Is 18:9 better than 16:9 for smartphones?

Forums › Android › Is 18:9 better than 16:9 for smartphones?

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2651

Trusted

#214040 25-Apr-2017 11:17

I've have been keen to see phone makers reduce bezels, but I expected them to shave off the top and bottom bezels, keeping the 16:9 aspect.

Now LG and Samsung have released new near bezel-less phones, but in doing so have introduced a new 18:9 aspect ratio.

What do you think of the new ratio - do you like it? Will it become the new norm for all future phones, or will it be a flash in the pan like 3D TV and curved screens?

Personally, I'm not sure I like it (although I have yet to see a phone with this ratio in the flesh). The ratio just looks stretched; too tall and skinnny.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1770148 25-Apr-2017 11:21

I do not like it. It's annoying when developers need to release updates for aspect ratios to service a few % of the population. It's not like 18:9 is going to take over the world is it ?

richms

29098 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10207

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1770162 25-Apr-2017 12:31

Lets just go all the way to 21:9 instead of this silly half way inbetween thing. It will be like 14:9 was for video - a compromise that never fits anywhere.

Richard rich.ms

Behodar

11093 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6070

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1770180 25-Apr-2017 13:35

richms:

Lets just go all the way to 21:9 instead of this silly half way inbetween thing. It will be like 14:9 was for video - a compromise that never fits anywhere.

I've seen a few 21:9 TVs but I'm not sure where that ratio came from in the first place; it's still not quite as wide as "scope" so you still have a small amount of letterboxing when watching movies. Like you say, why not go all the way?

richms

29098 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10207

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1770198 25-Apr-2017 14:03

Behodar:

richms:

Lets just go all the way to 21:9 instead of this silly half way inbetween thing. It will be like 14:9 was for video - a compromise that never fits anywhere.

I've seen a few 21:9 TVs but I'm not sure where that ratio came from in the first place; it's still not quite as wide as "scope" so you still have a small amount of letterboxing when watching movies. Like you say, why not go all the way?

They seem to take the horizontal resolution from the next size up, so its 2160x1080 instead of 2160x1440 - and goes up from there. 2 vertical windows on a 21:9 work better than 16:9.

Im still waiting for a 21:9 1440p 144Hz monitor to come along to upgrade the desktop. Would like that on the phone. Its also good for editing video since you can get a little more size on the previews.

Richard rich.ms

1eStar

1604 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 375

#1770407 26-Apr-2017 08:12

As far as I can make out, 18:9 is actually 2:1 and ratios should always be resolved to the lowest common denominator.

ANglEAUT

altered-ego
2436 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 841

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1770415 26-Apr-2017 08:35

@1eStar: As far as I can make out, 18:9 is actually 2:1 and ratios should always be resolved to the lowest common denominator.

At least with 18:9 we can better estimate how it compares to 16:9. How many people can compare 16:9 and 2:1 in their head?

Please keep this GZ community vibrant by contributing in a constructive & respectful manner.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Behodar

11093 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6070

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1770435 26-Apr-2017 08:44

On the flip side, people still refer to 4:3 as 4:3, not 12:9!

Personally I prefer decimal :1 ratios, such as:

1.33:1 (4:3)
1.78:1 (16:9)
1.85:1 ("Flat" movie)
2.33:1 (21:9, ie. 7:3)
2.39:1 ("Scope" movie)
etc.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#1770601 26-Apr-2017 12:24

IcI:

@1eStar: As far as I can make out, 18:9 is actually 2:1 and ratios should always be resolved to the lowest common denominator.

At least with 18:9 we can better estimate how it compares to 16:9. How many people can compare 16:9 and 2:1 in their head?

And, as above, we should always cater to the lowest common denominator, right?

Still, I'd think (mistakenly?) that most people can multiply 2 x 9 and come up with 18 in their head!