It's clearly better

16:9 is better for games.
16:10 is better for work.
4:3 is irrelevant.

4:3 was perfect, we should have never abandoned it.

>>59550470
> we
lmao
(pic related)

>>59550470
I want to go back to 4:3, but i have an asus rog swift and dont wanna go back to shitty hz

Wish I had 16:10

4:3 is the best for work
4:3 is the best for games
16:10 is the best for entertainment

>>59550390
21:9 is where it's out. Basically fills your entire field of view you just need to adjust the field of view angle in game to match.

File: Samsung-Curved-Monitor-3.jpg (2MB, 2736x1824px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2736x1824px

wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide

>>59550511
get a CRT, they have like 200hz refresh rates and are mostly 4:3

File: eb8b25c4b1614ff269e43352944d35405f73d413c6a75ed9074276718f61d918.jpg (180KB, 714x1000px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 714x1000px

>>59550818
how do you figure out what hz is right for a CRT TV? also dpi for that matter.

only info I can find on the two I picked up is 300 scanline res

File: IMG_2441.jpg (197KB, 800x705px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 800x705px

>>59550781
>that cable management

>>59550852
For a TV? 50Hz or 60Hz, depending on whether it's a PAL set or NTSC set respectively.
For a monitor? Look up the model number for a manual, and if that doesn't work, see if your GPU can define a custom resolution (I think AMD, Intel and nVidia all offer the option with their recent drivers), and just keep messing with the resolution and refresh rate until you get something that works and you're comfortable with.
Note that resolution and refresh rate are inversely proportional, so while a monitor may support 1080p and 120Hz display settings, you generally can't have both at the same time. You can find a common middle ground though, such as 720p at 85Hz for example, but it depends on the monitor.

>>59551058
Thanks, they're both televisions. How do I figure out the resolution? One is 13" and displays at 1280x720, but it comes out insanely blurry so I've been running at 800x600. The other is 9" and professional grade (JVC TM-90SU, used for monitoring in TV stations) and I believe I run it at 720p and it comes out beautifullly sharp without trouble. using xrandr on obsd, outputting hdmi -> s-video with adapter.

>>59551278
CRTs have no native resolution, so just use whatever looks best.

>>59550390
I prefer 16:12

4:3 is nice when sideways next to another monitor.

File: wallup-32347.jpg (566KB, 3440x1440px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 3440x1440px

lol fuck all of you
Ultrawide masterrace

>>59550390
I want a 3840x2400 144Hz Freesync 2 monitor.

>>59551580
why the fuck don't the movies look like this???

>>59550781
>cables between keyboard and monitor
>Borderlands 2

You suck at so much.

>>59550781

no thank you

>>59551338
CRT TVs have a native resolution, it's 320x240 or some shit like that. Every other CRT has a native resolution too, the one which matches the actual number of pixels in the CRT. They just scale down better than LCD displays.

Monitor CRT Master Race.

Widememers need no apply.

>>59550461
>>59550470
>>59550709
I believe 5:4 is most comfortable for text information...
Formatted or not

>>59553109
>CRT TVs have a native resolution

Wrong, CRTs are not fixed pixel displays.

There's no such thing as a best ratio. With 16:9 you can add vertical pixels to make it 16:10, which you can then add horizontal pixels in order to turn it back into 16:9.

16:9 is only "better" for games because most games use Hor+ scaling, but it's worse for games that use Vert- scaling. Both ratios are perfectly fine for movie watching because black bars aren't a problem if you aren't retarded.

Just use the fucking ratio that works the best for you.

>>59550511
My crt is 160hz and its not even OC... It's from 2002

>>59550390
>I don't understand what a "ratio" is
>I think "widescreens" are actually "wider"
>can't grasp that with the same logic, 4:3 is "taller"

>>59550390

After using a 21:9 ultrawide I can definitely say that vertical space is more important for reading.

File: 1489996396766.png (277KB, 728x522px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 728x522px

>ultra-meme is too narrow
>4k only works at 40"+
>4k monitors are all glossy or semi-glossy shit
>worry about dead pixels on 4k

Reminder that 21:9 is master race.

I love my 4:3 monitor even though it's like a decade old. Still gets 75Hz and plays 1080p videos quite well, but it's useful for everything.

