Talk:Display aspect ratio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

move from 16:10 to 16:9[edit]

This bit reads like an advertisement for 16:9 formats without any substance and in my view should be deleted.

> Innovative product concepts drives a new product cycle and stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market.

What?

> 16:9 products provide higher resolution and wider aspect ratio.

Wider aspect ratio - that is obvious, but how come higher res?

I think they (biasedly) refer to the shift from 1280x768 to 1366×768. It does not apply to the shift from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080! --Zom-B (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

> The 16:9 panels provide an opportunity for PC brands to further diversify their products.

So what's the advantage for me to buy a 16:9 over 16:10 monitor again?

A brand with more models in their line than the rivals will have more hits in searches and more entries in price folders. --Zom-B (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They talk about why the industry went 16:9, not why you should buy a 16:9 monitor! It has nothing to do with it.
About res I suppose they are talking about that 16:9 has driven an increase in resolution.
From the article:
"In April 2012 the 16:9 resolution 1366×768 became the most common used resolution worldwide. The earlier most common resolution was 1024×768 (4:3). The third most common resolution at the time was 1280×800 (16:10)." http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/04/11/resolution.1024x768.not.most.popular.worldwide/
/GuinnessBT (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8:5 Aspect ratio[edit]

There should be some information about the 8:5 aspect ratio. That would include displays resolutions such as 1440x900.
Qbert203 (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also known as 16:10 xD
Qbert203 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading image at top[edit]

The "Some common aspect ratios for displays" chart is misleading; in showing the different aspect ratios, it implies that 16:9 is larger than 16:10, which is larger than 4:3. For a given area, 16:9 is the shortest, and for standard resolutions, 16:9 has the smallest area. The chart is to demonstrate ratios, but the implication of fixed height existing in the real world of displays is misleading. As mentioned in other talk sections, it feels like 16:9 is being promoted unrealistically. Can anyone with image skills create or find a less misleading image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.88.139 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could throw together something that uses equal areas for all 3 aspect ratios, although I think something like that already exists (I'll have a look on Wikimedia Commons later). Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should use equal diagonals, not equal areas, to reflect reality. Well, roughly equal diagonals. For instance, 15" for 4:3, 15.4" for 16:10 and 15.6" for 16:9 (as an example of a standard laptop screen size; for desktop monitors, the diagonals might differ much more). Indrek (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the chart isn't actually an image, but simply some HTML, it's trivial to change it and experiment with different numbers. For instance, I came up with the following figure for the 15" laptop screens I mentioned, at 1 inch = 10 pixels.
15" 4:3
15.4" 16:10
15.6" 16:9
They're a bit smaller compared to the ones in the article (which use an arbitrary height of 100 pixels), so the inch-pixel ratio may need to be increased a bit to accommodate all the text, but the proportions should be accurate. Indrek (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point, although I'm not entirely convinced; it really depends on what we're trying to convey. It seems to me that equal area is better suited for simply comparing the aspect ratios themselves, while using the diagonal size is better for direct comparisons between screens or to show how diagonal size relates to area for each ratio. Also, if using a diagonal size, would it not make more sense to use a standardised size that is common across all three aspect ratios, such as 17" or 24"? 15.x" is a bit of an outlier in that respect. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of equal area:
4:3
16:10
16:9
Here's an example of equal diagonals using 24" as the size:
24" 4:3
24" 16:10
24" 16:9
Honestly though, both of these would work better if they were overlaid on top of each other rather than just in a sort of list, since as-is it's difficult to tell the respective heights.
Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15" was just an example, I'm not opposed to using exactly the same diagonal for each. But I think that equal diagonal is a better choice than equal area, because as said above, it more accurately reflects real-world displays, and after all the article is called "Display aspect ratio".
Overlaying the boxes is a good idea. Something like this, perhaps?
24" 4:3
24" 16:10
24" 16:9
The sizes are the same as from your last example, just doubled (not sure if fractional pixels make an appreciable difference, btw). It's quite a bit wider than the existing figure, but since it's mostly next to the table of contents, there should be plenty of space. The colours and opacities would have to be tweaked a bit, though, and the explanatory texts moved to the side or below the figure. Indrek (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick sidenote: I don't think 17" is standardised across all three aspect ratios, just 4:3 and 16:10. It's 17.3" at 16:9, as far as I know. Indrek (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the 17.3" thing, so thanks for informing me.

