can always hook up a 4:3 CRT, or tate a widescreen. This is a non-issue
This is a stupid argument. The physical screen ratio isn't what matters. What matters is physical area and pixel count. If you're pissed off because your screen isn't wide enough, get a bigger screen. If you're pissed off because your screen isn't tall enough, get a bigger screen. (As for laptops, 16:10 has proven itself to be the optimum ratio for laptops that clamshell into a full size keyboard and large trackpad. It's no wonder that Apple standardised on 16:10 for all their laptops but not their desktops.)
And one will keep on doing this, 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, that to 7680x4320, *that* to 15360x8640, ...? And soon enough, very quickly, one will lose money by buying screens. There is no benefit either, UIs will get smaller and smaller to the point where a magnifying glass is required to do anything!
He doesn't like auto hide. In fact this whole rant was prompted by someone bringing up auto hide in the chat. He also said that "If you like autohide don't let me tell you not to use it".
@@BlowFan Can you also mention the date or paste the link of the whole stream archive in your videos. So we can check out the whole conversation Or if we find something interesting in the videos.
Can't wait for Jon Blow to reimplement monitor hardware.
Or just turn the monitor 90 degrees.
@@ObsceneSuperMatt modern problems require a modern apple stand /s
@@not_herobrine3752 For only $999!
He is 100% correct on this one. I loved programming on 4:3 monitors. And most other activities as well. Sticking to 16:10 where I can.
I really think the new Eizo 1:1 monitors are great. I want to buy two of the for left and right of my 43" main monitor.
Easy fix: you can easily fit 3 portrait mode "9:16" screens on a desk.
but then how do you play games
@@elijahbuscho7715 you just rotate them when needed?
@@elijahbuscho7715 you dont play games, bro
grow up, its a waste of your cognitive resource and will to do stuff
@@denisblack9897 true. Anything that is fun or makes you happy is also a waste of time tbh. The only thing that matters is being as productive as possible until we die. Honestly, why waste our mental energy on living when the entire universe will eventually collapse, and all evidence of our existence will disappear forever? The most logical thing to do is just kill ourselves as soon as possible
@@denisblack9897 some don’t want to come out of the cave
I used to have a 4:3 monitor as a secondary monitor (it died). I have to say, it feels really nice to code or browse websites on : the text naturally wraps at the right place, unlike on 16:9 where you have to put two windows side-by-side and even then, it feels cramped.
It's such a shame that modern 4:3 monitors aren't for sale for a reasonable price, and that 4:3 laptops aren't produced at all now.
5:4 gang
Its a bit late but you can find modern 4:3 monitors. Dell and Viewsonic have 19 inch IPS ones. Eizo has at least one 1:1 monitor, the Flexscan EV2730. 26.5 inch. They sell expensive monitors since most are color calibrated and come with calibration guarantees and LUT stuff.
31:24 gang
31:24 is right in the middle of 4:3 and and 5:4
4:3 sucks for games and movies, also "you have to put two windows side by side"?, why do you have to do that.
I'd recommend buying a 16:9 monitor that can rotate to become 9:16, you will surely appreciate the vertical FOV if you like 4:3.
16 : 10 is the closest to a golden ratio.
Windows 11 has a big task bar which removes more vertical space than Win7-10. The first Windows where you can't make the task bar smaller since XP.
Today's games often use Hor+ methods for the FOV where the horizontal view is cropped at taller aspect ratios. This is why people even buy 21:9 monitors. :/
Yeah you're talking about that stupid thing where when you try to play a game with a taller aspect ratio rather than allowing you to see more up and down they zoom the screen in to fit so you end up losing the left and right. I hate it. Half life was really bad so I always play it on 4:3 mode.
@@bland9876it's still better than what Overwatch did, which is letterboxing. I couldn't use my favorite monitor for a long time because the game just looks too tiny on it, but now that I quit playing I guess I can go back to my old 5:4 monitor I like
@@bokunogentoo4420 no idea why it's called letterboxing but isn't that the one where it has black bars on all four sides?
5:4 is two sideways 16:10 displays next to each other
There are many new 3:2 aspect ratio portable monitors. Is the 3:2 better than 16:10 ?
