Everyone seems to think that one sees more with a wider display, including Nostalgia Nerd, when the opposite is true. It actually maxes out at 1:1. It wouldn't be comfortable to look at in large sizes though, obviously. Personally, I find 16:10 to be the most expansive and comfortable ratio to look at. It's no accident that this is close to the Golden Ratio, either.

I'm still on a 16:10 LCD and I consider it wastly superior compared to 16:9. It's just sad that there isn't any choice nowadays so I'm stuck with an old LG 1440x900 75Hz screen.

That 30+ KV electrons beam right in front of your eyes... You're right, you could see it but, notably, you could also feel it...

I wish the standard for "regular" screens were 1:1.41 and for "widescreens" 1.41:3 (aspect ratio of A4 horizontal proportions for regular screens, and 3 vertical A4s put together horizontally for widescreens). That would be ideal. Using 2:3 as regular screens 1:2 for widescreens would be okay, too, but using the rations based off A4 would be better. I don't think I need to explain why that would be so much vastly more useful in everyday life than 3:4/4:5, and 16:9/16:10...

It's interesting how everyone says all wider movies were cropped for those pesky 4:3 displays during those times, but... ...to my knowledge and from observations, only those anamorphic scope movies (2.35:1) were in fact cropped from sides, those seen in "flat" 1.85:1 were in fact "opened" so you'd actually see too damn much as they used normal film and stuff and shot it in 4:3 and then framed for 1.85:1 later (you could choose which bit of the height to use with that). 1.66:1 was sometimes left as-is. And some old ass "widescreen" tapes (technically 4:3 with black bars, just like DVD's that do that are) do exist. Same scope cropping and the opening of others carried to VHS and such, but at the end of the life of 4:3, it was usually all letterboxed anyway, be it a VHS (even 2.35:1 was letterboxed with that), TV broadcast (outside movies, and they probably still mangle those to this very day) or somethingsomething. Though as I live in PAL region, I dunno how things were in NTSC-land at the end of 4:3 times, all I know is 'Murica really liked their "Full screen" DVD's they got all the time, unlike Europe. But the 2.35:1 cropping and 1.85:1 opening was a thing, people just assume all wideness was simply cropped only because some definitely are.

As someone growing up int the 80's 4:3 certainly was a "biggie". A real pain for any movie lover. Pan and scan was horrible to watch.

And here we are now watching shorts and tiktok vertically on smartphone

Excellent vid. Thanks for making it One error (not yours): WXGA has the wrong number of pixels. It should be 1280x768 (16\:10)

Funny how we are regressing into a 4:3 world again duo to everyone watching content on their smartphones.

Short version: Because 16:9 is the most comfortable to watch.

Everyone knows the REAL reason and that is because predators have eyes looking forward and prey has sideways. Only real men use 4:3.

My guess is 4:3 is exclusive to tube tv and old tv only. By 2005 flat screens are very popular and more easier to embrace 16:9 to get more resolution. Also tube tv and older tv are very bulky, heavy, and dangerous with kids in the house as those could easily fall and squash them, flat tv at least are lighter and safer.

4:3 is much better for writing code because there are more lines on screen for a given diagonal size (e.g. a 21" 4:3 is taller than a 21" 16:9 screen)

I have met so many people that, back in the day of 4:3 TV's, when I played a widescreen movie with the black bars on the top and bottom, they would complain that someone cut off the top and bottom of the picture, yet were perfectly fine with the actually-heavily-cropped Pan-and-Scan movies shown on most channels at the time. This despite them actually seeing the movie in the theater before.

Work on a PC rarely needs to show an entire page. Printed pages were on their way out by the time wide monitors appeared. Digital text needs to wrap to a variable window width. PDF as a help format is an anachronism. You wouldn't read a 2 page book on a film monitor sitting a meter or further away from it. When you do work in a word processor, part of the screen is occupied by toolbars anyway. The taskbar is always visible. I suspect 16 by 10 came about from a round number of pixels. 1080 is not a nice number, not even divisible by 16. 480,768,960,1024,1200 are good dimensions I wish they didn't make movies with this narrow bar format. 16:9 is a good match for the eyes.

media was already trying to be 16×9 well before everyone upgraded their screens

A fact for cineastes. The original European aspect ratio for silent films was - 1.9:1

My warm and fuzzy like is 4 X 3 in NTSC.

