#1 Edited by Alekss (327 posts) -

Will it last as long as 4:3 did?

#2 Edited by Icemo (625 posts) -

A long time. Next jump after 1080p is 4k resolution and that is in 16:9 ratio. And 4k televisions and monitors cost so much right now that I don't see them dropping in price any time soon.

#3 Posted by Mirado (948 posts) -

A) 16:10 is the true ratio.

B) As Blu-ray is 2.4:1, somehow I don't think 16:9 will hang on when most home releases force letterboxing on your screen.

C) Isn't this question technically unanswerable, and as such a poor choice to use the question format on this forum?

#4 Edited by believer258 (11046 posts) -

A long time, I hope. I don't too much like change if there isn't any practical reason.

#5 Edited by Alekss (327 posts) -

@mirado said:

A) 16:10 is the true ratio.

B) As Blu-ray is 2.4:1, somehow I don't think 16:9 will hang on when most home releases force letterboxing on your screen.

C) Isn't this question technically unanswerable, and as such a poor choice to use the question format on this forum?

A: Not true

B: Possibly.

C: It's a theoretical question if you don't like it don't answer.

#6 Posted by Mirado (948 posts) -

@alekss said:

C: It's a theoretical question if you don't like it don't answer.

That's not the point; if the question is theoretical, how can you mark it as "answered"?

That's the whole reason behind this format; you post something that you want the answer to, someone provides the answer to said question, and you mark it as "answered" so people know that you got the info you needed. This has an inherent quality that prevents that.

#7 Edited by Fattony12000 (6355 posts) -

@alekss:

4:3 was commonly used for about 120 years, until in 2009 where 16:9 officially overtook it as the most common ratio used for TVs and computer monitors. So, I guess 16:9 will last a fairly long time?

That's completely separate to what goes on with the film industry side of things, of course.

#8 Posted by Alekss (327 posts) -

@mirado: And let's say I mark answered on an answer I feel like it's reasonable even if it has no basis in reality. What are you gonna do? Am I wasting your bandwith by making this answerable?

#9 Posted by Icemo (625 posts) -

@mirado said:

@alekss said:

C: It's a theoretical question if you don't like it don't answer.

That's not the point; if the question is theoretical, how can you mark it as "answered"?

That's the whole reason behind this format; you post something that you want the answer to, someone provides the answer to said question, and you mark it as "answered" so people know that you got the info you needed. This has an inherent quality that prevents that.

4k resolution will be in 16:9. Researchers and manufacturers are constantly developing that format, so I can guarantee that they will not just dump it off after pouring so much money into developing it. So yes, that question can be answered.

#10 Edited by Mirado (948 posts) -

@alekss: I'm no mod, I'm not going to do shit. I'm just wondering why you made a question thread for an unanswerable question.

As you seem to enjoy a bit of idle speculation, I assume you can understand my indulgence in the same.

@icemo said:

4k resolution will be in 16:9. Researchers and manufacturers are constantly developing that format, so I can guarantee that they will not just dump it off after pouring so much money into developing it. So yes, that question can be answered.

No it cannot. You cannot give me a decade, a year, a month, a day, or an hour to which the majority rule of 16:9 will end. If you can, I'd like your guarantee in writing, thank you. 4:3 lasted for a century or more; until we cross that barrier, no answer can be marked as correct to the question as given.

#11 Edited by Icemo (625 posts) -

@mirado said:

@icemo said:

4k resolution will be in 16:9. Researchers and manufacturers are constantly developing that format, so I can guarantee that they will not just dump it off after pouring so much money into developing it. So yes, that question can be answered.

No it cannot. You cannot give me a decade, a year, a month, a day, or an hour to which the majority rule of 16:9 will end. If you can, I'd like your guarantee in writing, thank you. 4:3 lasted for a century or more; until we cross that barrier, no answer can be marked as correct to the question as given.

A theoretical question does not need an exact answer. So when I say 4k resolution will come after 1080p and it is in 16:9 aspect ratio, we can conclude that it will take a long time for the next aspect ratio to arrive.

#12 Posted by Mirado (948 posts) -

@icemo said:

A theoretical question does not need an exact answer. So when I say 4k resolution will come after 1080p and it is in 16:9 aspect ratio, we can conclude that it will take a long time for the next aspect ratio to arrive.