My laptop is 4:3. They never stopped making those. My desktop monitor is rotatable. Easy enough. Doesn't seem like a real problem.
The majority of "cinema" is roughly 16:9 (precisely, it's 1.85:1 rather than 1.78:1). Not all movies are shot in ultra-wide "cinemascope".
I can't remember any single 16:9 movie, they are all much wider. And one of the reasons for this is the medium. They are made for cinema screens, not for home TVs or computer screens.
@@okaravan Joker (2019) and The Lion King (2019) were 1.85:1, to pick some recent examples. The prevalence of widescreen at home has meant filmmakers have increasingly preferred the cinemascope ratio in order to differentiate themselves from television. But until recently, nearly all mainstream cinema was 1.85:1, with the wider ratio reserved for epic blockbusters.
@@okaravanmovies rarely take advantage of the wide frame. Most of the time it looks as 16:9 with top and bottom cut off.
I have a 21:9 monitor, and I still prefer open matte (16:9) to wider cuts whenever available. Yes, I find black bars on the sides less stupid than looking at close-ups with 30% of a person's face cut off
i have a widescreen flipped 90* on the left from my iMac for like 3 years, can't go back
it's like a giant phone, super great for programming, web pages and iOS simulator
highly recommend, it can give you a birds-eye view over big file - less scrolling - less cognitive drain
9:16? With no horizontal space to do anything?
@@hmwndp at 2160x3840 & up it should be okay. But sure 10:16 and others aspecs would maybe fair even better possibly.
Omg you are smashing these out. Good job. Your provide real value.
Just wanted to chime in and give a +1
I have a monitor than can be rotated. So when gaming I'm in landscape mode and when I'm programming I go into portrait mode most of the time.
Same for me. Two 1080p monitors, one horizontal for images, one vertical for text.
Maybe a 90° rotated 16:9 screen would fit his bill. Wouldn't solve the laptop thing though
90° rotated laptop with an external keyboard plugged in. boom.
@@forasagoHow on earth does one flip a laptop screen? Turn the entire thing?
The 16x9 thing really shows how tech improvements aren't actually improvements when the engineering is shit. I was able to fit more on my 640x480 screen than my 1366x768 screen. How does that make any sense?
It's an improvement for watching films. Screens can be used for different purposes and improvement in one area might be a decline in the other.
@@FagussPL Okay that's not the point though
ever heard of scaling, that might fix your issues....16:9 doesn't reduce vertical FOV, it just expands horizontal FOV, whatever issues you have are with improper scaling, also why the hell are you using 640x480 and 1366x768? 4:3 or not you are going to be limited by the low res, upgrade to 4k.
@@yesyes-om1po 16:9 literally does reduce vertical resolution when compared to 4:3. 16:10 is the best of both because it retains the vertical resolution of 4:3 while adding the horizontal resolution of 16:9. Scaling isn't a solution because it can not change the physical dimensions of a display.
@@yesyes-om1po"... upgrade to 4k." And make everything extremely tiny?
i thought i was taking crazy pills. also at the office i get funny looks because one of the screens is set in portrait orientation. looking at code and debugger feels like catching rain with a sieve. at least i could watch a film in the right format at work, but i doubt my boss would welcome that.
This is the reason why for coding I prefer a single ultrawide screen over two 16/9 screens.
It's funny how he danced around the reason without actually realizing why they picked 16:9. It was chosen because it was mediocre.
It was a middle ground between movies, 4:3 TV, games, etc.
"Engineers settled on this first-time aspect ratio (an average of typical movie ratios), so that an HDTV set could display both kinds of video without much “masking” by letterbox bars."
Doesn't stop it from being a horrible aspect ratio.
Who are these engineers? They replaced 4:3 with its square!
Mam pytanie do Microsoft: Na laptopie musi być 16:10. Dlaczego do dzisiaj nie ma instalacyjnego systemu operacyjnego Laptop 16:10. Cały czas jest ikona Mój komputer\Ten komputer (Desktop) z przekątną 16:9?
this is why 16:10 is the best aspect ratio. best of both worlds!