I'm pretty sure fractional pixels don't usually make any difference either (browsers don't generally render them AFAIK), but I thought they might be useful at some point down the line, or maybe for people who scale their displays. Maybe we should use an svg rather than divs since it'd allow for more accurate representation of the shapes in that way (sub-pixels would be rendered). It'd also be less prone to rendering errors and would be able to follow user preferences for thumbnail sizes, and would probably be easier to format.

For the diagonal verses area thing, I'm really not all that bothered either way; while I tend towards area, I'm not opposed to using diagonals, so we'll just go with that (at least for the time being) as a loose consensus.

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, SVG would probably be a good idea. I don't have anything that can generate SVGs, though; if you do, I'll defer the task of creating the image to you. Indrek (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Equal area is good. Don't involve diagonal. Aspect ratio has nothing to do with it./Innercash (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aspect ratio in general might not, but the sizes of real displays are expressed as the diagonal, rather than area. There is already an article about aspect ratio in general, where using arbitrary sizes (like equal area or fixed height/width) to compare aspect ratios is OK. This article is called display aspect ratio, so comparisons should be made based on real displays, which means equal diagonal. Indrek (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There allready are such comparison. The definition of aspect ratio of a display has nothing to do with size so it would be false to include different areas for different aspect ratio. So it is eaither same area or no picture./109.228.145.200 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of the aspect ratio of a display has just as much to do with the diagonal as with the area, both being functions of the display's width and height (which define the aspect ratio). But since, as I've said repeatedly, real displays are measured by the diagonal, it would be somewhat misleading for the article to include comparisons based on dimensions that do not reflect those of actual displays.
Good point, though, that there is already a table at the end of the article that compares the sizes of displays of various aspect ratios. Perhaps the proposed figure could replace the image next to that table? It should be updated to include 16:9 anyway. Then the figure at the beginning wouldn't be needed.
"So it is eaither same area or no picture." A quick point of order: While I'm sure you don't mean to sound like someone who thinks they own the article, such statements really aren't conducive to reaching a consensus. Perhaps you could instead explain how you think a figure comparing displays of equal area would improve the article? What useful information would it provide to someone reading about the aspect ratios of real-world displays? Indrek (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current handmade CSS example at the top of the article doesn't seem very robust - it doesn't print, for a start. I don't have the skills to make an SVG from scratch either, so I've just replaced the current version with a crude screenshot of Indrek's example above from a decade ago, on the grounds that this is an improvement. --Belbury (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed ubiquity of 16:9[edit]

This article would be accurate if it were about aspect ratios on Windows PCs, but it's not accurate in general.

Current common aspect ratios for displays are 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9.

This is true for laptops and desktop computer monitors. But there are many other kinds of displays. Smartphones tend to be 3:2. Netbooks and other portable devices use a variety of other aspect ratios like 15:9 and 17:10. And that's not even counting specializing displays (e.g., for in-dash consoles).

By 2010, virtually all computer monitor and laptop manufacturers had also moved to the 16:9 aspect ratio, and the availability of 16:10 aspect ratio in mass market had become very limited.

They were hardly "very limited" in 2010, or even today: 3 of the 10 best-selling laptops in September 2012 were 16:10. This is because all of Apple's laptops except the 11" Air are 16:10. It's only on Windows that 16:9 has become the standard.

This section also ignores a whole class of computer displays: projectors. Nearly all high-end projectors are 16:10. Low-end LCD projectors come in a wide range of aspect ratios, but 4:3 seems most common.

