Screen Ratio: The Final Fagging

It's a mystery

...

it means 4:3 is better, if not the best. widescreens were made by jews so that niggers could watch videos without muh black bars.

it also makes reading text very difficult unless you resize the window to make lines wrap around. are books printed with lines of text going across both fucking pages? no, it wraps around on each page because that makes it easier to read.

widescreens are one of the most niggerlicious things to come to modern computers, second only to hardware backdoors built right into our cpus. island keyboards are basically third in place, in case you are curious about my stance on that.

For graphic applications, 30" 16:9 is about the horizontal limit after which fringes are too far off axis. 27" 16:9 is already ergonomically poor when put into portrait position. Vertical is still underutilized in the case of 16:9, so if we want to maximize panel area while increasing resolution, 4:3 is needed. The ergonomic limit is probably 34" 4:3 7680*5760.

if youre talking about shitty chicklet laptop keyboards, i must confer, they are one of my absolute all time pet peeves. perhaps it would be too much to ask to create a tented cover to allow for chunkier keycaps

forgot pic

Do you know what would be a really easy fix for this? Somebody should develop a monitor with a button that when pressed would make it emulate a 4:3 screen. Basically, whatever OS you use would think that you had suddenly disconnected the 16:9/10 monitor you were using and attached a 4:3 one. That way you could watch movies and vidya at the ideal ratio and then switch to block mode for reading books and programming and serious work

Just make a keycombination that sets it up for you fam

Go back to Reddit, kid.

can i make it voice activated so it toggles when i screech
GO GO MEGAFORCE

I am so glad to have 3 x 16:10 monitors.

They should have just kept making laptops with 4:3 display and good keyboards. Watching movies on laptop sucks anyway.
Well I'm not buying anymore. Next computer is Beaglebone or something like that.

There is something called multitasking gramps, it's not the 8086 era anymore. Coding in a 4:3 monitor is shit, since you can't get two columns of code at once, or anything else at once.
You may have a point with multimonitor 4:3 setups, but that's not the default case.

eventually they wont even have actual keyboards, just a resistive touch grid with qwerty painted on
inb4 some dell/hp/apple engineer lurks in this board and actually uses this idea
what have i done

This is garbage post... 20 years ago I was writing code in Ada95 on a 486DX33 with two rxvt's side-by-side with a 15-inch monitor.
Now you have all botnet shit and jewscreens, and you suck the jew dick and ask for more. Well you're a faggot, that's it.

coding with a 16:9 in portrait is actually pretty cool

Are you running every window in fullscreen or what? All that extra space is meant to be used to move things around, not so that your field of view is the only screen space available.

his main gripe is that he has to actually move his head to switch his view from one side of the monitor to the other

Exactly.
RRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
WHO THE FUCK THOUGHT IT TO BE A GOOD IDEA IN LAPTOPS?!?!
The portability is literally limited by the width, not height. You could easily expand it vertically to square and it would be just as portable and usable in cramped spaces, but with much more screen estate to use.
FUCK SHORTSCREENS WITH A BARBED WIRE DILDO AND NO LUBE

Square would be optimal tbh. I long for a 4k × 4k monitor.

that would be pretty damn expensive

I think you need a Thinkpad!

We don't have the magic for that yet

Modern Thinkpads are all 16:9.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroids_(video_game)

Thats basically a crt though.
I also realised why my post is dumb, if you use non square pixels you can get the desired screen ratio. basically, you can get a φ:1 screen ratio despite not having a φ:1 pixel ratio.

21:9 is the golden ratio, not sure why more people don't use it

WICKED SICK

4:3 != 1024x768.
I program every day on a 1600x1200 monitor and have zero problems with multitasking. In fact it's even better since everything stays in my field of view.
Two columns of text fits nicely and there's also the option to split horizontally, which is a nightmare on a widescreen.

