Why is 4:3 not standard anymore?
Saves movie theaters money
moron
>>106570950Consoomer stupidity.
>>106570950Where's the T-X sexbot that I was promised a decade ago, techchuds?
>>106570950everyone wants cinemascope
>>106570976are you ok?
>>106570950why not 1:1?
>>106570950some about the human eye not seeing in square format. you are a human?
Becuz pajeets didnt want us to see T-X bewwbies. They didn't even have the courage to show us her pussy in the movie. Cowards.
>>106571366>Humans have a slightly over 210-degree forward-facing horizontal arc of their visual field>The vertical range of the visual field in humans is around 150 degrees.[4]210/150 = 1.44/3 = 1.3334:3 is the standard aspect ratio closest to human vision
>>106571421the human eye isn't rectangle
>>1065718714:3 is better
>>1065718914:3 is the bharat ratio saar
>>106571871One day maybe we will have screens that are oval shaped like our actual fov. That would be kinda cool
>>106572019do you sit so close to your monitor that it takes up your entire field of view?
>>106572031>his eyesight is so poor he cant see in his peripheralI have 20:20 vision anon
>>106572044your fov includes peripheral vision dumbass. if the screen doesn't take up your whole fov, there's no point in matching the shape.
>>106571111The vast majority of people have no subjective experience. They want what they are told to want, as they have no actual preferences of their own. Anyone who is sentient does not enjoy watching through a narrow slot.
Human stereopsis overlap is 120 degrees. The fovea of the eye is a circle. 4:3 is a good compromise but 16:9 shortscreen never made sense.
>>106572031these guys do it because they play on 1080p and actual pixel data is relevant for meaningful enough gains
>>106572379People have more of a widescreen fov for sure, but much if it is actually wasted due to the fovea being closer to 4:5-4:3, and that's exactly where you wanna be for anything you're focusing on.
>>106571871I'm freaking out over trying to imagine what lies in the area outside the purple ellipse. It's not even like a small visible area in an infinite black void. There isn't even nothing outside, I literally can't perceive it. It's fucking with my mind.
>>106574199What you don't see isn't rendered.
>>106571871so people who use their monitors sideways are just retards?
>>106574281no they just want to display many lines of text
>>1065713664:3 is more natural to me, I felt like I had better focus when I switched to my 4:3 CRT for a night. That being said, it isn't entirely relevant when you need screen space for work, so resolution matters more.
>>106574199I too have had this same existential crisis many times since my childhood. Having a mortal body is terrifying at nigh due to the various sensory experiences that come to light.
>>106570950Because in the real world you can see mostly sky and dirt with anything interesting happening in the narrow horizontal strip between them.
>>106574365>display many lines of textUsecase?You can only read one line of text at a time.
>>106574467to more efficiently skip over your posts
They took this from you
>>106570950Now we're talking
>>106574553Took it from me? My 2022 MacBook Pro still has a 16:10 screen. My 24" monitors at work are still 16:10.Just because normalfags all switched to 16:9 doesn't mean its the only thing available.
>>106571359We're not technologically advanced as a civilization enough for 1:1 yet
>>106574664they don't make good monitors in 16:10
>>106570950The best YouTubers still produce content in 4:3.
>>106570950Anyone who has seriously held a camera knows that a 1:1 image sensor is the ideal ratio. It means capturing everything and accepting change of the universe.
>>106574569Should've been this way in theatres.
>>106574569tits too small to be worth focusing on>js4TX
>>106570950Because it sucks dick.
