Metric display resolutions should be invented.

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

The point is that no matter what you use, you'll have division issues. If anything, we should be using multiples of 360 because it divides evenly with so many numbers (or what they call a highly composite number)

 

2 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Yep that is fine, my only point was that almost every human counting system/standard is arbitrary; in the case of monitors I think the best course of action would be basing it off average field of vision and picking a whole number ratio (no more than 2 digits) that fits closest to that average

 

Well my point is that what we currently use is based on outdated reasons, uses ugly numbers, and is just plain bad.

Someone should fix this instead of just continuing on making it worse (eg 2160, 3820, 7680, etc...)

[Mr.Meerkat]

2:1 is stupid for laptops, 1:1 is also stupid for laptops, see the issue here? (2:1 is like putting a 21:9 screen onto a 14 inch laptop)

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

2:1 is stupid for laptops, 1:1 is also stupid for laptops, see the issue here? (2:1 is like putting a 21:9 screen onto a 14 inch laptop)

21:9 is closer to 2.5:1 than 2:1

16:9 is actually really close to 18:9 which is 2:1.

It's like a 10% difference.

[Mr.Meerkat]

Just now, Enderman said:

21:9 is closer to 2.5:1 than 2:1

16:9 is actually really close to 18:9 which is 2:1.

It's like a 10% difference.

Hmmmm...it's 3 pixels vs 2 pixels difference  

 

but my point still stands, on a sub 14 inch lappy/tablet, 16:10 is proven to be the better res  

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Hmmmm...it's 3 pixels vs 2 pixels difference  

 

but my point still stands, on a sub 14 inch lappy/tablet, 16:10 is proven to be the better res  

My ultrabook is 16:9, wouldn't mind having a bit extra width.

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

My ultrabook is 16:9, wouldn't mind having a bit extra width.

I guess it's personal opinions  

[Mira Yurizaki]

18 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Well my point is that what we currently use is based on outdated reasons, uses ugly numbers, and is just plain bad.

Someone should fix this instead of just continuing on making it worse (eg 2160, 3820, 7680, etc...)

And my point is anything new you come up with is just as arbitrary as these numbers. Display resolution is a completely arbitrary thing anyway. Like how do you explain VR resolution when you don't have a square image?

[Enderman]

21 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

And my point is anything new you come up with is just as arbitrary as these numbers. Display resolution is a completely arbitrary thing anyway. Like how do you explain VR resolution when you don't have a square image?

So you're saying that having a resolution of 974 makes the same amount of sense as having a resolution of 1000?

???

I hope you're joking.

[BuckGup]

We already had this in the way past and we got rid of it for some reason I forgot why. When movie theaters were a thing they used some weird numbers

[Mira Yurizaki]

14 minutes ago, Enderman said:

So you're saying that having a resolution of 974 makes the same amount of sense as having a resolution of 1000?

???

I hope you're joking.

If there's a reason behind it, yes.

 

I don't see why time is based off the vibrations of a random atom. I don't see why length is based off the distance light travels in some arbitrary fraction of that time. I don't see why mass is based on an arbitrarily chosen object. I don't see why amperes is based off some arbitrary number of protons per second. I don't see why the amount of something is based off the number of atoms in an arbitrarily chosen mass of an arbitrarily chosen element.

 

But that's where we got metric from.

 

EDIT: Ultimately the resolution isn't what's important, it's the aspect ratio. Even if you had a 2:1 aspect ratio I could do something like 672 x 336 or 2330x1165

[Thaldor]

Aspect rations aren't about being logical. Most of the aspect rations today have derived from movie screens and TV and those came from technology and artistic views. Movie industry is a big mess of competing companies and standards and fight for aspect ratio that provides the sharpest image with as many as possible directors/cinematographers finding it pleasing for their work. TV on the other hand is the battlefield of sticking everything into a limited range of frequencies and probably the biggest things have been color TV and movies. Computer monitors were first made, they were made from what was known and so the CRT monitors came with the 4:3 ratio earlier known from TVs.

 

There's acctually very logical reason for 16:9 aspect ratio and that is unifying. 1.77...:1 is the aspect ratio that can show 4:3 (TV), 5:3 (EU movie), 1.85:1 (US movie), 22:10 (Panavision) and 2.39:1 (anamorphic) aspect ratio videos without dissorting them (they all fit and can be rectangulary scaled to fit the 16:9 screen). Also the 16:9 has as close as possible pixel dimensions of all the major aspect rations so they can be shown without a huge pixel dissortions or forced cropping. Because of this it was well invested by EU to develope PAL and HDTV standards and now it's the most used aspect ratio.

 

If you @Enderman really want to look for some nice logical aspect ratios. Go and find three 4:3 screen, put them side by side and enjoy the only movie with 4:1 aspect ratio, Napoléon by Abel Gance (which is very good movie if you like the history of cinema and how filming has developed).

 

What I'm more scared is that two directors have found the movie killing Ultra Panavision aspect ratio (2.76:1) to their liking and it may have the effect that that disaster comes back and then we need to again find a new aspect ratio that can show all of the other aspect rations as well as the 16:9 can show.

[Enderman]

@Thaldor @M.Yurizaki 

Looks like microsoft is actually starting already, the surface studio is 4500x3000  1.5:1 with nice round numbers!

 

[vanished]

27 minutes ago, Enderman said:

@Thaldor @M.Yurizaki 

Looks like microsoft is actually starting already, the surface studio is 4500x3000  1.5:1 with nice round numbers!

 

may as well, especially if going for a aspect ratio that isn't already well established (within displays that is... obviously cameras have been using that for some time now)