Recent epiphany: The 16:9 aspect ratio for HDTV/monitors was a mistake. The 4:3 standard was better, but a slightly wider 3:2 would have been perfect.

[staypuftforums]

I feel a lot of television suffers as a result of using a widescreen aspect ratio primarily used for movies. And giving up all of that vertical space has been a disaster for computer monitors, obviously.

Things like sitcoms, talk shows, the nightly news, and even most sports are all better served with a narrower aspect ratio. Widescreen is great to accommodate scenery in films, whereas television as a medium has always been people-focused.

I personally think 3:2 was the way to go. It's slightly wider and more immersive than the old 4:3 TVs and computer monitors many of us grew up with, but also significantly narrower than 16:9 we have now.

I'm sure some here have 3:2 monitors or laptops, and I'd be interested in your take.

Check out what 3:2 in 4K looks like here (so much more pleasant to my eye):

*Make sure to go full-screen*

 

[andyw715]

Can't sell going from 4:3 to 3:2 those are smaller numbers...no one will buy that... lol

 

[LionTeeth]

Well TV used to be square. 1:1 with rounded corners. Cinema at the time had the ability to go widescreen and really open up the image to people. Just sort of how it developed. Watch the Ten Commandments the thing is like 32:9. And I suppose it stuck.

Then we got IMAX that made the image TALLER. So almost back to 4:3ish. But that’s only used sometimes for some reason.

The point is, I don’t know where I’m going with this lol I watched Zack Snyder cut justice league on my iPad and it was cool to have it be full screen. I guess. I don’t know which is better

 

[Boyd01]

This thread made me smile as I remembered being a moderator at DVinfo.net more than twenty years ago, when the debates over 16:9 vs 4:3 were raging. We frequently locked threads and banned members for nasty personal attacks about which was better. And this was in the context of 4:3 standard definition DV cameras like the Canon XL-1 and Sony PD-150 where people were using anamorphic lens adapters for 16:9 video or just letterboxing the 4:3 image.

Anyway, for me that ship sailed long ago, I was an early adopter of 16:9 and am happy with the way things are now. Here's a site that I found back then - surprised to see that it still exists. Some bad links and a very retro style, but lots of interesting history on the evolution of the widescreen format.

Widescreen Museum Lobby - Select Cinerama, CinemaScope, VistaVision, Todd-AO, Technirama, or Ultra Panavision

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yes, this ship has so completely sailed, a dream of change for it seems remote at best.

The solution for taller screens today are BIGGER 16:9 screens. If one wants 3:2 or 4:3, crop it with black bars. If one wants wider orientation than 16:9, crop it with horizontal bars. If you pay attention to how cinemas do it, the curtains down front can all adjust to the varied formats of the movie to be shown. If someone shot one in 3:2, the curtains would present a 3:2 screen (curtains standing in for black bars).

For over a decade, my feelings were that the iMac 27" screen was ideal. Before that, it was a CRT screen that may have been 4:3 or 3:2. Step back to Amiga or Commodore 64 and it was 4:3 televisions and then a 4:3 tube monitor. My latest monitor for the "separates" experience is a 5K:2K ultrawide which seems much like I grabbed the edges of the iMac 27" and pulled them out to about TWICE as wide or so: 21:9. I LOVE it. There is so much more room to get more done without scrolling. 3+ full-sized windows all fit side by side with a bit of space for some more. I know someone who loves TWO of these side by side for a super wide range of screen, like about 4-5 iMac 27" screens stretched out.

The point: a case could be made for every size & format screen. There's still cases for mono music over stereo music after a broad shift to stereo dating back to the 1960s.

We may be stepping into a period in which physical screens are no longer the only screen choices. Vpro and others may offer ways to shape one's virtual screen to whatever ratio they desire... put more than 1 side by side or above & below.

16:9 has won the mainstream hold for now. Maybe something changes in another 10-20 years to become a new favorite... and then people will long for good old 16:9. If you want a lot more vertical space, buy yourself TWO 16:9 or TWO Ultrawides, rotated to be taller than they are wide and mount them side by side. Depending on the pairing, that can get you almost 3:2 without much in the way of black bars.

There was this story of a 32" one coming out a few years ago... but I don't know if it ever actually came to market.