Since 2005 most video games are mainly made for the 16:9 aspect ratio and 16:9 computer displays

Maybe most _Windows_ games are made for 16:9, but I doubt that anyone is making games for the smartphone, tablet, or portable-console markets in 16:9, given that most of the devices don't do 16:9. Smartphones are mostly 3:2, tablets 4:3, and portable consoles 5:3 or 4:3 (the PS Vita being the only current or upcoming 16:9 model I know of). --70.36.140.233 (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re "common aspect ratios", of course other aspect ratios exist. Note the word "common", though. Are any of the other aspect ratios you mentioned common enough to be comparable to any of those three? Wasn't 3:2 pretty much just the iPhone (which has also now moved to a wider ratio)?
Personally, I'd say 4:3 should be removed because it's neither common nor current, but I'm not convinced any other aspect ratio is common enough to justify inclusion in the article lead either.
Re "very limited", do you have any hard data backing up the statement about best-selling laptops? A quick online search for "best selling laptops 2012" returns a number of lists, none of which seem more authoritative than the others, and many seem US-only. In the absence of a reliable source providing worldwide sales figures, that argument becomes invalid. In fact, considering that Apple's global market share is still around 5-7% (depending on which source you look at), I'm not sure the sales rankings of individual models are even relevant here.
Re "games", do you have any reliable data about the sales figures of video games on various platforms? Considering that PCs and consoles, arguably the two most popular gaming platforms today, are 16:9 (with the exception of a few laptop models, yes), smartphones are too fragmented to put them all under one aspect ratio, and many slates are 16:10 and will be moving to 16:9, are enough video games being made for other aspect ratios to invalidate that sentence from the article you quoted? Note that it says "most video games", not "all video games".
I agree, though, that the article might be a bit too computer-centric, and some mention of other devices would be appropriate. Indrek (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Letter Box and Pillar Box[edit]

TV/DVD says

"16:9 material on a 16:10 or 4:3 display will be letterboxed." This seems correct.

"In data processing or viewing 4:3 material such as older films, older TV broadcasts or older digital photographs, the widescreen (16:9, 16:10) will be letterboxed." This seems confusing.

It might be better to say...

"4:3 material on a 16:9 or 16:10 display will either be pillar boxed or cropped at the top and bottom of the display to fill the sides of the display. Whether the display is pillar boxed or not depends on how the manufacturer has programmed the display device, or in the case of data processing, how the data processing software is programmed. Some examples of 4:3 material are older films, older TV broadcasts or older digital photographs.

Bill Buckels (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, edit it in. Doesn't seem unreasonable. Tho' there is also the common third possibility of being stretched to 16:9 even though it looks horrible. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Display aspect ratio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Indrek (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:9[edit]

No mention of 21:9 ratio? 21:9_aspect_ratio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.48.85.39 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@User:Indrek Why remove mention of Movie Streaming services ? --Ne0 (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article is about physical displays, not streaming services. Indrek (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the article introduction starts with "The aspect ratio of a computer display", and the most common way of watching movies on a Computer display(other than piracy) are Movie Streaming services. So, I believe it is relevant to mention which Movie streaming services conform to which aspect ratio. --Ne0 (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it's tangential at best and doesn't add anything of value. The article also discusses productivity software, but that doesn't mean we need to get into retail sales vs. subscription services. It's the content on the display that matters, not where the content comes from. Indrek (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Display aspect ratio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reference for screens growing wider[edit]

Different wordings can mean the same thing...

--Ne0 (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

larger means wider Not necessarily. To infer that from the Statcounter source is WP:OR.
taller means wider Smartphones and computer displays are different. The former are moving to 2:1 and beyond, yes, but for the latter anything wider than 16:9 is still a rarity. If anything, narrower aspect ratios like 3:2 are gaining popularity (for 2-in-1 tablets mostly, but also traditional laptops).
As for the Macworld source currently in the article, I'm inclined to remove it, on account of it being 15 years old and heralding the arrival of 16:10 displays. Surely a more recent source for such a bold claim can be found? Indrek (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statcounter source is specifically saying "1366x768 overtakes 1024x768 for first time", i.e. vertical size stayed the same, while horizontal size increased. How is that not wider ? --Ne0 (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is wider, yes, but only for those two particular resolutions. The only thing that article says about overall trends is that users are moving to, quote, "larger screen resolution sizes". Larger, not wider. Those words do not mean the same thing. Indrek (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Table in History section[edit]

Wanted to discuss a few issues with the table in the History section, added in this revision:

  1. What does the year mean? When the aspect ratio was introduced? Became popular? Something else? Why is it missing from the first two rows?
  2. How were the resolutions for each ratio picked? I doubt 1920x1080 was the most common 16:9 resolution in 2007, for example.
  3. Why is the 3:2 aspect ratio missing? It's probably more popular in computer displays, thanks to 2-in-1 tablets, than the two last rows.
  4. The second aspect ratio column seems redundant, especially as the fractional notation is vastly more common.
  5. The video standards column seems irrelevant, most of the stuff listed there isn't intended for computer displays.