16:10 is 8/5, equal to 1.6, which is also an approximation of φ, the golden ratio, which is approximately equal to 1.618034.
what will the number ( screen time on games / total screen time ) be, of all 16:9 devices? I guess it's a very small number.
Yeah seems like 16:9 is a bit of a compromise, but if you want more vertical space for things like coding you could always get a 2nd or 3rd monitor that you can use in portrait mode right? Seen plenty of setups like that.
You want the main monitor that you are working on to be in the best aspect ratio.
4:35 35mm film has a ratio of 1.85 to 1 which equates to 16:9 for television. So 16:9 tvs will show the full frame for most films.
Multiple uploads in a single day??? Best Friday ever. Thank you!
I can have two columns on vscode that shows two code files. Granted, both need to be at most 80 character long lines. I have my task bar in the bottom, hidden when my mouse pointer is not near it so I still use all the space on my monitor. I can agree with his points, but I don't think it's nearly as bad, all aspect ratios have their problems.
The more pixels at the same screen size the better (if you comp can handle it).
I wish everything was 4:3 still. I **** hate widescreen. It looks bad, my tv still usually has those annoying letterboxing and if I watch old content I get black pillars.
Love those rants
I can’t work on laptop screens. I had a period owning a bulky Acer 9920G laptop with a 20in screen which was perfect for coding, gaming, movies and easy to move around (unlike a desktop) but I couldn’t find another large screen laptop to replace it so switched to a laptop connected to desktop monitors, mouse and keyboard.
Couple of Benq 27in monitors vertically oriented in 2K does it for me… each screen carrying an Eclipse IDE window.
Word documents look like A4 pages and code fills out most of the page with everything feeling wide enough.
Had this setup for 5 years and now my brain struggles with horizontal monitors - especially two side by side which appear to take up an unacceptable amount of space when my warped perception perceives them 🤷♂️
The 16:9 aspect ration doesn’t bother me too much. When I need vertical space, I just use my super special custom ordered 9:16 secondary monitor! Problem solved!
or you can just rotate a 16:9 monitor 90 degrees instead of ordering a custom-made one.
Guy: *hates ratio 16:9*
Video: *is ratio 16:9*
because that's what he uses, he explained that all the best monitors being made (4k, adaptive sync, etc) are being made in 16:9 only, or are very expensive
Wait a minute did this guy forget that you can hide the taskbar?
If this guy hates 16x9 he's going to definitely hate the screen I had that was 1680x1050 basically a shorter screen so even less on each side when multi tasking.
Just saw the HP Spectre x360 14 has a 3:2 aspect ratio...maybe more will come in the future...?
Oh man, making me want to pull out my old CRTs
Still hoping Microsoft will sell their Surface Studio 3:2 screens separately. Apparently they were surprised when people asked them if they could buy just the screen.
Eizo makes a neat 1:1 screen, the EV2730Q-BK FlexScan. It's neat for arranging windows for programming
16:9 corresponds to 4:3(12:9) with an additional 1/3 horizontal as long as monitor size is large enough.
For coding you want vertical space, horizontally humans can comfortably read 60 columns. So even 80 - 100 columns is bit of a stretch. That said, widescreen is better for "consuming media".
It’s so annoying to linebreak at 80 columns. I’d like wider monitors for my dual-view text editor.
On my laptop, I split 2 text editor views into *rows* (reducing vertical space) because I want longer lines. (I find it worth verbose variable names and not worrying about nested indentation so far)
60 columns is too less
Is 3:2 aspect ratio better than 16:10? What are your opinions?
taskbar lookin kinda THICC
the pros of 16:9 far outweight the cons compared to 4:3, some more vertical space, but at the expense of width, this would reduce the FOV in any live rendered content or anything that has visual information.
16:9 doesn't exactly shrink the vertical FOV on this content anyways, it just adds more screenspace compared to a 4:3 monitor. You could simply lower the scaling or resize the windows to accommodate.
4:3 makes no sense for anything else. Our eyes have a far greater horizontal FOV compared to our vertical FOV, this is why everything made the transition to 16:9, arguably I think we should also transition to 21:9 in the future, when 4k becomes the minimum standard and 8k becomes a regular resolution, this probably isn't coming anytime soon though
5:4 displays are a dime a dozen at thrift shops if you don't mind the low dpi
I got an OLED monitor and just run it in 16:10, because it's OLED I don't ever notice the black bars
I even used to try to run it in 4:3, but many newer games or software no longer support it properly
10:7 is nice aspect ratio, it is an approximation of paper size ratios.