File: whatitsreallylike.jpg (149KB, 1919x1079px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1919x1079px

>>59550390
stop shilling outdated technology

>>59550461
This may have been true back in the days of small monitors.
Now though 16:9 allows you to go bigger for less money.
There's very little reason to get an odd aspect ratio like 16x10, or 21:9 if you can get a 16:9 screen that has the same size vertical or horizontal that you care about but which is taller / wider than the other option for about the same price.

40" 2160p displays should be the new standard

>>59553997
>4k monitors are all glossy or semi-glossy shit

not true, mine is not lossy at all

what are some goof 4:3 monitors ?

>>59554316
This
People need to realize that you can always get a bigger 16:9 screen. But if you get a big 4:3 screen it eventually gets uncomfortable because nobody wants to look up. It's easier to look to the sides. With a 4:3 monitor you are limiting your sideway view greatly even if you could have picture there as well.

I just don't use the right bit of my 1440p, it's like a budget 16:10.

>>59550497
nice pic

>>59550970
It probably looked just fine when he had only one monitor

>>59553111
CRT is junk

Enjoy your pixel density

>>59550781
>phone placed uncomfortably beside mouse so you'd inevitable keep hitting it with your hand
>chinkpad placed in an awkward and hard to reach spot where it will be difficult to remove without nudging monitors
anon clearly just wants to show off all the tech he owns instead of demonstrating the triple monitors

File: goldenratio.jpg (153KB, 702x810px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 702x810px

Which aspect ratio is the closest to the golden ratio?

>>59554364
its because dogs can't look up.
We've found you out anon, you're actually a dog.

>>59550390
Resolution is the answer. Not aspect ratio. In theory 16:10 is better for spreadsheet, text, etc but in reality you get 16:10 with 1920x1200 while for 16:9 screens 2560x1440 or higher is already the de facto standard (if you buy new that is). I guess there are some high res 16:10 monitors but manufacturers nowadays don't bother updating their 16:10 lines so these will forever be stuck at 1920x1200.

>>59554796
Good thing im too poor to buy 2560x1440 monitors, and was cheap enough to buy a 1920x1200 off craigslist for $75

>>59554327
they will be.

>>59550390
4:3 is amazing

>>59554822
A 1440p screen wouldn't be that much more expensive. You can get them for $200 new so realistically speaking a used one might go for $100.

>>59550390
Does anyone still play trackmania? I loved that shit

>>59550390
16:10 is the best ratio there's no real debate.

>>59554327
>40" 2160p displays should be the new standard
completely overkill for desktop use. Not the resolution, the size. Any setup that requires you to turn your head even in the slightest is unergonomic. Where I live this is actually illegal for work place use. Unless of course you position the screen so far away that you don't need to turn your head. In that case you'd have to upscale so much though that the additional size wouldn't give you any advantage over a regular 27" (or 28" because that seems to be the new standard with 1440p and higher)

>>59550461
4:3 is for watching Star Trek NG

4:3 for niggers
16:10 for western white master race
16:9 for chinks/japs

>>59555150
Wrong. I'd choose a 1440p screen over a 1200p screen all the time. Higher resolution 16:10 screens are rare and expensive compared to their 16:9 counterparts. They're certainly not worth it.

>>59554870
>Any setup that requires you to turn your head even in the slightest is unergonomic

I hear this constantly from small minded small monitor users. You no more have to turn your head for a 40" display than you would for a multi monitor setup. Its actually a little less wide than the typical pair of 24" displays, and about as tall as a 24" display turned vertically.

>Unless of course you position the screen so far away that you don't need to turn your head. In that case you'd have to upscale so much though that the additional size wouldn't give you any advantage over a regular 27" (or 28" because that seems to be the new standard with 1440p and higher)

This also false, even at slightly more than arm length (about the distance any monitor would be wall mounted) the display is fully usable and doesn't require any kind of scaling or appared loss of usable space.
Unless you lean foward and place your eyes inches from the screen these are non-issues.

>Where I live this is actually illegal for work place use.

Sounds like a bad place to live.