In general, the table doesn't really add anything that isn't already covered in the adjacent sections. Unless a good case can be made for keeping it, I'd recommend it be removed. Indrek (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Year refers to the year it is implemented on consumer devices. Couldn't find the exact year of implementation/ first device with that aspect ratio.
resolutions are the commonly referred resolution. Can add more if needed.
3:2 aspect ratio added in the 3rd row.
Most people watch movies & shows(either officially streamed, or pirated) on Computer/Tablet/Phone screens. The number of people who watch on Television sets are diminishing quickly.[1][2] So yes, Video formats are relevant in a article about computer displays. --Ne0 (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Year refers to the year it is implemented on consumer devices. Okay, but where do the numbers come from? I feel like sources would be needed, especially for the 1967 and 1954 figures in the first two rows.
resolutions are the commonly referred resolution. Can add more if needed. I don't think the table needs more information in it, if anything it needs to be slimmed down.
So yes, Video formats are relevant in a article about computer displays. I can kind of see how that would make 720p and 1080p relevant, as those are probably the most common video standards in use today. But video storage methods like DVCPRO? Film formats like Movietone or Ultra Panavision? Simply close-but-not-quite-equal ratios like 1932 Academy ratio? And since when is 16:10 the TV broadcast standard in Europe?
If the table only included a few relevant video formats, then that might be fine, but it feels like you're trying to cram absolutely everything in there that is related to any aspect ratio in even the most tangential manner. Can you explain to me how you think it improves the article? How does it help understand the evolution of computer displays? Indrek (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1957 is the date PAL TV was implemented. 1954 is the date NTSC TV was implemented. These televisions were then used as Monitors for Mainframe Computers. This was before the promotion of Computer monitors as a different product line than TVs.
DVCPRO HD is a 32:27 video format with 1280x1080i resolution in current DV Camcorders. These DV Cameras are still being produced, therefore by no means outdated. And Movietone films are free to watch on Youtube.
5:3 or 15:9 (1.6:1) was Continental Europe's widescreen SDTV broadcast standard.[3] --Ne0 (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1957 is the date PAL TV was implemented. 1954 is the date NTSC TV was implemented. Problem is, right now the table seems to imply that computer displays with resolutions like 1280x1024 and 2560x1700 have been available since the 1950s and 1960s, which is obviously not the case.
DVCPRO HD is a 32:27 video format with 1280x1080i resolution in current DV Camcorders. Camcorders, not computer displays. And the aspect ratio doesn't even match 5:4. So irrelevant.
And Movietone films are free to watch on Youtube. Likewise, the aspect ratio doesn't match 5:4. "Complementary" means something more than just "in the same ballpark".
5:3 or 15:9 (1.6:1) was Continental Europe's widescreen SDTV broadcast standard. According to the BBC article you linked to, 15:9 was only used in film (Paramount format), while widescreen SDTV in most of Europe was 16:9. And in any case, 15:9 is equal to neither 16:10 nor 16:9, and to my knowledge no computer displays have been produced in that aspect ratio. So once again, irrelevant. Indrek (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took the bold step of rewriting the table, and wanted to explain my changes in more detail than the edit summary field allows:
  1. I put the aspect ratio column first, since that's what the article is about, after all. At the same time, I removed the redundant "decimal value" column, since aspect ratios for computer displays are overwhelmingly described using fractional notation.
  2. I trimmed down the list of resolutions a bit, keeping a maximum of two per row (the table doesn't need to be exhaustive in this regard) and removing those that, as far as I could tell, weren't actually used in computer displays (like 1280x720 or 1440x1080).
  3. I removed the "Complementary video standards" column, since most of the stuff there wasn't really complementary in any way, but rather just happened to share a similar aspect ratio. I added a new "Notes" column for the few examples that either match the respective display aspect ratio exactly or somehow influenced its adoption, but the rest is better suited for some other article, like Aspect ratio (image).
  4. I also moved the years to the "Notes" column, to describe what they actually mean in the context of the history of computer displays.
I hope you find the changes agreeable, or at the very least a suitable starting point to making the table more concise and easier to parse. Indrek (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Original(Analogue) SD TV is either 3:2 or 5:4. The Standard-definition_television#Pixel_aspect_ratio table shows how the 2 SD TV resolutions(480i & 576i) can can be cropped into 4:3 and 16:9.
I repeat: 720x480i & 720x576i televisions were then used as Monitors for Mainframe Computers. This was before the promotion of Computer monitors as a different product line than TVs. --Ne0 (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Original(Analogue) SD TV is either 3:2 or 5:4. Do you have a source for that? The SDTV article only shows 4:3 and 16:9 as display aspect ratios. I really don't see where you're getting 5:4 and 3:2 from...
As for televisions, there's a separate section for those. By your own admission, those resolutions pre-date computer displays. Indrek (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the Standard-definition television Wikipedia article itself:
"The two common SDTV signal types are 576i, ... derived from the European-developed PAL and SECAM systems; and 480i based on the American NTSC system."
"In North America, digital SDTV is broadcast in the same 4:3 aspect ratio as NTSC signals with widescreen content being center cut. However, in other parts of the world ...(digital) SDTV is usually shown with a 16:9 aspect ratio"
The Standard-definition_television#Pixel_aspect_ratio table gives the aspect ratio and resolution of the two broadcast formats: 480i: "720×480 (full frame)" i.e 3:2 and 576i: "720×576 (full frame)" i.e 5:4
Yes PAL & NTSC pre-date the term 'monitors'. But, they were still used as computer Displays. So it is relevant --Ne0 (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only aspect ratios that are mentioned in Standard-definition television#Pixel aspect ratio are 4:3 and 16:9. The lead also says that, quote, "The display ratio for broadcast widescreen is commonly 16:9, the display ratio for a traditional or letterboxed broadcast is 4:3." Neither do the 480i or 576i articles make any mention of 5:4, 3:2 or any other aspect ratios.
As for TVs, feel free to add that information to the appropriate section. Early mainframes also used teleprinters as output devices, doesn't mean they're relevant in the context of computer displays. Indrek (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think our disagreement regarding the PAL and NTSC aspect ratios comes from the fact that you seem to be talking about storage aspect ratios. If I understand correctly, digital SDTV is stored and transmitted using additional blank pixels on either side of the actual image, which does indeed result in a 5:4 or 3:2 aspect ratio. From Standard-definition television#Pixel aspect ratio (emphasis mine):

