Widescreen format has a width/height ratio of 1.78, human vision has a width/height ratio of 1.8.
Why would you want a screen that isn’t somewhat close to the same ratio as your vision? Your one pixel tall screen is quite far off from the ratio of human vision.
I guess depends on you? Mine is ~21:9 ratio, so I can have 2 ~square windows next to eachother. BUT I can resize them however I want without being limited like on 2 monitor setup.
It’s reasonable. What they got away with was labeling wide screens as a good thing.
Human vision is wider than it is tall. It makes sense for screens to reflect this fact. 180° horizontally and 100° verticaly.
So, way closer to 4/3 like old standard screens than to 16/9 like the screens nobody even calls “wide” anymore?
Can you show the math behind?
180x100, 18x10, 1.8:1
1.8 * 9 = 16.2
16.2x9
Or, 16/9 = 1.777…
180/100 = 1.8
Now that the numbers on the original post changed, no, it’s not closer anymore.
Now imagine a display 24" wide and one pixel high.
Widescreen format has a width/height ratio of 1.78, human vision has a width/height ratio of 1.8.
Why would you want a screen that isn’t somewhat close to the same ratio as your vision? Your one pixel tall screen is quite far off from the ratio of human vision.
“wide screens” != “widescreen”. I’m merely demonstrating that distinction with an extreme example.
Wide screens are great when you treat them as 2 screens combined as one. It just doesn’t make sense for a single window for most usecases
As long as you get a much larger diagonal than the screens they are replacing…
I guess depends on you? Mine is ~21:9 ratio, so I can have 2 ~square windows next to eachother. BUT I can resize them however I want without being limited like on 2 monitor setup.