Hacker News Reader

Comment by saycheese | Hacker News Reader

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-lx10...

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.

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.

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?

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-...

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.

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?

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.

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/2013/01/43169aspectc...

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com