4 ms·

Not seeing a major difference between 3:2 and 16:9 aspect ratio displays, what am I missing? http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-lx100/z-lx100-aspe

Not seeing a major difference between 3:2 and 16:9 aspect ratio displays, what am I missing? http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-lx100/z-lx100-aspects-vs-gx7.png http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-lx100/z-lx10...

sempron64 9y ago
More vertical space = better for reading code. Still wide enough to split. I generally use 3 vertical splits (or sometimes more), so I'm personally not convinced, but that's the argument.
nkkollaw 9y ago
Huge difference. If you're in a country where they sell the Surface Book, go take a look and you'll immediately notice that there is a _lot_ more vertical space.
- saycheese 9y ago
  Did you even look at the graphic I linked to? If so, there’s no need to “go look” at anything, since that graphic very clearly shows there’s not a major difference.
  - platinumrad 9y ago
    The graphic you linked shows the different aspect ratios available to cameras from Panasonic's LX series. If there's "not a major a difference" then why is the LX series so highly regarded for this feature?
  - kbutler 9y ago
    The graphic minimizes the apparent difference by splitting it between top and bottom and maintaining the same diagonal size. 3:2 gives 18% more vertical space in the same width https://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2013-02/lets-get-rid-169-laptops-forever https://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2013-02/lets-get-rid-... If you're doing primarily vertical tasks (coding, web pages, etc.), the taller aspect ratio can be really helpful. That said, I've mostly made my peace with 16:9. Write shorter functions (that's good anyway) and throw bars over to the side instead of top and bottom.
    - darkerside 9y ago
      Aren't screen sizes typically based on that diagonal size (i.e. a 15" screen is a diagonal 15")? If so, doesn't that make parent's link more accurate?
      - kbutler 9y ago
        Screen sizes are reported on the diagonal, but the makers are not constrained to maintain the same diagonal size with different apsect ratios. For instance, the pixel Chromebooks have 12.82" and 12.3" diagonal screens. I've never seen a 16:9 laptop with those sizes. And specifically for an xps 13 device, where they trim excess bezels, etc., the keyboard width becomes the limiting factor.
  - nkkollaw 9y ago
    Whatever you say. Here's a better image though, rather than a really weird bunch of lines for camera sensors: https://wolfcrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/43169aspectcomparison.png https://wolfcrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/43169aspectc... It's about 20% more vertical space, as you can see (and you have to put together the top and bottom, which is a lot more impressive).
dr_zoidberg 9y ago
Just a bit more vertical space (a few? a dozen? more lines of code per screen) vs slightly wider screen (better for movies, and games maybe). It may be nitpicking, I actually grew used to 16:9 aspect ratios and don't really mind it.
- woodrowbarlow 9y ago
  i find 16:9 allows me to comfortably fit a text editor (with tree browser, minimap, and 100 columns of text) on the left and a terminal on the right. i need to shrink the text further than is comfortable for me if i want that layout on most 3:2 displays.
platinumrad 9y ago
16:10 vs 16:9 is very noticeable for me at screen sizes below 15 inches and 3:2 is even better.

sempron64 9y ago

More vertical space = better for reading code. Still wide enough to split. I generally use 3 vertical splits (or sometimes more), so I'm personally not convinced, but that's the argument.

nkkollaw 9y ago

Huge difference. If you're in a country where they sell the Surface Book, go take a look and you'll immediately notice that there is a _lot_ more vertical space.

saycheese 9y ago
Did you even look at the graphic I linked to? If so, there’s no need to “go look” at anything, since that graphic very clearly shows there’s not a major difference.
- platinumrad 9y ago
  The graphic you linked shows the different aspect ratios available to cameras from Panasonic's LX series. If there's "not a major a difference" then why is the LX series so highly regarded for this feature?
- kbutler 9y ago
  The graphic minimizes the apparent difference by splitting it between top and bottom and maintaining the same diagonal size. 3:2 gives 18% more vertical space in the same width https://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2013-02/lets-get-rid-169-laptops-forever https://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2013-02/lets-get-rid-... If you're doing primarily vertical tasks (coding, web pages, etc.), the taller aspect ratio can be really helpful. That said, I've mostly made my peace with 16:9. Write shorter functions (that's good anyway) and throw bars over to the side instead of top and bottom.
  - darkerside 9y ago
    Aren't screen sizes typically based on that diagonal size (i.e. a 15" screen is a diagonal 15")? If so, doesn't that make parent's link more accurate?
    - kbutler 9y ago
      Screen sizes are reported on the diagonal, but the makers are not constrained to maintain the same diagonal size with different apsect ratios. For instance, the pixel Chromebooks have 12.82" and 12.3" diagonal screens. I've never seen a 16:9 laptop with those sizes. And specifically for an xps 13 device, where they trim excess bezels, etc., the keyboard width becomes the limiting factor.
- nkkollaw 9y ago
  Whatever you say. Here's a better image though, rather than a really weird bunch of lines for camera sensors: https://wolfcrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/43169aspectcomparison.png https://wolfcrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/43169aspectc... It's about 20% more vertical space, as you can see (and you have to put together the top and bottom, which is a lot more impressive).

dr_zoidberg 9y ago

Just a bit more vertical space (a few? a dozen? more lines of code per screen) vs slightly wider screen (better for movies, and games maybe). It may be nitpicking, I actually grew used to 16:9 aspect ratios and don't really mind it.

woodrowbarlow 9y ago
i find 16:9 allows me to comfortably fit a text editor (with tree browser, minimap, and 100 columns of text) on the left and a terminal on the right. i need to shrink the text further than is comfortable for me if i want that layout on most 3:2 displays.

platinumrad 9y ago

16:10 vs 16:9 is very noticeable for me at screen sizes below 15 inches and 3:2 is even better.