This is equivalent to, 16:11.2 or 4:2.8
The cool thing about this ratio is half the screen is almost the same ratio, 5:7 = 7.1:10
That sucks for movies. Huge black bezels at top and bottom.
@@akhilalexg Respectfully, fuck movies
@@akhilalexg why would you watch a movie on a laptop?
Worst approximation of √2 I have seen so far.
I would like if I had money and desk space to have 21:9 main monitor and one to the side vertically 9:16
Cant you just rotate a horizontal monitor 90* and set it to vertical?
doesnt solve the side-by-side, but then again horizontal 16:9 would be good in that area.
The problem is (at least with the LCD monitors that I used) that you're going to look at it from the wrong angle and the screen won't appear evenly bright.
Anime is 16:9, that's all I care about
@Jesse Hamel true
@Jesse Hamel based
The way scaling works on displays is that actually the wider the screen is, the more things you'll see horizontally, instead of seeing less veritcally. So what John says is technically not true, because on a 16:9 display, you'll still see the same amount of text horizontally as on a 4:3 screen, but you can also have more space on the sides. However, I agree on that 16:9 is a little bit weird and dumb aspect ratio. It was actually a compromise that was standardised in the late 80's or early 90's, because this was the mathematical middleground between 4:3 television screens and 2:35:1 cinema screens. Basically, on a 16:9 screen, you see the same amount of black bars regardless if you watch wider or narrower content. But 21:9 is the most ideal aspect ratio in my opinion.
IMO, 21:9 is a bit too wide to be the standard. And it's multiplying by 3 again. 2:1 would be the best. Best for mobile, great for desktops. RUclipsrs are jumping aboard (because of mobile). Will do both the cinematic and 16:9 well. Easy to design and develop for.
"the wider the screen is, the more things you'll see horizontally, instead of seeing less veritcally" But not with the same amount of pixels, which is what he said. Of course you can see more things if you're allowed to reduce the number of pixels per thing or increase the number of pixels overall, what is the point of arguing that.
16:9 is almost the perfect ratio as far as human sight is considered. Rest is "just" the size and resolution. If we take the same screen width and pixel count, 16:9 would be better than 21:9 simply because it would fill your vision more evenly.
Isn't "21:9" actually 64:27? "21:9" was probably decided so people could compare between 16:9 easier.
@@hmwndp Well there are four 21:9/ultrawide formats being used, and almost all of them have a slightly different aspect ratio in reality. 2560x1080 and 5120x2160 are the narrowest, 3440x1440 is a little wider, and 3840x1600 is the widest. 3840x1600 is 24:10, and it is the exact resolution / aspect ratio of many movies. But yeah, 21:9 was probably chosen as a name because it's way easier to compare it to 16:9 screens, but the so-called 21:9 screens are very close to being 21:9 in terms of aspect ratio anyways.
why not that surface laptop with 3:2 screen thats good
How about data analysis tasks? If I want to fit more columns on the screen, not rows ? Then 16:9 is not terrible by all means.
always wanted the 1920x1920 eizo square monitor air traffic controllers use
Good to see you're uploading, Fan. Keep 'em comin'. Leave links to vods if you have them.
On the video itself: it is kinda dumb, but there are ergonomic reasons for it. Human field of view shape, laptop shape. I agree that there are problems with screens (notch/cutout and dimension problem on mobile are horrible to develop for, all-screen mobile paradigm has robbed apps of some gestures, density standards clashing, Apple doing whatever the hell with dimensions, color accuracy), but 16:9 isn't really the most prominent one. Imo.
Jonathan should try vertical orientation. Also, there are plenty of wide gaming monitors he can use. Or a whole damn TV (i do, as a second screen).
so 16:9 win, thanks
You want computers to good at everything, and that makes it less than optimal for most things. But honestly, typing code and viewing it on a screen is lame. I'm just waiting until my nervous system can interface directly with computers, and I can download viruses onto my mind.