12:46 youyube lol

As someone who uses PC's primarily for serious purposes, I really don't find any advantage with 16:9 at all indeed the opposite is true. What it ends up with is a monitor that's taking up a lot of desk space for a relatively small screen when only ~two thirds of the width is actually useful. For movies etc sure no problems but for "serious" text based use I regard 4:3 as definitely superior and, if there were to be an improvement on that, it'd be to go completely square 1:1

Old tv w,tube were heavy now put a 40in cary under your arm 😅

On monitors doing other ratios, in my opinion, isn't a bit deal. I turn one of my monitors sideways when i code. And for the 16 :10 yep it does makes sense for multitudes of work. And if you want to see a movie, it handles that, yes with bars, but you know filmmakers does make bars even on 16 :9 on purpose , even in imax in scenes to get a better feel. (Nerded out there a bit😋)

Why the heck is the Steam Deck in 16 by 10? Makes everything worse.

16:10 lets you watch 16:9 without silly overlays.

Fascinating as always. So PCs had whatever their productivity needed, but movies needed something more dramatic than what could be seen at home. So that's why iMax brought it around to more 4/3 again- more exciting than boring old stay-at-home widescreen.

I always thought of 16:9 as 4:3 but with the top and bottom cut off, instead of adding new content to the sides.

Wider screen = more things in the scene

The ST did not have One interesting game. All the games that existed on both systems where subpar on the ST. Only people that where interested in music and MIDI bought the ST. If they were interested in the Demo Scene they also had the Amiga.

Because our eyes are aligned horizontally.

Whatever happened to 5:4? ie 1280x1024

Funny how Graphic over gameplay was brought up in 1994/1995 and yet we still see issues like that today

I never abandoned 4:3! I still have a pair of 2048 x 1534 monitors and you can pry them from my cold dead hands. 1080p can bite my *ss!

I watched this on a 32:9 monitor :P It's very nice to be able to view 5 pages side by side for work

Human beings have a wide field of view. I’m surprised that we did not start with a wide aspect ratio..

In 2002, a lunatic attempted to take the Philips HQ in Amsterdam hostage to protest against the switch from 4:3 to widescreen. Philips is one of the leading companies to develop TV technology in the 20th century. He entered the building with a gun and explosives. However he entered the wrong building, as Philips moved to the adjacent tower a few months before, but he took the people he encountered hostage anyway. It ended by suicide but no one else was hurt.

How about 21:9? I love my 3440X1400.

I remember getting told about this at uni. I honestly thought it was just an urban legend.

Please delve deeper

Because wide screen has the same diagonal but much smaller pixel count so it was much cheaper for manufacturer to produce wide screen

I personally still prefer 5:4

I think We can all agree though, black bars baked into the video files is the worst and makes going between certain aspect ratios a nightmare. Video files should just be kept in their native aspect ratio with no boarders and just let the screen do the letter or pillar box.

Just putting it out there, a large 21:9 ultrawide monitor is just awesome. They can be as tall as a normal monitor but with a lot more room on each sides. Split screening programs is a dream and they dont feel cramped. Full screen video editors look amazing with time lines spanning the with of the screen. 2.4 movies fit really well and look incredible. PC gaming is just ideal with 21:9

Now it's 9 by 16

The power of that TV from '88 is the reason I love Japanese cars from the same era. I own 4 80's to 90's Japanese machines. They're tech was so advanced that it can withstand the test of time. Just as that tv can handle a PS5 TODAY lol

I just wish that video game cutscenes in 21:9 would fill my ultra wide monitor instead of having black bars above, below, and on the freaking sides.

at 15:34 when you show off the 4:3 TV which is presumably in your office, you are still displaying an image with an aspect ratio of 16:9 - ya silly goose! It would have made more sense to show us a 4:3 image on the game. I mean, it's really just an observation and something to giggle at. I thought the video was great! Thanks for the content!

My monitor was stated as a 21:9 aspect ratio (3440x1440).

Bro got sponsored by AMD, that's wild.

I have a 36" CRT, and I was able to move it by myself by ratchet-strapping it to my torso... until I realized there was no way for both me and the TV to waddle down the hall together. Once the TV reached the floor, it took everything my wife and I could muster to get it back up onto the stand.

A monitor that's 1920*1200 and running at at least 70Hz would be great for playing old DOS games in an emulator. You could resize 320*200 and 320*240 to 1600*1200 exactly and centre it. If you wanted to go higher, 3840*2400 would let you do the same with 640*400, 640*480, and 800*600 as well.