It's not, a conventional CRT still deals with vertical lines of resolution, even if the horizontal resolution is only limited by the precision of the laser.
A vector display draws in lines rather than dots, which means that you can have true diagonal lines, whereas on a standard monitor they will always be aliased at the pixel level. They're not really practical for regular use since drawing complicated shapes (like text) is slow, but they're still used on things like oscilloscopes to draw waveforms.

1024/768
512/384
256/192
128/96
64/48
32/24
16/12
8/6
4/3

4/3 == 1024/768

now get out, faggot: >>>/v9k/

My point was that there are higher resolutions in a 4:3 ratio, since he complained about not being able to fit enough on a single screen.

well 1600:1200 is the highest ive seen 4:3 go but if 1:1 is acceptable theres always this: eizo.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/

i came

1920x1440 was common on higher-end CRTs, and 2048x1536 existed too. I don't know about anything higher than that except in niche markets like medical imaging.

The 1:1 monitor is a curiosity and I'd love to try one, but that price is just too steep.

try this on for size: eizo.com/products/duravision/fdh3601/
its a prehistoric 4k monitor

IBM actually has them beaten by a decade.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

[email protected]/* */ at 22", requiring 2 DVI cables.
As far as I know this and its variants are the only 8/5 "4K" monitors that exist.

Am I the only one who finds it extremely uncomfortable to not be able to see the pixels?

Yes
Good trips

checked

...

That's hilarious and infuriating at the same time.

b8/8

...

That's the whole point you faggot.

the context was screen ratio you nitpicking fag

His point was that 1024×768 isn't the only 4:3 resolution and you were the nitpicking fag.

fair enough

are you on drugs? the pixel size and shape is irrelevant. heck, there's a variety of pixel and sub-pixel formats already. the number of pixels (and therefore the aspect ratio) is given by... the number of pixels, not their physical dimensions.

Let's assume that it's possible to have a screen ratio of φ using square pixels, sized 1u × 1u, u being an unspecified unit. The screen has h pixels horizontally, and v pixels vertically. The screen ratio is then (h * 1u)/(v * 1u) = h/v. Since a number of pixels has to be natural, we need to find h, v ∈ ℕ so that h/v = φ. φ is irrational, however, which means that such a h and v do not exist.

did this thread just get raided by /math/

Not necessarily, some systems use non-square pixels. For example, the Apple Lisa ran at 720x360, but the picture was stretched to a 4:3 screen.

This isn't really possible today though, it was only done on CRTs because they don't 'stretch' as such, it's more like painting more discrete points per line within a given physical space.

Dumb niggers.
Widescreen exists because your eyes are placed horizontally and you have a more extensive peripheral vision area at the laterals rather than the verticals.

That only works when the screen is big enough to divide it it several smaller screens.

I have nothing against 4:3 though.
Why even bother then?

Just to add 2.4:1 is awful when there's absolutely no reason to not use 16:10 but in the context of art Not saying BvS is art helps to focus in what's important, not to make a wallpaper out of every shot.

Ok fags, which one has better black & bright and why?

4:3, and 16:10 should be the only ratios that exist, as well as the occasional 5:4. The worst of the worst, 16:9 is for eunuchs.

OLED probably has better contrast ratio than CRT since with OLED each pixel is illuminated directly instead of from an electron gun. However, OLED and CRT will both have identical black levels. You literally cannot get any blacker than "there's no fucking pixels on here" unless you go to Compton fam

How about 3:2 like the current Microsoft Surface? It's just a bit wider than 4:3.

The qualities of vision are not uniform across its whole span. Peripheral vision is highly specialised for detecting motion but very poor at resolving detail. You notice something move out of the corner of your eye, but never the pattern on a dress. 2.4:1 is very well suited to what its used for; film. It's great for immersion, but notice that In a well composed shot there will be little of note happening on the extreme edges.