Windows 11 won't let you change the position of the taskbar to the side .
Interesting, i guess it's a bastard compromise.
4:3 + 4:3 = 16:9
(4:3 + 20:9) /2 = 16.9
16:9 is a compromise aspect ratio that was chosen to best display 4:3 TV and wider movie formats.
The TV industry still primarily uses 16:9 natively along with video games.
While the movie industry uses wider aspect ratios from 18:9 up to as wide as 2.39:1 (Aka...2.40:1)
Just flip it 90° and keep your taskbar beneath this time. Hope it helps.
hey dude, did you know you can rotate the monitor? insane concept I know but I believe it's been pulled off before
The guy told you he likes to open two different files at the same time. How is he going to do that on a portrait mode monitor? Also, is he supposed to keep rotating his monitor whenever he wants to program or watch youtube / movies? Dumbass.
i can't
One will continuously rotate and rotate? Eventually the screen will fall of from the rest of the monitor! And some people have non-rotating monitors!
What is Weissman Score in this context?
something about lines of code i guess
It's the number of bytecode instructions generated when compiling the game
How is this peripheral vision thing supposed to work anyway? Without turning my eyeballs, I can see over 90° left and right, and pretty close to that up and down. Not far off from a hemisphere, and not _much_ wider than it is tall. If I do allow myself to rotate my eyeballs, I only get some more horizontal range, but not 16:9 wide (speaking about angles, not planar distance which falls apart entirely at 90°). Any normal monitor in a normal position can only create massive tunnel vision. 4:3 is actually a fairly balanced match. Yes, horizon scanning is important, but you shouldn’t underestimate the value of seeing what’s above and below. It’s just more subtle, manifesting more as an unknown unknown than a known unknown.
And that’s just the peripheral vision argument. Central vision is narrower still. Framing people in widescreen is awkward. Even if you cut off their feet, you have so much horizontal space to fill.
I use two 16:9 monitors, one vertical and the other horizontal.
I feel like the Apple Macbook Pros have a more square orientation
small taskbar icons doesn't let you get to a smaller taskbar width. just makes the icons look stupid small with tons of padding
The padding does not change. Only the size of the icons change. The boxes in which the icons are placed in do not change in terms of size.
16:10 gang
JB might appreciate this:
4:3 resolutions stretched to 16:9 for Counter Strike is really great.
Way easier to click fat heads on screen.
stretching is an abomination that should be extinct from this world
That's such a horrible hack D:
Cl_crosshairsize 1000 with 4:3 stretched is godlike too but I didn't tell you that
A 3:2 4k monitor exists
16:9 doesnt sucks because its best for gaming and watching Hollywood movies!
16:10 is best for gaming & editing but suck while watching movies which has large bars!
3:2 is best for coding, multi window tasking, editing, work etc but suck while playing game and watching movies!
And why would one need a movie to cover the entire screen? If one needs to control video options, then the movie's view is disturbed by the interface of the options menu.
I don't know why anyone would want to have a 4:3. Or even a 16:9. Just go 21:9, you wont regret it. Perfect for everything.
no its not, it makes you go multitasking and multitasking is a lie
@@denisblack9897And "singletasking" will make one go inefficient. Work does not matter, efficiency matters.
3440x1440 gang represent
Turn one of the monitors sideways and use portrait.
Isn’t this video on 16:9
Watching on my 16x10 monitor 😁
I agree that 16:9 is less than ideal, but I disagree that 4:3 is where it's at. My line of thinking is that we as a society knew about stuff like "the golden ratio" in the early 1800's, so why the heck did 4:3 even end up existing in the first place? It should've been 16:10 standard from the start, with 24:10 (ironically, the "silver ratio" counterpart to the golden ratio is within margin of error to this number) being what hollywood moved to in the 50's/60's as a panoramic sort of view.
