1st option.
So what happens when things are recorded at different ratios? Black bars or distortion are the only two options.
16:9 is the best compromise between 21:9 and 4:3.
Pick your battles dude, you already lost this one.
The future will be expanding/contracting screens to fit the width of the source, which should satisfy Reddy Mercury
Had a different experience… watched The Matrix at a special venue where they’d rigged up a 5-story tall screen. But it was 50’ wide, so it was pretty close to a square. Worked okay.
So I don’t care about aspect ratio. I think having quality content is a bigger (and wider! Ha!) issue.
I mean, if I’ve got a choice between the next Adam Sandler movie in 16:10 @ 8K (4320p), RGB+Gold+UV, versus a Sherlock episode on my Gameboy color, I know what I’ll watch.
You can get projectors and screen that put out 2.35:1 rather than a conventional flat screen TV.
Here’s a google search: projectors with 2.35 - Google Search
16:9 is a good middle ratio of what’s currently available, and is suitably cinematic as a default. I see no reason for change. Especially since projection TVs effectively avoid the black bars on super widescreen ratios. For most TVs, if you watch with the lights out you don’t even see any black bars anyway.
One of the reasons we are stuck with cheap 16:9 computer screens is that they share the same production infrastructure with TVs. I think most people dislike 16:9 for computers. But as display technology continues to improve we are moving to another set of markets and tradeoffs. 4k displays, and larger monitors make things different. Also OLED technology may free up the computer monitors and allow them to move away from following TVs. A UHD TVs become more common, and the usual escalation of the market happens (or so the manufactures hope) we may see more diversity in home TV as well. The home theatre manufactures want to give you a more cinematic experience, whist the cinemas want to keep the experience for themselves. Something that works against future wide formats is that the IMAX format is 1.43:1. Cinema releases for IMAX get letterboxed, but not always. Some are shot with IMAX in mind and get cropped for normal cinema release. It is actually possible that the future will move back towards a squarer screen format but intended for a very large screen. If your screen is large enough and high enough resolution, you don’t care. 2.35:1, 1.43:1, anything in between. Just run it wall to wall. 
The whole problem with letterboxing is the loss of resolution with existing display technology. The black bars are just a symptom of lost resolution. Screen pixels that could have contained content that don’t. Once the screen and media has resolution better than the original content things change. If it gets letterboxed, there is no drama. It isn’t as if you are missing anything - the movie you see is exactly what was made. Cinemas have to cope with format changes all the time. They just letterbox things with curtains.
They do?
Specifically for computers, I find myself using portrait mode more and more.
Does the bezel surrounding the TV itself also annoy you?
That and the the wall around that, and the whole rest of the room. It really makes the content look cheap. Why can’t they fix this?! Big TV is ruining everything!
As others have said, that ship has already sailed. You might want to pick a new line in the sand.
(Again, for the umpteenth time, I have no idea what people have against letterboxing. No idea at all.)
I used Xerox Altos back in the day which were 3:4 portrait mode. I liked it for text editing and for a long time I felt portrait was better than landscape for computers. I even had a greyscale monitor once that allowed being rotated so I used it in portrait mode.
But once 16:9 very hi-res monitors came along and I could have two text pages side-by-side I’ve been very happy with landscape mode. Throw in the ability to watch decent quality video on them and it’s all good.
Movies come in some quite wide aspect ratios. I think a bit wider ratio for TV screens would be nice. But that would be bad for marketing due to all the people with black-bar phobia.
OTOH, I dread the idea mentioned by Exapno Mapcase: screens go portrait mode due to the clueless twits who don’t know they should rotate their phones for most things.
That’s crazy talk :eek:. Widescreen displays are the best thing to ever happen for CAD - plenty of room for menus on either side of the still sizeable work area. Same thing for Photoshop and similar programs. I occasionally have a need to go back to a 4:3 monitor and it is miserable.
Of course my normal setup is dual 16:9 monitors, so I guess in that sense I prefer 32:9…
I think he’s saying that more people want wider screens now, but those options are limited because everyone focuses on 16:9
I suppose you could just buy a fleet of monitors in all of the various ratios and steer the content to the matching one. It’s not an option I would take, but then I don’t think a 4:3 movie with black bars on the side looks cheap.
This will become a moot point as TVs and monitors continue to get larger, with higher resolution. Pretty soon we’ll be displaying content with black borders all around, just so you can see the whole screen at once. I’m already doing that right now: I’m typing this on a 32-inch 4K monitor, and my browser is occupying less than 1/3 of the screen. Anything larger would be annoying.
Heck, just this weekend I was watching a bunch of old b/w films on my set with the vertical letterboxing and it caused me no stress at all.
Like someone else said, you can always get a projection unit and “letterbox” with curtains.
If the old programs/films look particularly bad in your HD set, it may be because nobody has bothered remastering/cleaning them up for digital HD and the video source may have been created as 483 line, 30 fps NTSC analog. We only now notice it’s bad because we can compare it.