# Ultra Widescreen Confusion, 2560x1080 =/= 21:9 =/= Anamorphic



## Mega-Japan (Jul 10, 2015)

This whole mumble jumble of constant incorrect pixel/aspect ratio had me turning my head a few times.

Starting with, why is 21:9 called 21:9 instead of just 7:3 which is the exact same. To relate to 16:9 because dumb people wouldn't have made the connection otherwise... Ok, got that.

Then I start thinking, 2560x1080 is NOT 21:9 (7:3), and neither is 3440x1440. Hell, main reason most people get these ultra widescreen displays is to watch movies in their original anamorphic cinema format without the black bars, but anamorphic isn't 21:9 either.

So they advertise 21:9 (2.33:1), but they actually give 2560x1080 which has an aspect ratio of 64:27 (2.37:1) , which is slightly wider.
Ultra widescreen movies are filmed in 2.39:1 and doesn't match any of the above aspect ratios. For a true fit of 2.39:1, you'd need a resolution of 2629x1100 and that doesn't fit the "1080p" standard because there isn't a correct 1080 vertical resolution for the ratio (2581x1080 is the closest, but not exact. Exact while keeping 1080 vertical would be 2581.2000000000003x1080).

I get the "21:9" marketing, what I don't get is why the actual usage of 2560x1080? 2580x1080 would've been far closer to the anamorphic standard which is where most of the marketing goes anyways.

Then we get to the "QHD" marketing of the Ultra Widescreen displays, offering 3440x1440 (2.38:1), now that is a lot closer the anamorphic standard. Again, not exact, but much better. Marketing those as 21:9 (2.33:1) which is now further than the old 2560x1080, makes it even more inaccurate. The ratio could've been advertised for what it is, 43:18, but I guess that would've just confused the dumb people even more than that 7:3 mentioned earlier.

Now I know none of this really matters, and it really doesn't. It's just silly to think about. Hell I know Media Player Classic has the ability to slightly stretch the video in the event there are small black bars on top and bottom. This is just me being super picky and giving a thought on random things, but I found it interesting anyways.

*tl;dr -* Marketing for "21:9" is inaccurate. Very inaccurate.

What they advertise: 2.33:1
What they deliver (1080p): 2.37:1
What they deliver (1440p): 2.38.1
What the movie anamorphic standard is: 2.39:1


----------



## rooivalk (Jul 10, 2015)

Not sure, but I heard movies are varied between 2.35 - 2.3942 (shorten to 2.39 or 2.40), so it's never perfect.
I also heard watching 2.35 movie on 2.39 screen has quite noticeable black bar or something, so some people use 2.37 as better compromise.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 10, 2015)

Hell, I've seen some of my movies go up to 2:44.  With so many varies movie sized in the widescreen category, and differing televisions, you're never going to get a one-size actually fits all.


----------



## SaltyFish (Jul 12, 2015)

4:3
4²:3² -> 16:9
4³:3³ -> 64:27 ("21:9" to the unwashed masses)

...notice a trend?

Everyone knows the infamous 1366x768 resolution. It's not actually 16:9; it's just slightly off (true 16:9 would be 1365⅓x768). If manufacturers wanted true 16:9, they could have used 1360x765. But they didn't. Why? Because of convergence between TV and computer screens, they're expected to handle both. So 1366x768 exists because it can fully display HD content (1280x720) and accommodate the closest standard computer resolution (in this case, the 1024x768 XGA) while preserving the aspect ratio of the former as best it can (16:9). This slight difference in aspect ratio extends to "21:9" monitors.


----------



## haswrong (Jul 15, 2015)

SaltyFish said:


> 4:3
> 4²:3² -> 16:9
> 4³:3³ -> 64:27 ("21:9" to the unwashed masses)
> 
> ...


then we shall wait for the 28.4444444:9 or 47.4:9 (this will be an oled stripe around a room i guess) trend extension.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 15, 2015)

SaltyFish said:


> 4:3
> 4²:3² -> 16:9
> 4³:3³ -> 64:27 ("21:9" to the unwashed masses)
> 
> ...


Great explanation 
9/10
Taking one point off for the unwashed masses


----------



## Mega-Japan (Feb 2, 2017)

And then there's this monstrosity...

http://www.pcgamer.com/acers-ginormous-375-inch-ultrawide-freesync-monitor-emerges-for-1300/

Like, wtf kind of resolution is 3440x1600? Cause that's FAR from any of the ratios mentioned in the original post, being 2.15:1. Like not even in the same ball park anymore.