Using a widescreen computer monitor on the other hand necessitates either constant eye movement or having the screen occupy only a small area of your vision. 's image is correct in that 4:3 is a much better fit for the highly resolving centre of human vision.

As I said I have nothing against 4:3 I was just responding to the faggots who said that wide screen was developed from 4:3 as marketing grab.
You wanna hear some real marketing grab?
Curved TV's.
Anyway I agree with anything more wide than 16:10 for working and gaming purposes is a sin.

Nice I like it.

Right now I'm downloading a show and its the first I've seen in 720x576, is an European cartoon from 2006 so its probably some weird PAL stuff.
I've seen some 640x480 versions on YouTube but they look like zoomed and cropped.

Can somebody inform me why the difference between the PAL and NTSC standards.
Is it even relevant anymore?

Prematurely posted.
Shit, cont.
Is kinda weird to watch something in 720x576.
For some times my brain wants to tell me that stuff is 1:1.

But it was all for cutting costs. You swallowed the marketting lie that widescreen laptops is what people wanted, what businesses wanted. Well no, a lot of people specifically didn't want it.
gadgetteaser.com/2010/01/21/professionals-still-lament-the-43-laptop/

First they decided not to simply use Murica's standard because NTSC's color encoding was seriously crap. Then they chose the 50Hz frequency because Europe's electricity was 50Hz in the first place. Made things easier electronically. Now I'm guessing this left some bandwidth for extra resolution, so they thought, why not use it?

Oh, and it was not just a marketing grab, in the sense of "let's make them believe this crap is something special". It was much worse: they really were selling less screen for the same price.

When you have two screens with the same "inches", the same diagonal - and one is regular but the other is ultra-wide, the latter is much smaller. See, it's fuckin basic geometry. The correct measurement of a screen is by area, that's height x width. Given the same diagonal, the "wider" the screen is, the smaller it actually is; a square screen will give you the largest area - that is, the most screen.

Even worse than simply cost cutting; 16:9 is a bastard aspect that was settled upon solely as a compromise since it equally letterboxes 4:3 content and 2.35:1 content.

What this means in reality of course is that it's way too wide to comfortably work on and way too narrow to appreciate film. A true bottom-feeder's solution leaving computer enthusiasts with expensive monitors and film enthusiasts with projectors.

There are still some reasonably priced 30" 2560x1600 16:10 monitors on eBay.

You don't need to look this far. The PC had it's share of popular non-4:3 resolutions displayed on a 4:3 screen. 1280×1024, 640×400 and 320×200 were probably the most common, but the late-DOS era had many more.

Nothing 4k though unless you count Grandpa T221, and it's unlikely we'll get them anymore as resolutions increase.

Is this a good TV base? I designed it years ago.
I don't think it'll ever catch on as it would be too expensive while real TV stanfs are just constly enough to make sure that it works but not more money put into their production, but at least makes me feel that my TV won't fall down on it's own weight.

NTSC has a pants on head retarded framerate because it wasn't originally made for color and they wanted to keep compatibility with older TV-sets without modifications.

I have no idea how the UK, which was the first country in the world with proper TV broadcasts, did it though. PAL is from the 50s, and they had TV broadcasting since the 20s.

And it's gross.

Faggotry in general is.

They used even more ancient broadcasting standards:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/405-line_television_system

5:4 is a fantastic aspect ratio for photo editing. When there's a vertical toolbar, both portrait and landscape oriented photos can have basically the same resolution. 4:3 is an acceptable alternative. Fuck wide screens for editing portrait-oriented photos.

All I can find are old Apple monitors, many of which say they don't come with a power cable. Wish some Gook company would sell cheap 16:10 monitors like they sell cheap 16:9 1440p monitors, would snatch a dozen in a heartbeat.

Is that a fucking zip disk?

Just search for: 2560x1600

You aint seen nothin yet

No. The backlights are white light.

This level of retardation is the result of government schooling, and the dumbing down of colleges and institutions of higher learning to cater to the lowest common denominator.

