Answers.Body: <p>Depends on what your standard of quality is.  If your standard is maximal retina coverage, then, well, you've got round eyeballs, so a 1:1 aspect ratio would be the "best" rectangular shape.  But they don't make square TVs, let alone circle-shaped ones, which would be "better".  On the other hand, if you watch a lot of television, you'll get the most use out of your pixels with 16:9, which is what most stuff is broadcast in these days. If you watch more movies, then maybe you prefer 2.39:1.  Video games? 16:9.  Flight simulator? Maybe you want something panoramic. The best aspect ratio <em>for you</em> is the one that most closely matches the content you plan to consume most often.  And aspect ratio and viewing distance are unrelated; one has no impact on the other.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-15T21:46:25.140Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-15T21:52:13.273Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-03-15T21:52:13.273Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jason Conrad
Answers.Body: <p>For watching movies, screens with a greater width than height are better suited. Now the 16: 9 format is popular. For some video games, high screens are suitable, when the character is visible in full growth.</p>
  
  <p>It’s better to look at large screens from a high distance.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-16T14:52:28.540Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-16T14:52:28.540Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jordan Olex
Answers.Body: <p>I do not understand your question. As it is I would say <strong>nothing</strong>.</p>
  
  <p>Get a 16x9 inches monitor. It measures 16 x 9 inches. Now rotate it 90°. It has the exact same total displaying area but now measures 9 x 16 inches. The "optimal" viewing distance is the same.</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>If you are referring to different aspect ratios, the unit that is important and easier to get is the native <strong>linear</strong> PPI.</p>
  
  <p>Find out the horizontal resolution used and divide it by the horizontal physical measure of the display area.</p>
  
  <p>If your monitor has 1920 x 1080 px, use 1920.
  If the monitor measures 21 inches on the horizontal size:
  1920/21 = 91.4 PPI. Use that value to compare other monitors.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-13T19:09:37.993Z
Answers.Text: Thanks. I really meant **aspect ratio**: is it a third variable (together with display size and viewing distance) into play for the _optimal viewing distance_? Ottherwise, how does it affect the display quality?
Answers.UserDisplayName: GJC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-13T18:52:45.297Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-13T19:03:12.873Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-03-13T19:03:12.873Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rafael
Body: <p>How does the shape of screens (that is, different <em>"width x height"</em> values while keeping the same total displaying area) affect the quality for a given optimal viewing distance?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-19T10:56:43.993Z
Comments.Text: What is the underlying problem you're trying to solve?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Saaru Lindestøkke
Tags: <video-quality><4k>
Title: Effect of screen shape on video quality
UserDisplayName: GJC
ThreadText: # Effect of screen shape on video quality
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-03-13)
  
  How does the shape of screens (that is, different *"width x height"* values while keeping the same total displaying area) affect the quality for a given optimal viewing distance?
  
  **Tags:** video-quality, 4k
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: What is the underlying problem you're trying to solve?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2020-03-15. Score: 1 | Accepted answer
  
  Depends on what your standard of quality is. If your standard is maximal retina coverage, then, well, you've got round eyeballs, so a 1:1 aspect ratio would be the "best" rectangular shape. But they don't make square TVs, let alone circle-shaped ones, which would be "better". On the other hand, if you watch a lot of television, you'll get the most use out of your pixels with 16:9, which is what most stuff is broadcast in these days. If you watch more movies, then maybe you prefer 2.39:1. Video games? 16:9. Flight simulator? Maybe you want something panoramic. The best aspect ratio *for you* is the one that most closely matches the content you plan to consume most often. And aspect ratio and viewing distance are unrelated; one has no impact on the other.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2020-03-16. Score: 1
  
  For watching movies, screens with a greater width than height are better suited. Now the 16: 9 format is popular. For some video games, high screens are suitable, when the character is visible in full growth.
  
  It’s better to look at large screens from a high distance.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2020-03-13. Score: 1
  
  I do not understand your question. As it is I would say **nothing**.
  
  Get a 16x9 inches monitor. It measures 16 x 9 inches. Now rotate it 90°. It has the exact same total displaying area but now measures 9 x 16 inches. The "optimal" viewing distance is the same.
  
  ---
  
  If you are referring to different aspect ratios, the unit that is important and easier to get is the native **linear** PPI.
  
  Find out the horizontal resolution used and divide it by the horizontal physical measure of the display area.
  
  If your monitor has 1920 x 1080 px, use 1920.
  If the monitor measures 21 inches on the horizontal size:
  1920/21 = 91.4 PPI. Use that value to compare other monitors.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks. I really meant **aspect ratio**: is it a third variable (together with display size and viewing distance) into play for the _optimal viewing distance_? Ottherwise, how does it affect the display quality?  
  
  ---
  
  