this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
708 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
58070 readers
2799 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nah there are more
5:4, 8:5, 21:9, 64:27. And more.
And these aren't exact. There's fault tolerance, so to speak. You can have slightly different sizes rectangles between several different 16:9 monitors.
I already mentioned 5:4 and 8:5 equals 16:10.
21:9 and 64:27 are just ultrawide formats which I also mentioned and you can't really mistake those for 16:9, can you? Same goes for 5:4 and 4:3 which are rather square-ish (4:3 was typical for old CRT monitors and TVs).
I don't think "fault tolerance" means what you think it means.
Are you telling me that there are monitors that don't have square pixels? Or that the number of (square) pixels doesn't give an exact 16:9 ratio?
Anyway, yes, there are more aspect ratios out there but the important thing is how common they are. I just looked at the biggest local e-shop and if I try to filter parameters by resolution, I get this:
The number in the parenthesis next to the resolution is the number of products. (Note that this is only showing 1609 out of the total 1629 items - if I scroll down, there are 20 other options which all have 1 product each so I took the liberty to ignore those as those are ultra rare items (and some of them aren't even regular monitors but just some specialized displays. Even here, for example the 2200×1024px is an e-ink touch screen)).
I simplified each ratio to the simplest form, so those are exact ratios (but for some added a ratio with X:9 or X:10 in the denominator in parenthesis for easier comparison to those more standard formats). Turns out that 1379 out of 1609 monitors are exactly 16:9, so that's 85.7%. The biggest variety are among the ultrawides which I colored in purple but again, those are pretty much unmistakable. Just like the 5:4 and 4:3 in blue.
So realistically you have to watch out for the red ratios where 1379 out of 1426 are 16:9, that's 96.7%.
So I really wonder how you came to the conclusion that "monitors are usually a different aspect ratio to a TV".
Now of course one e-shop isn't a completely representative sample but I hope we can agree that the numbers will be in the right ballpark. Feel free to make your own statistics from a different source.
1280 x 800 is 16:10
1280 x 768 is also 16:10.
1280 x 720 is 16:9
No, it is not exact. Yes there is a "fault tolerance" built into how we describe aspect ratios, unless you want to get way more specific.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions
Dude, what the hell you're onto?
That's exact.
Also exact.
In the link you provided, it literally says it's 5:3. It even has its own line in the infographics. And while the article is titled "List of common resolutions", it looks more like an exhaustive list of almost any resolution that has been ever used in any kind of consumer device. It's definitely not limited just to standard computer monitors so that table isn't really that relevant to the topic of the discussion.
Also show me a monitor with the 1280 x 768 resolution that's currently available on sale.
You're picking up some extremely rare cases to make an argument that your initial statement about "usually different aspect ratio" was correct but that's not how it works. That's just moving goalposts.
No I'm looking at the most common cases but you do you.