Or if the want is driven by a simpler, "sometimes I want taller than wide" want, buy a monitor that easily rotates, so it can be taller when you want to work in tall portrait and wider, when wide landscape would serve the need better. Mac works fine with such rotations.

 

[staypuftforums]

Yes, this ship has so completely sailed, a dream of change for it seems remote at best.

The solution for taller screens today are BIGGER 16:9 screens. If one wants 3:2 or 4:3, crop it with black bars. If one wants wider orientation than 16:9, crop it with horizontal bars. If you pay attention to how cinemas do it, the curtains down front can all adjust to the varied formats of the movie to be shown. If someone shot one in 3:2, the curtains would present a 3:2 screen (curtains standing in for black bars).

For over a decade, my feelings were that the iMac 27" screen was ideal. Before that, it was a CRT screen that may have been 4:3 or 3:2. Step back to Amiga or Commodore 64 and it was 4:3 televisions and then a 4:3 tube monitor. My latest monitor for the "separates" experience is a 5K:2K ultrawide which seems much like I grabbed the edges of the iMac 27" and pulled them out to about TWICE as wide or so: 21:9. I LOVE it. There is so much more room to get more done without scrolling. 3+ full-sized windows all fit side by side with a bit of space for some more. I know someone who loves TWO of these side by side for a super wide range of screen, like about 4-5 iMac 27" screens stretched out.

The point: a case could be made for every size & format screen. There's still cases for mono music over stereo music after a broad shift to stereo dating back to the 1960s.

We may be stepping into a period in which physical screens are no longer the only screen choices. Vpro and others may offer ways to shape one's virtual screen to whatever ratio they desire... put more than 1 side by side or above & below.

16:9 has won the mainstream hold for now. Maybe something changes in another 10-20 years to become a new favorite... and then people will long for good old 16:9. If you want a lot more vertical space, buy yourself TWO 16:9 or TWO Ultrawides, rotated to be taller than they are wide and mount them side by side. Depending on the pairing, that can get you almost 3:2 without much in the way of black bars.

There was this story of a 32" one coming out a few years ago... but I don't know if it ever actually came to market.

Or if the want is driven by a simpler, "sometimes I want taller than wide" want, buy a monitor that easily rotates, so it can be taller when you want to work in tall portrait and wider, when wide landscape would serve the need better. Mac works fine with such rotations.

3:2 is wider than it is tall. Just not as wide as 16:9.

 

[dukebound85]

I use 16:10 screens for my computer and appreciate the slightly boxier aspect ratio

 

[dukebound85]

Can't sell going from 4:3 to 3:2 those are smaller numbers...no one will buy that... lol

just call it 6:4 lol

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

3:2 is wider than it is tall. Just not as wide as 16:9.

Yes, no confusion at all about that.

The practical way to get it in 2024 is as described in that prior post. And if the want is about getting some extra height for some specific app, rotate what is available and bend a bit on the “3” part for that use… or buy 2 screens, rotate both, put them together and roll with a little wider than the “3” relative target.

Else, buy the desired height of screen and embrace some black bars or build some physical cover to fake it if it is desirable enough to go to such trouble. Again the cinemas will generally make whatever aspect ratio is needed for each film by adjusting curtains surrounding a screen. There’s nothing stopping someone at home from achieving any screen ratio they want for a screen by doing something similar with curtains or a 3:2 drywall hole, or a custom cabinet, etc… IF the want justifies the cost & creation.

Would such options be as good as an actual 3:2 monitor for OP? No. But OP could have this concept in play as soon as today if they are handy enough. Else, convincing a manufacturer to build the 3:2 monitor they want will not yield an as timely outcome.

 

[theluggage]

Check out what 3:2 in 4K looks like here (so much more pleasant to my eye):

Well, I have 3:2 (3840 × 2560 - Huawei Mateview) displays and, yes, that video looks great - if only because it fills the screen and uses its full resolution. Personally, I think "squarer" computer displays (3:2, 4:3, 16:10) are better for everything but watching 16:9 or wider video/movies, and wish there was a better selection of such displays.

I feel a lot of television suffers as a result of using a widescreen aspect ratio primarily used for movies. And giving up all of that vertical space has been a disaster for computer monitors, obviously.

If you're talking about TV and film, then you can't ignore the problem of a century's worth of existing material in various formats which made sense given the technology and cinematic fashions at the time. You could have a nice 60" 4:3 TV but most of the time it would have huge black bars top and bottom...