In case of digital video line having 720 horizontal pixels, only the center 704 pixels contain actual 4:3 or 16:9 image, and the 8 pixel wide stripes from either side are called nominal analogue blanking for horizontal blanking and should be discarded before displaying the image.

This has absolutely nothing to do with displaying video content (which is still either 4:3 or 16:9), only with storing/transmitting digital SDTV signal, and therefore is irrelevant at best and misleading at worst. As far as I can see, no computer displays have been manufactured using either the 720×480 or 720×576 resolutions, and the 5:4 and 3:2 aspect ratios were adopted in displays for independent reasons. Indrek (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
# your IQ seems to be below 70 : You can't even calculate aspect ratio !!! and you're trying to edit an article about aspect ratio ???
# This is an article for Display Aspect ratio, so any screen used to used to display computer info is applicable, and it shouldn’t matter if that screen is a TV or phone.
# What is your source/reference for 4:3 SDTV being used outside the American continent(The world dosen't revolve around America) and US influenced nations( Myanmar, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Laos, Western Sahara) --Ne0 (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
your IQ seems to be below 70 Please refrain from personal attacks towards other editors.
any screen used to used to display computer info is applicable, and it shouldn’t matter if that screen is a TV or phone. I haven't argued the opposite. In fact, I recently added separate sections for phones and TVs precisely so the article wouldn't be computer-centric.
What is your source/reference for 4:3 SDTV being used outside the American continent ... From 576i: "the aspect ratio is usually 4:3 in analogue transmission and 16:9 in digital transmission". As I type this, I realise the term "SDTV" only applies to digital transmissions, so yes, my mistake there. But still, "US Digital SD TV" is no better. And in any case, I have since edited that part to say "non-widescreen SDTV", and will add mention of analogue TV as well. Indrek (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this for a while and have to say that even before Neofreedom's descent into personal attacks, Indrek seemed to be making a much more sensible case for their edits. The versions implying that 2560x1700 was commonplace in 1954 was particularly unhelpful. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ TV broadcast standard in Europe -Beyond HD

