you guys know about the "2012 the world changed o algo" theory?I truly believe the switch to widescreen (16:9) from standard (4:3) aspect ratio has a hand in making the world worse. For the past year or so EVERYTHING i watch and own is 4:3 and it feels so much higher wavelength in comparison to standard widescreen shows today. with 4:3 theres an actual focal point instead of having the surroundings be the focal point. 4:3 is a much higher wavelength and is more aesthetically pleasing to the human eye. its simple. we went from simple to abstract. it wasnt until around 2010-2013 that everything turned to widescreen and everything to shit since then.i know im not the only one seeing and acknowledging this
My dick looks smaller in 16:9 ratio too.
>>42844274That's not how it works, this is how it works:Content was created in 16:9To display it on a 4:3 screen, you have these options:>Zoom out, this leaves black bars at the top and bottom of the screen>Crop the left and right side of the content. There will always be something you're missing, and it's the worst when you only see the center with no panning, and things happen off-screen.>Stretch the image so it fills the screen, say goodbye to circles which have become ovals.There's nothing aesthetically pleasing about this problem, and all your favorite movies are closer to this because cinema has always looked better in the wide screen, because we have two eyes that make us have wide vision, 4:3 just doesn't have content and the left and right parts of your vision are wasted.
>>42844274>For the past year or so EVERYTHING i watch and own is 4:3 and it feels so much higher wavelength in comparison to standard widescreen shows todayhahah zoomers and gen alpha are hilarious. next you'll be replicating all the millennial hipster tropes but with a higher level of tech. it's already happening with the fetishization of PS1 graphics
>>42844323modern vertical 19:6 format was practically designed for documenting dicks
>>42844274>4:3 feels like a window into a story>16:9 feels like it's trying to take over your worldDems my feels anywayIs this really paranormal? Are you experiencing some of the nostalgia for the older formats because they make you feel comfy? >>42844972 >Content was created in 16:9 Not completely, movies & film often were but television shows would be filmed in 4:3 i.e. made for the medium it would be displayed through. TV shows make up more of the content made. It would have mostly been filmed in 4:3 until about the late 90s/early 2000s when it phases over to 16:9 filming like you describe. The phasing was to get ready for the inevitable embiggening of home TV setsI think this thread would benefit from lurking >>>/tv/ & >>>/vr/This format shit comes up frequently
>>42844274Must have sent everyone schizo
>>42844274>it wasnt until around 2010-2013 that everything turned to widescreenFalse.
>16:9Prey ratio, forces higher activation of the right hemisphere’s vision>4:3Predator ratio, forces higher activation of the left hemisphere’s vision
1:1 master race
>>42845942nigga you got no girth at dem ratios
>>42844274The pan and scan gods look down on your frets and have a divine chuckle.
>OP gets bullycided out of /g/ for posting his retarded tech illiterate takes and runs off to the board that allows flat earthers, retards who take poison to fight imaginary fungi, and "IZ DERE A SPIWITUAL MEANING BEHIND WIGHTING CANDWES!?!?!?!" to keep pushing itThe only time 16:9 was ever vert- instead of hor+ was in VIDEOGAMES prior to mass widescreen adoption, because those games weren't actually programmed for widescreen support.
>>42848489>cries in Cinemascope
Fun fact:The X-Files came out in the 90s before widescreen television but they filmed the show in widescreen. If you buy the blu-ray it is remastered in HD and widescreen. It looks like a show that was just released yesterday.
>>42849359What an offense, the shows released yesterday are a crappy clusterfuck and that's why we run away to watch the ones from decades ago.
8:5 (aka 16:10), 13:8, 21:13, 34:21 or any other ratios that get closer and closer to phi, those are better than 16:9 or 4:3 for viewing something.4:3 and 3:2 is good for doing, especially on the move, as they permit smaller screens that have good verticality. 4:3 is preferable over 3:2 for me.Wider screens, like 16:9 or 21:9, these are better suited for multitasking or film watching, based on how tall the screen's vertical is.My setup has 3x 16:9 monitors in such a way that the viewing ratio is 27:16, which gets closer to phi, but not by a whole lot, but it has better verticality than 16:9. The monitors are fairly small, so that's why I decided to connect them that way.
>>42846777never had it. i got a long pencil dick
>>42851565Baka fool
