4:3 and 5:4 screens are better for focusing your eyes and are more visually pleasing. So why don't they make bright, high resolution, high refresh rate versions?
They've made them. We used to call those "CRTs"
>>107091542>better for focusing your eyes and are more visually pleasing>high refresh rateChoose one. It's probably personal but higher than 60fps just causes headaches for me. I'd like variable refresh rates. I don't think there's 1080p or similar resolutions for those ratios. I've stuck with old high-end 16:10 monitors. 16:10 and 3:2 are popular with laptops now but I don't know if there will be a comeback for desktop monitors ever.
>>107091542Because they just don't think, or they assume that people prefer widescreens.4:3 was the best ratio for everything, except movies and doomlikes.
>>107091542>4:3 LCDthe worst era by far
>>107091542because you can just switch the display to 4:3 mode, or put a 4:3 window in the middle of a larger display, and still have room to display information on either side of it.Try it sometime. You can even take some cardboard and cover up the sides of the monitor if that adds to the experience.
>>107091571>but I don't know if there will be a comeback for desktop monitors everwhich is a shame, 16:10 is the perfect balance between being usable for both muh cinematic gayming and work
>>107091542Jews and Indians.
>>107091542>better for focusing your eyes and are more visually pleasing.you got any citations or is this just your preference? i disagree.
16:10 is literal perfection. It's the golden ratio and everywhere in nature. 16:9 and all the other current deformed shit is the devil
>>107091542Ive owned basically every aspect ratio display and these square pieces of shit have been the absolute worst
>>107092286>cover up the sides of the monitor if that adds to the experiencesaaaaaaaaaaaar
>>107092353Obsessed.Mind broken.Rent-free.
>>107092716Wrong.
I believe in 3:2 superiority
>>107091542>So why don't they make bright, high resolution, high refresh rate versions?Because they don't sell. People barely buy 16:10 screens outside of laptops, they've been brainwashed into the "tank window is best" sort of mentality, with those ultrawide screens and everything. Things like 4:3, 3:2 or 5:4 just simply don't exist for a regular motherfucker.
lol I once got a 4:3 LCD way back and it was so bad I returned it and used my CRT for 10 more years.
>>107092716So why aren't they making 240Hz 16:9 screens for me to buy for $200 or less?
>>107091569fpbp>>107092865there's something about the sudden transition to 4:3 LCD's that just felt wrong, god those monitors fucking sucked to use it still gives me a bad taste in my mouth when I see them
>>107091542One of these could be fun attached as a secondary screen for arcade games that actually benefit from the ratio. Compared to regular use, a widescreen is better though for new stuff as its built for that.
>>107093638I was thinking of picking one up if it wasn't complete ass for desktop use so I could free up more desk space when I'm not watching movies or gaming. But the panels are not that great.
>>10709154216:9 on laptops was easily the stupidest design trends ever, it looks ridiculous, but people are used to it. 4:3 laptops just look right, aesthetically pleasingIf we have to go wide then 3:2 seems like a good middle ground, but truth is we just can't have nice things.
>>10709157160 FPS is so choppy it makes my eyes hurt
>>107093844That's because LCD monitors suffer badly with low framerates and refresh rates, we could game just fine on 30-60 FPS with CRTs That's the secret as to why 30-60 FPS suddenly became unplayable
You fags will find any outdated ewaste garbage and claim it's good just to be contrarian.>there will be a day /g/ pretends maxtor hard drives were any good
>>1070915424chan still looks the best in 4:3, on a 16:9 monitor there's a lot of dead space to the right whenever you come across longer posts
>>107094852You do not belong. Please return.
>>10709486316:9 is for having multiple windows on screen. learn to multitask.
>>107094902>you're not a REAL anonymous if you don't pretend to like garbage
>>107094852>>107094959Nobody is talking about outdated electronics here, your reading comprehension needs work. This thread is purely discussing design principles and their merit.
>>107091542>4:3 and 5:4 screens are better for focusing your eyes and are more visually pleasing. you have two eyes and they have a lot more horizontal flexibilitya 16:9 is a more natural aspect ratio than the tunnelvision of 4:3
>>107094926but what if I just want to do one thing?
>>1070952984:3 and 5:4 are outdated garbage no matter how much you want to claim otherwise. Normalfag cell phones operating in 9:16 doesn't affect that either. >but it's the principleNo, it's you being autistic and not knowing how to function. There is no loss in "focus" or (the purely subjective) "visual pleasure" in a widescreen monitor. >why don't they make new higher res versionsNobody cares about nor wants them. A tiny minority of autists who also make threads jerking off CRTs isn't a marketable demographic, and nobody is going to design and manufacture something so niche if there isn't enough demand and money to make it worth it.