>>59554327
t. madman
nigger this equals 110PPI. is this the stone age? a 40" screen needs at least twice that resolution. it's 2017. why isn't >200PPI standard by now? panels aren't even that expensive. we could easily go for 300+PPI. btw 40" is retarded for a desktop user. when sitting upright the top bezel must be at eye level. there's no way you're gonna achieve that with a 40" screen

>>59555325
>bad place to live
Not really. Germany. According to German law for work place use the upper third of the display must be at eye level. There's actually a lot of regulation on how to arrange the work place here. For example, the whole field of view must be illuminated equally. Black components are to be avoided. Keyboards must be bright with dark letters. That's why ThinkPads originally came with stickers that said "Not for office use" in Germany. They're still not allowed in the office unless docked. Just to spread some fun facts.
But note, no one will care about these laws unless employees file a complaint.

File: GhGQHFw.jpg (296KB, 1920x900px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1920x900px

>>59551580
More like ultrashort.

>>59552784
Because it's short and ugly.

>>59551580
>1440 vertical pixels
nigger is this the 1800s?

>>59555469
>the upper third of the display must be at eye level
Well then mine would qualify. The upper third of my display is at eye level. That's a big difference from 'the bezel must be at eye level'.

>For example, the whole field of view must be illuminated equally.
Again, this isn't really a problem for a large format display since it fills a larger amount of the field of view. Similar to a triple monitor setup.

>Black components are to be avoided. Keyboards must be bright with dark letters.
Gross

>>59555534
>fills a larger amount of the field of view
That's the problem. A screen is arguably brighter than its surroundings. That's why a larger screen leads to more illumination of one part of your field of view while the surroundings seem a bit darker in contrast. I'm self employed now so I don't need to worry about these things but if I were to equip an employee's work place with a 40" screen it would have to be one with silver non reflective bezels and set it to no more than 150nits to make up for the brightness of the larger screen.

>>59554619
16:10 is literally the golden ratio

>>59555610
It is but currently 16:10 screens just can't keep up. They standard is still 1920x1200 while 16:9 has moved way beyond that.

>>59555649
>what is 2560x1600
you're a niggerfaggot

>>59555670
I didn't say it doesn't exist. It's just rare and for the most part even more expensive than a reasonably priced 4k 16:9 screen.

>>59550781
Terrible game for this demonstration. The fucking gun takes up the entire vertical of the middle screen which tells me they didnt so much expand horizontal field of view as chop off the vertical and then blew up that was left. What is the fucking point!?

File: >wide.jpg (114KB, 1919x1079px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1919x1079px

>>59554316
i got you senpai

>>59555695

To make sure that high ground advantage beats peripheral vision.

>>59555684
so get a 4k screen, set it to a 16:10 res with pixel-perfect scaling so you get the rest of the screen off if you're that autistic

>>59555752
Oh god I didn't anticipate the level of retard I was dealing with. With a 4k 16:9 screen you get 2160 vertical pixels, so why would anyone run it with anything but native res? There's no point. With a resolution that high the need for 16:10 is completely eliminated. With current software no one could really take advantage of even more vertical space on a large desktop screen. On a laptop it's different of course because of the higher levels of scaling.

>>59555752
Nigger the whole purpose of 16:10 is giving the user more vertical space, not less horizontal space. Would you seriously prefer a 2560x1600 screen over a 3840x2160 screen just because it's got a different aspect ratio? Face it, 16:9 at 4k is the go to standard until there are some valid WQUXGA options.

>>59555826
then i don't see the problem

>>59550497
I really like this image, mind if I save it?

File: 1490323074113.jpg (91KB, 1919x1079px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1919x1079px

>>59550390
16:10 is clearly better here

>>59555492
>i don't know how scaling works

File: Untitled.png (9KB, 906x760px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 906x760px

>>59556515
whoops did that backwards

>>59550781
Terrible

>>59556515
>>59556524
>I confuse dimensions with ratios
>I use a ratio designed for movies to do computer work

Don't make a mess when you kill yourself.

>>59555469
Wtf? When did germany become communist???

>>59556674
1945~1949

>>59554682
Dogs look up constantly. Have fun viewing things close to ceiling, just so you can cover your horizontal field of vision with your 4:3 monitor. It's not practical to have almost anything high above your head so monitors are better when they are stretched horizontally instead. People can see almost 180° just by looking forward and moving eyes is easier than turning your neck.

File: 20170323_232105.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

There's dozens or hundreds of ways to combine resolution and aspect ratios into arrangements that will be better or worse suited to your particular usage habits. Use what works best for you.

I just got this setup, and it's really growing on me. Having to "look up" isn't uncomfortable or difficult, it just took getting used to. A decade of side-by-side monitor arrangements is a lot of training to overcome.

