You *are* using the superior aspect ratio, right anon?
>>106463897Nope.
>>106463897I use whatever shit I've got. Best ratio is 4:3 btw but there's so much clutter a tall 4k screen is all that matters.
>>106463897Don't you mean: ``8:5''
>>106463960Learn to ratio, it's 8:5, brainlet.
what makes the golden ratio so important?
>>106463897>superior aspect ratioYes, I'm using 4:3 and 3:2.Fuck widescreens.
>>106463948>>106463994Of course we say 16:10 instead of 8:5 for the easier comparison with 16:9. Stop thinking you're a math genius.
>>106464313>of course we say it wrong for the simpletons>stop thinkingGood job, brainlet.
>>106463897i use 1:1, but call it 16:16. ur all niggers
>>106465280One of the best monitors available is 1:1.https://www.eizo.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/
>>106463897Of course, I have 2 of them.
>>106463897Indeed...Tho those are now getting so old, got them in 2008 or so.
>muh golden ratio pseudoscience
>>106464142looks pretty and some famous architects used it for a while. thats about it
16:9 is 4:3 squared, therefore superior.
>>106467295so nothing then, thanks. i thought this board had smart people on it?
In its full 1680x1050 glory, yes.
>>106463897No I'm not because FAGGOTS WON'T MAKE A 4K 16:10 MONITOR SO I'M STUCK WITH 16:9 THE ASPECT RATIO THAT'S ONLY GOOD FOR THE CHINKY SLIT EYES THAT MADE IT
>>106464142uhhhhhhhhhhhh nautilus shells are le golden ratio
>>106467355you can always letterbox it and make it 16:10
>>106463897I have a 3:2 monitor in its box next to my desk that acts like a makeshift shelf, so kinda. It was only 60Hz though and looked like butt cheeks next to PG32UCDM.