Then in the 90's when widescreen TV became a thing, they would've gone RIGHT in the middle at 2:1. Then smartphones and tablets would've started at 16:10, with the former moving to 2:1 over the years, with maybe a dabble in 18:10 (which might as well be 16:9) like how they're dabbling with 2:1 and slightly wider, now. Laptops would resolutely remain 16:10 in this theoretical alternate timeline, while desktops would have a mix of all three ratios, but they would all be readily available with similar potential specs for similar prices, mostly because there are only *3* standards to choose from instead of the, like, *8* we have today. (5:4, 4:3, 3:2 on some laptops, 16:10, 16:9, 21:9, 32:9, 32:10)
This is in contrast to today's "economy" where basically everything except 16:9 and 21:9 is either extinct or a combination of lacking in features and overpriced. Prime example, you can get 1920x1200 24" or 2560x1600 30" IPS displays, but they won't be high refresh, adaptive sync, and in the case of the latter, they'll be $800-$1000. Meanwhile, I recently bought my Gigabyte 2560x1440 144hz IPS, 10-bit, adaptive sync, HDR400 panel for $220. Literally 1/4 the price for 2x the features.
Sometimes I wish I could just edit reality in all these small ways, lol. But nope. Oh, and don't even get me started on frame rate and resolution standards, lol.
16:9.5 would've been the ultimate.
Just rotate monitor 90* and autohide panel. Linux and Windows support this feautures many years ago.
Even real movies at the cinema are wider than 16:9
hide taskbar and use a desktop manager...
Goodbye and good riddance to the 16: 9 aspect ratio.
The 3:2 ratio Microsoft Surface laptop might work well.
can confirm its a huge improvement from 16:9, especially on a laptop.
9:10 is okay
16:9 also is trash in the vertical format!!!! It is a nightmare for photographers with cinematic vision. The vertical format is and has always been shit- used only when necessary for architecture or to fit in tall object in still photography. This Tik Tok and Instagram fad is ruining media to the sake of the idea that people cant turn their phone sideways (landscape) to accommodate a wide screen format- which most simulates humans natural vision. Humans do not see in a narrow vertical plane- we have wide peripheral vision, more of a landscape format.
Most smartphones have incredibly wide views in landscape and with the scaling of the UI, it is impossible to do any task, aside from watching (widescreen) videos.
Rotate the monitor.
Dude just turn the monitor on the side lol if you want vertical real estate
And completely get rid of horizontal space?
engagement
Might suck for you but works for me watching videos
"Hopefully they've improved since they've done this"
_Jon Caves to political correctness after being threatened by the Visual Studio Designers lobby_
true
Macbooks are still 16:10
Some good points, but the 'waste' incurred by 16:9 mostly isn't an issue outside of laptop environments (which you probably shouldn't be relying on for serious productivity programming).
Also, going wider is really valuable and clearly better than taller 4:3 because of the landscape nature of human vision. I borrowed the ultra-wide monitor at work for testing PC builds, but I'm trying to keep it now because getting two code editor windows with ample space open at once is SO nice...
WRONG aspect ratio doesn't matter
as long as content matches it it is fine
if you want more estate buy BIGGER screen
One will quickly lose money (and also probably lose space to keep the screen) if they continuously buy bigger screens.
@@hmwndp
fake news
15-17-21-3x21-49-65
screens are cheap. if not for putler i'd had 3x 65 4k screens by now
@@incaseofimportantnegotiationsWhat on earth is that combination of numbers? By "65 4k screen" I assume a 65 inch 4K TV, as I don't think there are any monitors with that size. Such TVs should cause ~1000 USD, so 3 should cost ~3000 USD. It seems you are from Russia by the term "putler", so 3000 USD ≈ 277 605 ₽. Note that this is a currency conversion, so prices in Russia are expected to be different.