I'll be replacing the 21.5" 1080 on the bottom with a 27" 1440 next, so they'll actually match physical width and x resolution. Another 16:9 on top would have been too much vertical space.

One of my roommates is probably going to stack two 21:9 monitors, and my other uses a more traditional side-by-side 16:9 arrangement. They all work well. I just like mine the best.

>>59558954

Shit, sorry about the orientation. It showed correctly in the phones gallery, in gmail, in dropbox, and in Windows. It's just 4chin that's fucking retarded.

1x1 is perfect for everything. everything else is just a bad representation of the perfection

>>59554327
ultrawide is better for work, as it allows two square windows side by side

16:9 is worthless for work, 4:3 is optimal, and ultrawide is like 2x 4:3 put together

File: Paul_Schneider_Dickenschied_Kirche_600x800[1].jpg (115KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 600x800px

>>59550470
it literally is perfect.

>hurr you have a wider field of view horizontally
yeah, and that's why 4:3 looks square even though it isn't. It's perfectly matched to your natural wide field of view.

>1:1 master race

16:10 will always be superior

>>59557394
>Dogs look up constantly. Have fun viewing things close to ceiling, just so you can cover your horizontal field of vision with your 4:3 monitor.

Field of vision is symmetrical +- inter-eye distance you faglord.

>>59550390
>some shit game keeps vertical angle of view constant therefore 4/3 is bad.

File: ev2730q-flexscan.jpg (50KB, 1053x702px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1053x702px

>>59550390
1:1 is the only choice

File: 1DKVpZx.jpg (229KB, 1000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1000x1333px

>>59559848
>not using 21:9 in portrait

>>59559884

>Viewing entire wikipedia articles without scrolling!

I feel like it's hard to make use of that much vertical screen real estate without the horizontal space to match it, but for some things it would work great. Like status logs or something.

>>59559884
What on the actual fuck
>being able to see the entire thread without scrolling

>>59555874
No, the purpose of 16:10 was to compromise between 4:3 and 16:9. It was an ideal transition resolution between the former to the latter since it had roughly equal black space when scaled proportionally across 16:10.

Since everything is either 16:9 or ultrawide, there was little desire to maintain or improve 16:10.

>>59560168
>resolution
I meant ratio.

>>59559848

noooo why would you post my waifu senpai!

>>59560168
wrong.
14:9 was a transition aspect used by some television stations to minimize black bars on both formats

16:10 is golden ratio, i.e. two pages of text next to each other

>>59550390
meanwhile in the real world:
>16:9 1600x900
>16:10 1440x900
>4:3 1600x1200

16:10 is the perfect resolution for cucks who like reduced horizontal space and the same vertical one

>>59561350
meanwhile in the real world
1680x1050

File: 1484105679520.gif (1MB, 320x213px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x213px

>>59550781
what the fuck

>>59560897
16:10 is close to the golden ratio, it actually isn't the golden ratio.

>>59550390
5:4 master race

>>59561858
yeah but the actual golden ratio is irrational

16:10>5:4>4:3>>>16:9

16:9 is complete utter rubbish

>>59550390
4:3? Yes, it is.

16:9 LMAOOO DUDE Movies and even in that sense it's shit in comparison to 2.39:1

>>59555179
Price is not part of the equation

>>59561920
After a certain point with screen size the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 just stops mattering. At 1080p that extra 120px is a huge deal because it makes a much larger difference in terms of amount of usable vertical space. At 2160p on the other hand an extra 240px really doesn't make that big of a difference.

16:9's advantage as the standard is that whatever problem you may have with it can be solved by going to a larger/higher resolution display.

>>59562268
>with it can be solved by going to a larger

Yeah and I don't have that space neither at work nor at home.

Hell I am annoyed overall by the direction we are going with monitors&tv's I can't get my hands on a non budget entry level 42 inch television it's like 50"-60" is the bare minimum these days very annoying

>>59553381
yeah because you can have variable phosphors slots for your electrons.

right dood.

>>59553997
>>4k monitors are all glossy or semi-glossy shit

ya because matte finished are fucking garbage. it's been fucking proven which is why literally no one does it anymore.

not even fucking dell ruins panels with matte vaseline-like smear garbage over their panels anymore and pretty much all of their older ultrasharps were plagued with the garbage.

>>59550461
posting from 3:2 screen. It's the best for working, shitposting. I would love to have one like it as a secondary monitor or maybe a huge ass primary.

