So why is the top screen 5:3 ratio instead of 16:9?

#1Grand_BluePosted 3/23/2013 9:17:37 PM
16:9 is the standard these days. What the heck is 5:3? The Vita is in 16:9, the Wii U gamepad is 16:9, even the iPod touch and iPhone switched to 16:9! But we're all used to it with the GBC, GBA, and the DS so it's not a big deal but I just wonder why 5:3...
---
The Boondocks on Adult Swim is my favorite anime.
#2Master_BassPosted 3/23/2013 9:19:08 PM
8:5 is where it's at!
---
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a23/omegazero55/Random/JudithOYO.gif
#3EbonMagicianPosted 3/23/2013 9:20:28 PM
why cant we just get 1:1?
---
3DS FC: Lotaphi 1118-1539-9491 --- Vita PSN: Bernkestel Wii U: Bernkastel
message me if you add me. yes, there is a spelling difference between my psn and wiiu
#4DirtBasedSoapPosted 3/23/2013 9:22:12 PM
From: EbonMagician | #003
why cant we just get 1:1?


lol
---
Posting from iPhone 6S.
#5NinjaKitsunePosted 3/23/2013 9:48:01 PM
From: DirtBasedSoap | #004
From: EbonMagician | #003
why cant we just get 1:1?


lol


Because that's for squares?
---
Press button, receive duck. Press button again, receive ductorate.
Don't press button third time. Don't ask why.
#6OoSubaruoOPosted 3/23/2013 9:53:42 PM
1+1=fish
#7theneovegaPosted 3/24/2013 11:01:12 AM
Interesting sidenote; 16x9 (1.85:1) is the most natural aspect ration for human vision, or the closest to how our eyes work.

But I imagine the 5:3 ratio is required by the parallax barrier screen coupled with the rectangular pixels... I dunno, any engineers in the house? But 1.66:1 is close enough to 1.85:1, the difference is minuscule. People paid more than you or I could ever hope to be paid have made these decisions, I'm sure they put some thought into it. :P
---
Serious gamers take themselves way too seriously.
#8KaiRyusakiPosted 3/24/2013 11:23:20 AM
theneovega posted...
Interesting sidenote; 16x9 (1.85:1) is the most natural aspect ration for human vision, or the closest to how our eyes work.

But I imagine the 5:3 ratio is required by the parallax barrier screen coupled with the rectangular pixels... I dunno, any engineers in the house? But 1.66:1 is close enough to 1.85:1, the difference is minuscule. People paid more than you or I could ever hope to be paid have made these decisions, I'm sure they put some thought into it. :P


But 16:10 (8:5) is closest to the Golden Ratio
#9theneovegaPosted 3/24/2013 11:59:20 AM
KaiRyusaki posted...
theneovega posted...
Interesting sidenote; 16x9 (1.85:1) is the most natural aspect ration for human vision, or the closest to how our eyes work.

But I imagine the 5:3 ratio is required by the parallax barrier screen coupled with the rectangular pixels... I dunno, any engineers in the house? But 1.66:1 is close enough to 1.85:1, the difference is minuscule. People paid more than you or I could ever hope to be paid have made these decisions, I'm sure they put some thought into it. :P


But 16:10 (8:5) is closest to the Golden Ratio


Touché, and I owe you a coke. I just remember in some documentary Spielberg talking the science behind why he chose to film most of his pictures in that ratio as opposed to scope back in film school. That was around 15 years ago, details may have been lost to time. Who am I kidding, there's no "may" to be had. X_X
---
Serious gamers take themselves way too seriously.