5:4 history[edit]

History section currently lacks mention of 5:4 display aspect ratio.

104.228.101.152 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Until about 2003, most computer monitors had a 4:3 aspect ratio and some had 5:4." Pinkbeast (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monitor aspect ratios didn't start with VGA[edit]

Completely skips over the most basic earlier standards like CGA (320x200) and EGA (640x350). IMO that's a gross oversight from both technological and historical perspectives, making it look like personal computer monitors didn't exist before the early 2000's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.41.49 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about aspect ratios, not resolutions. The only resolutions listed are examples; they don't have to be the earliest known examples. I'm not sure I understand the objection. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of first sentence[edit]

@User123o987name: instead of constantly reverting your disputed version back into the article, please explain how your edit makes the lead paragraph easier to read, or indeed what problem you were trying to solve with it. Because as far as I can see, it only makes the first sentence of the article less legible, by repeating the word "display" five (!) times. The redundant phrase "the display of a display device" further adds to the confusion.

For reference, the relevant section of the Manual of Style calls for conciseness and simplicity in the lead section, which I think your edit fails to achieve. The only change I agree with was including the title in bold, which the MoS does recommend. Indrek (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and since they haven't actually bothered to use the talk page (even after the edit where they say "See talk page"), I'm changing it back. (As far as I can make out the objection is "The size of the display of a display device is not the same as the display device", ie the bleeding obvious statement that we're talking about the bit of the monitor that the photons actually come out of, which certainly doesn't seem worth mangling the lead to make clear but which I've tried to address). Pinkbeast (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article "ownership"[edit]

I came here to find out about the stupid new phone ratios of 20:9, wanting to see them against the old usa broadcast tv standard which apparently was 4:3. I recall in the 1970s and 80s controversy was rising against the way movies were broadcast, either by lopping off the edges, or actually *editing* them using the controversial (!) pan and scan. It was kind of a big deal at the time, directors putting in their two cents, people showing how pan and scan lost meaningful action and perspective, etc. Letterboxing became more common after that. The article buries this information to the point of incoherency.

I don't have the energy to get sources for this stuff, and based on this talk page, hours of my work would be unlikely to be "permitted." What's I'm seeing is what I call article ownership. There's probably a cool wikipedia name for it. But basically it means that over the years, one or two people assertively and repeatedly fend off changes to "their" pet article, to the point where new editors just give up. Not because you're right, but because it's not worth it to most people to waste their free time arguing with someone who is perched atop an article like a dog defending its territory. Possible wikipedia editors get discouraged and leave. You guys are fighting fights and gatekeeping instead of trying to either a) broaden your view or b) find a tidy place for the well-intended newcomer to put their info, or possibly just adding a mention of it and pointing to another more relevant article. Probably there are articles about pan and scan, and letterboxing, and the relevance of the new phone ratios, idk. But I came here.

Wikipedia wonders why there are so few female editors, or this or that minority. I can't speak for other women but this is one of my personal reasons, irrespective of my gender, for not participating. And btw, if your name appears a lot on this talk page, and you feel the need to jump in here and say why I'm "wrong" to say that you're gatekeeping - then you kind of prove my point, lol. Tkech (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Display_aspect_ratio&oldid=1208413164"