Something tells me the format of marking a thread as a question implies the necessity of an exact answer (why else would you mark a post if it didn't provide one?), however I will acquiesce to your technicality.

#13 Posted by Alekss (327 posts) -

@mirado: Nothing says it needs to be an exact answer. A good answer can simply be a good answer, and Icemo provided one.

Also, isn't this marked as Best answer and not most accurate answer?

#14 Posted by Icemo (625 posts) -

@mirado: Umm, did you check that link I provided? With your logic all the answers that people have given to philosophical questions that have been asked in printed form or forums are false and that would be quite heavy statement.

But if you truly think that way, I guess it's okay duder.

#15 Posted by Mirado (948 posts) -

@alekss said:

@mirado: Nothing says it needs to be an exact answer. A good answer can simply be a good answer, and Icemo provided one.

Also, isn't this marked as Best answer and not most accurate answer?

If your question is "How long will the 16:9 aspect ratio last?", I'd argue you cannot answer that as no one knows for sure. If your question is "Will it last as long as 4:3 did?", I'd argue that his speculation is baseless; 4k could be dropped very quickly, and moved to a different format. No one can say for sure. If that's your choice for "good answer", you could have selected anyone that said "Yes" or "No". Same level of reasoning, really.

I'd also argue that "best" and "most accurate" are synonymous, but as we're starting to argue semantics, I'll bow out. I'd rather not waste my time debating something so useless.

#16 Posted by BeachThunder (11265 posts) -

I can't wait until 9:16 is the new standard.

Online
#17 Posted by Icemo (625 posts) -

I can't wait until 9:16 is the new standard.

Good answer! Discussion here was getting too heavy for my nerves.

#18 Edited by Ares42 (2443 posts) -

I'm just gonna assume something here, but I would guess that at this point it has some correlation to normal eyesight. Like they've actually done some research into how our eyes work and what sort of aspect ratio works best with how we observe and focus on objects. If that is correct then you would assume that the aspect-ratio would stick around until either our eyes evolve or there's some research breakthrough.

An interesting observation is that if you look at most modern glasses they have a similar form-factor of TVs. I wouldn't think it's because we look way too much on TVs and they are made for that, but rather that they are made to accomodate our vision as well as possible.

#19 Posted by zenmastah (837 posts) -

Just moved to 16:10 and i love it so much more than 16:9, i do hope that devs continue supporting 16:10 in the future also.

I think 16:9 will go for a long long time and in the end it comes down to manufactors.

#20 Posted by Vonocourt (2107 posts) -

@mirado said:

A) 16:10 is the true ratio.

B) As Blu-ray is 2.4:1, somehow I don't think 16:9 will hang on when most home releases force letterboxing on your screen.

C) Isn't this question technically unanswerable, and as such a poor choice to use the question format on this forum?

Blu-ray is 16:9 dude. The 2.39:1 films, or even 1.85:1 (when they're not cropped to 1.78:1) just have black lines as part of the image. It's not like anamorphic DVDs where they would squeeze the widescreen image into a 4.3 ratio.

#21 Edited by dgtlty (147 posts) -

Aspect ratios of DVD and Blu-Ray content should be the same as it was shot (e.g. 2.4:1 or 1.85:1 or 1.77:1 which is 16:9).

16:10 seems to be a PC monitor trend but TVs are mostly native 16:9 because the majority of content is shot in this format. 1.85 or 2.40 screens just aren't practical for this reason unless you're exclusively watching movies shot in this aspect ratio.

#22 Posted by Branthog (7332 posts) -

For televisions? It won't change any time soon.

However . . .

16:9 is a shit ratio and PCs have started paying for the cost of producing 16:10 exclusive panels in a world quickly filled with only 16:9. PC displays are not televisions, but we're still impacted by the general economy of having both sets of panes (and a population of consumers generally uneducated about the difference -- as witnessed by how PC gamers are more often talking about PC resolutions as if they're fucking televisions -- 720p, 1080p, etc). Limiting PC ratio and resolution based on televisions is myopic and has the backwards old-world attitude of you being only a consumer and nothing more. It suggests that everything you do should be based around consuming movies which is the least common thing I do on my display.

Also, it's almost pointless for us to talk about 2k and 4k displays, because those are only short-term stop-gaps to the real industry standard, which will be 8k.