>>107095770>Normalfag cell phones operating in 9:16 doesn't affect that either.Normalfags cellphones moved to 21:9 now. >There is no loss in "focus" You have to move the monitor way back the larger it gets in order to properly perceive the entire image as opposed to being zoomed in. Arm's length is has always been the recommended minimum distance. >"visual pleasure" When something is presented in a manner that causes visual chaos, that is displeasure. That is also the reason why 16:9 is disharmonious compared to 16:10 for computing, which is the superior aspect ratio.
>>107095832>You have to move the monitor way back the larger it getsNow the goalpost shifted from aspect ratio to monitor size, in the same thread where you're asking for bigger, higher resolution, higher refresh rate monitors last relevant in 2005.>visual chaosPure, unbridled autism.
>>107093787They wanted to sell more inches but laptops would become fucking tall. There were concerns about working on airplanes.
>>107092865>>107093568Those LCDs sucked because the technology was still raw. IPS was the point where it got good enough.
>>107091542you allready set your mouse refresh rate same as screen refresh rate
>>107091542there's the LG DualUp which is pretty good but i don't own one, they're too expensive for what it is imo
>>107091542theres something when it comes to the size too that just feels entirely different. I have friends with 80" TVs that i just cannot give a fuck about but a 32" 4:3 screen feels massive. I really wish we had 24" 4:3/5:4 (glossy) ips or miniled monitors. >>107093568>there's something about the sudden transition to 4:3 LCD's that just felt wrong, god those monitors fucking sucked to use it still gives me a bad taste in my mouth when I see themPC CRTs are the apex of display technology in everything but weight, so much that, even 20 years later, its nothing but cope and seethe trying to get back to what they could do just by the nature of the tech. Early LCDs were fucking terrible and only got a handhold from people upset that they have to move something sort of heavy once every few years. But things like motion clarity, color vibrancy, high refresh rates, high resolutions, all got tossed into the trash. Most people have never gotten to see what a high resolution video or modern game looks like on one and dont realize just how capable/nice to look at they actually are.
>>107098219They're pretty cool, but it needs an update with a high refresh rate. I liked to use mine in portrait mode because it was like a 25" 4:3 display. Arcooda makes large 4:3 displays at roughly the same price if you want an actual 4:3 monitor though.
>>107098985>ArcoodaWWWHHHOOOOAAA35in 4:3 cut down 4k !It's pricey, but I've never seen a 4:3 this large with high resolution.
>>1070915424:3 is better for gaming, 16:9 is better for window tiling.
>>107099060>800 buckaroos for something with less pixels, lower refresh rates and worse screen and almost as expensive as a 4k240hz oledjesus
>>107094926>multitaskuse case?
>>107091542Because it's worse for vidya and for productivity you want more screen estate so you just get two monitors Besides if you were to make one and it had to be reasonably priced it'd just be a panel taken from a 16:9 with its edges cut off
>>107091542https://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/s2134/index.htmlthat'll be $1000 please
>>107098341>SED/FED had 100000:1 contrast ratio>FED use only 14 W for same luminance as a 100W LCD>CRT pixel response times>very high CRI light from phosphors>3cm thickness>high longevity phosphors give panel halflives of 75000 hoursThe European Union's niggerlicious environmental regulations killed off CRTs, combined with the flatscreen LCD marketing done by all display since LCD are far cheaper to make. The CRT's sucessor, SEDs, was allegedly planned to start production in 2009, but the financial crisis happened and Canon gave up. Production was gonna come in 2007, but some niggers delayed that by filing a bullshit lawsuit done against Toshiba working together with Canon. Many big jap tech companies in the 2000s heavily invested in SEDs and FEDs. None can bring them into production since Canon gave up their SED tech patents to AUOptronics, and those faggots aren't doing anything with the SED tech, they are holding the patents so nobody can make SEDs. Their jew lawyers will sue anyone starting production for patent infringement. Canon made a massive mistake giving up on SEDs back in 2010.
>sed prototype
>>107101932> ips vs va
>CES 2006
>>107091542With big enough monitor it doesn't really matter. On a laptop 16:10 or 3:2 is pretty much perfect.
>>107093787When I switched to the T430s the screen format was much worse, the T60’s 4:3 display was way better.