(There's also the whole Golden Ratio thing - which would suggest around 16:10 as the 'best' ratio if you believe that sort of thing).

I believe that 16:9 was chosen as a compromise between 4:3 TV and non-widescreen movies (mostly wider than 16:9 - e.g. 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 ) - and then expanded to computer screens because of economies of scale. Then you had a generation of shot-for-TV material that was in 16:9 for future proofing but had to ensure that all the action happened within a 4:3 window so it could be cropped for older TVs.

What's frustrating now is that even high-production-values made-for-streaming stuff is using cinematic aspect ratios so you still get letterboxing on your 16:9 TV. OTOH, if you have Disney+ they are streaming some movies in what they call "IMAX enhanced" format - which, in practical terms, means that you get a full-screen 16:9 image with the field width of a 2.39:1 movie. Still, any such movie that wants a regular cinema release still has to be shot so that it can be cropped to a standard widescreen format - so the extra space can't really be exploited.

So 16:9 or 16:10 is still probably the best compromise for watching media. For computer displays however, its all wrong - the compromise should be between 'landscape' (for video, photos etc.) and 'portrait' (for printed pages, phone apps and reading streams of text, including coding). For that, a squarer format is a better compromise - as it is for things like spreadsheets where there's no clear advantage to seeing lots of columns vs. lots of rows. Even for video editing its often convenient to have space for a full-width 16:9 image plus plenty of vertical space for timelines and other information.

Of course, YMMV. Maybe we can just agree one thing: shooting video in 16:9 portrait mode a la TikTok or Youtube Shorts is an abomination unto nature and a sure sign of the end times

 

[staypuftforums]

Yes, no confusion at all about that.

The practical way to get it in 2024 is as described in that prior post. And if the want is about getting some extra height for some specific app, rotate what is available and bend a bit on the “3” part for that use… or buy 2 screens, rotate both, put them together and roll with a little wider than the “3” relative target.

Else, buy the desired height of screen and embrace some black bars or build some physical cover to fake it if it is desirable enough to go to such trouble. Again the cinemas will generally make whatever aspect ratio is needed for each film by adjusting curtains surrounding a screen. There’s nothing stopping someone at home from achieving any screen ratio they want for a screen by doing something similar with curtains or a 3:2 drywall hole, or a custom cabinet, etc… IF the want justifies the cost & creation.

Would such options be as good as an actual 3:2 monitor for OP? No. But OP could have this concept in play as soon as today if they are handy enough. Else, convincing a manufacturer to build the 3:2 monitor they want will not yield an as timely outcome.

Luckily there are some 3:2 monitors. At least one really nice 4K option:

(https://consumer.huawei.com/ca/monitors/mateview/)

Seemed to be a fad for a while to make laptop screens 3:2 as well, though not sure if that is still the case.

*edit* Looks like the Mateview may have been discontinued.

 

[staypuftforums]

Well, I have 3:2 (3840 × 2560 - Huawei Mateview) displays and, yes, that video looks great - if only because it fills the screen and uses its full resolution. Personally, I think "squarer" computer displays (3:2, 4:3, 16:10) are better for everything but watching 16:9 or wider video/movies, and wish there was a better selection of such displays.



If you're talking about TV and film, then you can't ignore the problem of a century's worth of existing material in various formats which made sense given the technology and cinematic fashions at the time. You could have a nice 60" 4:3 TV but most of the time it would have huge black bars top and bottom...

(There's also the whole Golden Ratio thing - which would suggest around 16:10 as the 'best' ratio if you believe that sort of thing).

I believe that 16:9 was chosen as a compromise between 4:3 TV and non-widescreen movies (mostly wider than 16:9 - e.g. 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 ) - and then expanded to computer screens because of economies of scale. Then you had a generation of shot-for-TV material that was in 16:9 for future proofing but had to ensure that all the action happened within a 4:3 window so it could be cropped for older TVs.

What's frustrating now is that even high-production-values made-for-streaming stuff is using cinematic aspect ratios so you still get letterboxing on your 16:9 TV. OTOH, if you have Disney+ they are streaming some movies in what they call "IMAX enhanced" format - which, in practical terms, means that you get a full-screen 16:9 image with the field width of a 2.39:1 movie. Still, any such movie that wants a regular cinema release still has to be shot so that it can be cropped to a standard widescreen format - so the extra space can't really be exploited.

