I feel like I'm peeking through a letterbox..
I feel like the size of these monitors has to increase so that the lack of verticality isn't emphasised so much.
2.39:1 is about the right aspect ratio for this in my opinion.
With 1.78:1 (16:9) displays, I have found that the limiting factor on how close I want to sit to the screen is its height.
When I sit as close as I comfortably can to a 16:9 display, there's still a large gap at the edges of my vision.
With a 2.39:1 (21.5:9) display, when I sit at the same distance as a 16:9 display based on height, the display extends out into my peripheral vision and provides a more immersive experience.
With a 3.56:1 (32:9) display, or multi-monitor setups, I find that I either have to sit farther back from the screen to accommodate its width - which makes them look short - or I lose a lot of the extra width to my periphery if I am sitting closer to fill my view vertically like the 1.78:1 or 2.39:1 displays.
Now if multi-res shading were a more universally supported feature, I might have different feelings about it, as it certainly
does cover more of your peripheral vision when you sit close.
But I feel that there's little
useful benefit of wider-than-2.39:1 display setups. I'd much rather have a larger 2.39:1 display, like a 58" 5120x2160 TV for example.
Another factor is that the majority of movies are ~2.39:1 native. Going wider than that just means having black bars at the edges of the display.
