I'm not sure how good sailfish would be on pointless 21:9 screen.

Let's not perpetuate this pointless idiocy. It's 7:3, FFS!

Marketing reasons aside, I don't really object to having 16:9 be the base ratio that other ratios are compared to by changing one of the numbers (instead of doing the maths and dividing both sides as much as possible), taking into consideration that it's the default screen ratio for far and away most of the screens in the world right now.

"This screen is 16:9" -> oh, it's a normal screen, aka widescreen

"This screen is 21:9" -> oh, it's one of those weird cinema screens that are wider than widescreen
"This screen is 7:3" -> uh, it's wide, but where's my frame of reference?

Or how about the slightly more exotic:

"This screen is 16:10" -> oh, it's slightly taller (or wider) than a normal screen
"This screen is 8:5" -> ???

"This screen is 16:12" or "this screen is 12:9" sounds silly because the idea of '4:3' is clear enough by itself, but in general, 16:9 is a useful point of reference.

Or, "This screen is 7:3" -> ahh, I see, it's almost twice as wide as 4:3!"

Why do you need a "frame of reference" anyway? Reference to what? The only reference you need is the width to height ratio. Which 7:3 expresses better that 21:9.

Things like "18:9" are even more ridiculous. Not only is it 2:1, but also... why 18:9? Why take the shorter side as the "reference"? Why not more logical 16:8? Could it be because, to the simpletons, 18:9 sounds like something has been "added", whilst 16:8 sounds like something has been "taken away"? In other words, nothing more than a marketing con?

All this talking about "reference" means that you, too, have fallen victim to it. Howgh!

[QUOTE=pichlo;1555633Why not more logical 16:8? [/QUOTE]

As I've already mentioned here, in math there's least common denominator. And I've thought everybody learned math in school.

Which leads us nicely back to 2:1 and 7:3

I don't think that 16:9 can have a denominator of 3 so you could compare them
As well as 16:10 can't have denominator of 2 so you could compare it with 15:10.

PS Did you miss the word common?

With all due respect, madam or sir, I believe it was you who did.

The common denominator of 21 and 9 is... 3! Hence 21:9 = 7:3. QED.

common denominator is a term applied to 2 different fractions, i.e. 21:9 and 16:9, so you can compare them.

PS I can't believe I write this. It's what scholars learn when they are 10 or 11 y.o. at least where I live.

No, because as I said, probably 95% of all of the screens worldwide are now 16:9. It's the default aspect ratio.

Simpletons rule the world, but you're splitting hairs here. Human eyesight stretches much farther horizontally than vertically, so yes, 18:9 has something added to the sides compared to 16:9. These strange aspect ratios don't exist in a vacuum but in a world with other aspect ratios, so being able to compare them at a glance is much more beneficial than wanting to write less numbers for a reason that's still unclear to me.

4:3
13:9
14:9
5:3
16:9
17:9
2:1
19:9
20:9
7:3
22:9
23:9
8:3
24:9
25:9
3:1

All of the fractions in this list make sense when you take them out of context. They don't make any sense if you reinstate their context.

"Is 8:3 narrower than 23:9?" "Well, first we have to multiply both sides by three, which results in 24:9, which is wider than 23:9, so 8:3, which is equal to 24:9, is wider than 23:9, and not narrower."

"Is 24:9 narrower than 23:9?" "No."

For completeness' sake, I have actually seen several ads that mention a "2:1" screen ratio, so what all this has to do with a marketing con(spiracy) beats me.

Edit: for the record, I realise I only put ratios that end in :9 in that list. You could of course make an infinite list of ratios like 53:31, but that only strengthens my point. Without a point of reference, or as lantern said a common denominator, they're all meaningless.