These days it would not surprise me if a guy like this told me he had a master's degree.

I'm seeing at least $500 for a Dell U3011. If that's reasonably priced for you then you're a luckier man than I.

"Why haven't we returned to the moon guys?"

I seriously hope you guys don't watch this. You might be a normalfaggot.

Holla Forums here, i watched it
it sucked ass

No, actually I'm a serious poorfag. I'm thinking of getting a Korean 27" 2560x1440 (16:9 sadly) for half that much, and even that is a stretch.

Damn that thing looks beautiful

Jews, obviously.

what am I looking at? I thought floppy drives used to be pretty common.

CACHE CARD ONLY
HRNNNNNNGGG

that image looks like something but i cant put my finger on it

You shouldn't put your finger on it..

Not just a finger... you can put your whole fist.

Yeah who the fuck touches a monitor

bump

ultrawide is like two 4:3 side by sides, without any boarders in middle

Actually, it's like a lower half of a 4:3, with an extra border if you want to also have an upper half.

Holy fuck those stalker are good musicians.

4:3 is better
You could be autistic about "muh golden ratio is mathematically perfect"
That is until you realize that pixels are discrete like integers, and the 3-4-5 pythagorean triple is truly an amazing set of numbers, and is only observed in 4:3 aspect ratio

Really happy to hear my Holla Forums fams share my loathing for welding mask resolutions. I was suspicious when widescreen was first pushed on everyone, and I've been furious about the loss of 4:3 and 5:4 for ages. Felt like everyone was taking fucking crazy pills all these years.

Still using a 5:4 for my desktop right now and I'm really worried about what I might be able to replace it with some day.

Dear God I Hate the French

...

kill yourself

Here is France's complete military history:

- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who heard voices and wore men's clothes who inadvertently created The First Rule of French Warfare: "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.

- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion
- In football parlance France played the 10-0-0 formation against the Huguenots.

- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

- The Dutch War
- Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France collapses?"

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage."

Or, better still, the quote from the Wall Street Journal: "They're there when they need you."

Before the French start saying "Well, what about out victory at the Battle of Hastings?" I think it's only right to point out that it was the NORMANS, not the French, who prevailed at that battle. The mistaken belief that 1066 was a French victory leads to the Third Rule of French Warfare: "When incapable of any victory whatsoever - claim someone else's".

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
SOMEBODY BAN THAT NAMEFAGGING PIECE OF SHIT SPAMMER ALREADY

I'm totally appreciating the lack of a heat sink on that Am386 SX.

this

not sure if sarcasm or legit

Spoler that shit, zip drive on that proud portable. Why not just put a parallel port burner on it while your at it. Learn2Interlnk.exe

...

It doesn't sound like sarcasm. At this point I even miss my 486DX/33 that had tiny heatsink and no fan.
My computer before that was Amiga 1200, no heatsink on that one, just the 68EC020. I had an opportunity after that to upgrade to a used Amiga 3000 with a full 68030 (only 16 Mhz though, no the 25), but fucked up and bought the 486 instead. Commodore was already history at that point, and I figured it was time to move on. Boy did I fuck up. It's my biggest computer regret ever.

In the 90s there were even workstations with only passive cooling. x86 is an overheating pile of crap from the 70s with way too much shit stacked on top.

I'm set in my ways. I only change the size of windows when I actually want to work with two or more programs at once. I also use Pale Moon with the menu bar and status bar enabled, and web browsers are the only programs that I use tabs for. I set all my programs to open in new windows if I can. :^)

well computers in the 90s werent dealing with literal gigabytes worth of data being transferred in seconds

lolk, im an oldfag, idiot, u cant ban me

now Im going 2 be super pretentious since I'm an oldfag who udnerstand imageboards sooo well that I actually name fag

gas yourself

Just a bachelor's (from top 20 school in burgerland)