@@hmwndpbruv wake up it's 2020s my 4k 65 costed 400$ 6 years ago when they were more expensive. same for my 49 4k monitor later
it seems you are in usd, so ask your government why they started tax wars so your tv costs that much instead of how it costed literally everywhere else, including democratic countries that don't support mao because they were too busy brownosing pukin
you do your math in your head i've bought a 3080 ti on release and planned to get 3 big screens until pukler ruined everyone's life because he is a senile coprolite. and i'm on hobo salary with 7 screens. my rich friends are on 4090s and can get as much screen as they want
right now under sanctions with tripple tariffs grey import
Philips 70PUS8108 70 4k 749$
65 4k
Supra STV-LC65ST0045U 419$
Hyundai H-LED65BU7000 429$
Xiaomi TV A2 569$
GRUNDIG 65GGU8960 619$
LG 65UP77506LA.ARU 659$
Most of the things he complained about here can be fixed by changing various settings. If the text doesn't fit when you resize the window to use up half of the screen, resize the text, for example. Beyond that, he's missing out on the absolute chad aspect ratio of 9:16 which is big enough to fit an entire page of a document on at once and is super good for programming on. Or he could pick up a 1280x1024 monitor and use that as his dedicated reading/coding monitor if he's really married to aspect ratios narrower than 16:9. He has the means to fix his inconveniences
Yeah, he is mixing aspect ratio with use of space. The aspect ratio of 16:9 matches the human vision pretty well, the rest is just a problem of size of the monitor and its resolution.
@@GonziHere yeah dude, totally... A guy like Jon, who makes a living dealing with 3D graphics and writes professional game engines for sure doesn't understand jack shit about aspect ratio.
As for the dumb weeb above, who's whole life revolves around depictions of underage girls and heavy usage of dumb made-up terms like "Chad": the guy clearly said he wants to open and work on two files at the same time. Good luck doing that in portrait mode. Also rotating your monitor everytime you switch the use case isn't a solution. Also, using two monitors in portrait mode is again not a solution because of the same problems that come from watching content on a single portrait mode screen. And the 1280x1024 sarcasm just shows how fking stupid you are.
9:16 has very little horizontal space to do anything on.
@@GonziHereThe aspect ratio of human vision is considered to be about 4:3.
@@hmwndpI know, but I don't actually prefer that on a big screen. I have 40" 4K monitor and I can comfortably use the monitor and look at the desk, etc - I DON'T want it higher, nor "slimmer" so that it would approach 4:3 more. I 've confirmed that even with "limitless" monitors in VR.
Anyways, my main point was that he talks about how wide both texts side by side are... that has nothing to do with AR. At this very moment, I'm using three walls of text next to each other. 60 lines vertically, about 110 characters wide, Visual Studio toolbars over and under it, and it could be much more if my font wouldn't be zoomed to 150% of default VS size... so his rant is misplaced. That was my point. He mistakes real estate for aspect ratio.
"Why 16:9 aspect ratio sucks:
His own video is on 16:9 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I disagree, partially. 16:9 is indeed not ideal but one can easily have 2 source files opened side by side if one sticks to 80 characters max width, no auto text wrapping. Old standards are still useful...
16:9 monitors are fantastic for watching movies and playing modern videogames. Nobody is pointing a gun to your head to use them for programming
If you want more vertical space you can always hook up a 4:3 CRT, or tate a widescreen. This is a non-issue
Ah c'mon, you areange the windows with totally different aspect ratios anyway. What matters most is the total space eg. size and resolution
I love 16:9. I absolutely hate 16:10 monitors.
This is a stupid argument. The physical screen ratio isn't what matters. What matters is physical area and pixel count. If you're pissed off because your screen isn't wide enough, get a bigger screen. If you're pissed off because your screen isn't tall enough, get a bigger screen. (As for laptops, 16:10 has proven itself to be the optimum ratio for laptops that clamshell into a full size keyboard and large trackpad. It's no wonder that Apple standardised on 16:10 for all their laptops but not their desktops.)
And one will keep on doing this, 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, that to 7680x4320, *that* to 15360x8640, ...? And soon enough, very quickly, one will lose money by buying screens. There is no benefit either, UIs will get smaller and smaller to the point where a magnifying glass is required to do anything!
I miss my CRT
"... and this and that, and THEN..."
Geez man, equalize your voice, no need to shout certain words.
personally i prefer 8:6
8:3 actually would make sense...
I prefer 64:48, 8:6 is for the plebs!
8:6 = 4:3.
What the hell. just auto hide the task bar.
He doesn't like auto hide. In fact this whole rant was prompted by someone bringing up auto hide in the chat. He also said that "If you like autohide don't let me tell you not to use it".
@@BlowFan Can you also mention the date or paste the link of the whole stream archive in your videos. So we can check out the whole conversation Or if we find something interesting in the videos.