Oh well, I'm just waiting for a DP 1.4 (120hz+) version of the the LG 38UC99-W... HDR would be nice too but feel like that's asking for too much now.


----------



## Disparia (Feb 2, 2017)

I could get used to 3440x1600, though I've been digging the wideness of my 2560x1080, so I'm more likely to pick up a 3440x1440 monitor next time.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 2, 2017)

Mega-Japan said:


> This whole mumble jumble of constant incorrect pixel/aspect ratio had me turning my head a few times.
> 
> Starting with, why is 21:9 called 21:9 instead of just 7:3 which is the exact same. To relate to 16:9 because dumb people wouldn't have made the connection otherwise... Ok, got that.
> 
> ...


I agree that 21:9 should be marketed as 7:3 just like 16:10 should be marketed as 8:5.  The reason they don't is _because marketing_.  It's easier to understand and compare 16:9, 16:10, and 21:9 than 16:9, 8:5, and 7:3.

I can explain why 2560 wide is so popular: it's the maximum width for DVI dual link.

Consider the ratios as "classes" for marketing purposes rather than actual scientific measurements.


----------



## Rodrigo Salles (Mar 18, 2017)

Well, the movies changes the resolution a lot, I discovery there are some movies using 2,42:1 (1280x528) and saying it is 720P, lol... So, even with a 2,40:1 monitor you will have a little black band in top and bottom with this movies.

2560x1080 is 2,3703:1. And the market say it is 21:9, but 21:9 is 2,33:1.
3440x1440 is 2,388:1.  And the market say it is 21:9 too, ...

I really can't understand why they invented these resolutions. '-' And now, finally we have 2.4:1 monitor coming, and that is "32:9" marketing, that is not true 32:9, but is the correct 2.4:1 size at least, 3840x1600!

With 3840x1600 resolution (thats too much for me, I hope in the future they do small monitors with 2100x875/1980x825 or something like that, i dont will buy 25"+ anymore, too large for me, 21" or 22" with 2.4:1 it will be the perfect size.

32:9 3840x1600 have correctly 2.4:1 resolution, but 32:9 means 3,55:1 resolution, again, I really don't know what the problem of the market '-', the correctly representation of this resolution is 24:10 or 12:5 or just put 2.4:1. But, the market are using 32:9 to represent 3840x1600 , I don't know why. 

So if you are going to buy a new larger monitor, buy the 32:9 one, not the fake ultrawide 21:9.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 19, 2017)

Rodrigo Salles said:


> 3840x1600


That's 12:5, not 32:9.  Where are you seeing it called 32:9?

And yeah, go by resolution, not claimed aspect ratio.  Aspect ratio is being treated by display makers like claiming their displays are "240 Hz."


----------



## Rodrigo Salles (Mar 19, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's 12:5, not 32:9.  Where are you seeing it called 32:9?
> 
> And yeah, go by resolution, not claimed aspect ratio.  Aspect ratio is being treated by display makers like claiming their displays are "240 Hz."



I know it is 12:5, you don't understand, did you read all my post? Because in the lasts lines i writed that.

 What i'm trying to say is about the problem of the market, the market say 3840x1600 is 32:9, but isn't 32:9, its 12:5 like you say, or 24:10 like I said in final of my post, or simple 2.4:1.

But, take a look in the notices, they announce that is 32:9: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...will-be-released-by-samsung-and-lg-this-year/


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 19, 2017)

They say 32:9 is 3840x1080, and it matches, on the button.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 19, 2017)

Jizzler said:


> I could get used to 3440x1600, though I've been digging the wideness of my 2560x1080, so I'm more likely to pick up a 3440x1440 monitor next time.



I bought one of those supposed "2K" monitors before, I know that technically it 2K ,but it's not anything different than a standard monitor when it's 1080 it looks ridiculous it's so narrow and wide it was so silly I returned it in the first day. In my opinion 2K shouldn't start until it's by 1440 , at the lowest. Nothing personally against you obviously I was just so pissed when I order that screen and I opened it up... obviously this is something of a personal preference. I'm not slamming your monitor or anything I just couldn't stand that size. Insane rant, and unsolicited opinion ended


----------

