I believe the point was that this would not be 16/9 ratio, not even 16/10, but 128/85. Which would seem to be better because, frankly, 16/9 looks good on TVs b

I believe the point was that this would not be 16/9 ratio, not even 16/10, but 128/85. Which would seem to be better because, frankly, 16/9 looks good on TVs but is really quite terrible on a computer. I even find 16/10 barely acceptable.