So 16:9 or 16:10 is still probably the best compromise for watching media. For computer displays however, its all wrong - the compromise should be between 'landscape' (for video, photos etc.) and 'portrait' (for printed pages, phone apps and reading streams of text, including coding). For that, a squarer format is a better compromise - as it is for things like spreadsheets where there's no clear advantage to seeing lots of columns vs. lots of rows. Even for video editing its often convenient to have space for a full-width 16:9 image plus plenty of vertical space for timelines and other information.

Of course, YMMV. Maybe we can just agree one thing: shooting video in 16:9 portrait mode a la TikTok or Youtube Shorts is an abomination unto nature and a sure sign of the end times

I was referring specifically to content made for television. Basically everything except feature films, which are meant for viewing in a theatre.

TV is meant for... television programs. At least it used to be. But I know I'm in the minority here.

 

[Böhme417]

Well TV used to be square. 1:1 with rounded corners. Cinema at the time had the ability to go widescreen and really open up the image to people. Just sort of how it developed. Watch the Ten Commandments the thing is like 32:9. And I suppose it stuck.

Then we got IMAX that made the image TALLER. So almost back to 4:3ish. But that’s only used sometimes for some reason.

The point is, I don’t know where I’m going with this lol I watched Zack Snyder cut justice league on my iPad and it was cool to have it be full screen. I guess. I don’t know which is better

This is not true. The first broadcasts were in 5:4. Then they changed to 4:3. TV was never in an exact square.

 

[Boyd01]

Was looking for something else in my old photos and just happened to find this - my studio setup for working with video and 3d in 2003. The OP should like that Apple Studio Display, originally from my blue PowerMac G3 a few years earlier. It died and I got it fixed by Apple under warranty. I remember when it was returned, had to help the UPS lady get it out of the truck. Not only did it weigh a ton, it was really huge. The Apple paperwork from the repair called it a "Moby Monitor".

That's a Samsung 4:3 LCD screen in the middle and a new Samsung 16:9 1280x720 LCD on the left. I remember that thing was really expensive! My Sony VX-2000 DV camera in the center - 4:3 Native! It's too dark to really see, but that's a Sony PDX-10 DV camera on top of the gray G4 in the middle. It had high resolution CCD's and was able to shoot native anamorphic standard definition video (480x852), rather unusual at the time. That's when I went "all in" with 16:9 video!

 

[chrono1081]

Can't sell going from 4:3 to 3:2 those are smaller numbers...no one will buy that... lol

Just like the infamous 1/3 lb burger from I forget what chain that tried to compete with the quarter pounder. People thought 1/3 was smaller.

 

[adameels]

For me, the epiphany was seeing how people actually use their cameraphones, and how different things would have been if we had stuck with the 4:3 aspect ratio.

Before smartphones became mainstream, I fully expected people would naturally rotate their phone when filming. Now people just default to filming in portrait mode, even when the subject matter is best suited to filming in landscape. It means TV broadcasts showing amateur footage like in news reports have those stupid blurred backgrounds to avoid letterboxing (and apparently also to avoid not very intelligent viewers who write in to complain “why are some clips cropped heavily from both sides?” - for real??)

At least with the 4:3 displays, 3:4 videos would have fit better if people were going to insist in filming in portrait mode.

 

[kitKAC]

For me, the epiphany was seeing how people actually use their cameraphones, and how different things would have been if we had stuck with the 4:3 aspect ratio.

Before smartphones became mainstream, I fully expected people would naturally rotate their phone when filming. Now people just default to filming in portrait mode, even when the subject matter is best suited to filming in landscape. It means TV broadcasts showing amateur footage like in news reports have those stupid blurred backgrounds to avoid letterboxing (and apparently also to avoid not very intelligent viewers who write in to complain “why are some clips cropped heavily from both sides?” - for real??)

At least with the 4:3 displays, 3:4 videos would have fit better if people were going to insist in filming in portrait mode.

That's because Instagram and TikTok are things. Instagram doesn't even let you rotate your phone to watch Widescreen videos!

 

[polyphenol]

This is not true. The first broadcasts were in 5:4. Then they changed to 4:3. TV was never in an exact square.

Regardless the intended standards, I remember all too many 405-line televisions on which the actual displayed images were anything from letterbox to vertical slot!