File: 1485908884071.png (296KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 500x500px

>>59550390

>16:10
>not 8:5

4:3, being the aspect ratio of the human field of vision, was ideal.

>>59562333
Perhaps you should look at monitors. My 40" 4k display was fairly reasonably priced.

>>59562594
>21:9
>not 7:3
They use a common numerator or denominator whenever possible, it makes sense when you're not autistic.

>>59554364
>it eventually gets uncomfortable because nobody wants to look up
You're a dumb cunt.

File: xdgfhndfgj.png (6KB, 1200x545px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 1200x545px

non-videogame/movie content is shaped like green and 16:9 is the purple

do the math

fat boners, big dicks

>>59562684

Video Games were barely even 16:9 by 2005.

>>59562684
That's the reason I went 16:9 though, because when a document is that tall 1080 vs 1200 doesn't really matter that much.
16:9 makes it cheap to jump to a much higher resolution on a screen nearly 4 times the size.

>>59550461
>16:10 is better for work
16:10 is better than 16:9 for games as well, though 21:9 is still best overall

>>59562756
4:3 is the best overall.

>>59550390
Why is it 4:3 when it could be 16:12?

>>59562652
>You're a dumb cunt.
not an argument

>>59562980
>Humans have a slightly over 180-degree forward-facing horizontal arc of their visual field ... The vertical range of the visual field in humans is typically around 135 degrees.

180/135 = 4/3 = 1.3333

>>59557394
The area of your vision that is in focus is more or less 4:3. There's no point in filling your horizontal field of vision with a computer monitor, because your peripheral vision is not in focus.

>>59562572
Surface or Samsung Chromebook?

>>59550390

I regret not going for the 16:10 Dell Ultrasharp monitors.

Another problem with widescreen is that it exacerbates viewing angle flaws with LCDs. Stuff like IPS glow wouldn't be as noticeable with 4:3.

16:12>16:10>16:9

i realized some time ago that the reason why humans use widescreens is because our vision is widescreen (because our eyes are aligned on the y plane)

>>59563330
>dumb nigger cant fractions

>>59563364
>dumb autist can't into punctuation

4:3 is the new autistic "look im so not mainstream hipster hehe" meme for manchildren and retard teens

If 4:3 was widespread you would love 16:9 and vice versa, hiosterfaggots

>>59563541
I loved it when it was widespread

>>59563244
this is actually wrong. LCD's have poor vertical viewing angles, but perform much better horizontally

so it actually makes sense to make panels that are wide but not tall, that way you can make the diagonal inches count larger without having to make a panel that has significantly better viewing angles, since the vertical isn't bigger

File: succ.png (516KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 600x600px

>16:9 < 4:3 < 16:10 < 1.612:1766|1|e^-10 (notional)

>>59563541
I've been using 1600x1200 since 1998 you fuckhead.

>>59563541
I hate 16:9 because it's ass, not because it's common. Quit assuming everything is done for some retarded hipster reason.

>>59563754
In terms of just plain color shift maybe, but I'm specifically talking about artifacts like IPS glow and VA off center contrast shift.

>>59563059
Take a laptop and position it above your head, leaving one length of your head in between. Try to read something from it for like half an hour and imagine what it would be like to stretch that to 8 hours.

Then take a laptop and position it to the side, so far to the side that there's a space equal to the height of your head in between the center of your vision and the laptop screen. Try to read something from it for like half an hour and imagine if it would be stretched to 8 hours.

Which of these seems more uncomfortable? Having to look up, or having to look to the side? I would personally choose to look to the side. I feel it's easier to see data from a monitor that's a bit to the side, so I think it's better to have a monitor that covers both sides while not being too tall vertically. It could be tall enough so it's not cutting the picture too early, but I shouldn't have to move my head up at any point. Only by moving the eyes a bit should be enough. I don't have a problem to move my head sideways though, it's easier.

So I believe 16:9 is better than 4:3 or 1:1.

>>59564677
>I would personally choose to look to the side.
I would personally choose to use a monitor that exactly fills my focused field of view and goes no further. When I use a widescreen monitor, I experience one of two things, either I feel like I'm looking through a letterbox, because it isn't filling my vertical field of view, or I feel like my workspace is stretching out uselessly into my peripheral vision.

>>59562572
This

Love my surface book