Does 16:9 cause physical pain in anyone else?

Does 16:9 cause physical pain in anyone else?

yes

I have a 16:9 screen but I don't view websites/read fullscreen. I make a tidy 4:3ish window

I use a 4:3 monitor for my desktop computer but I use the laptop 85 percent of the time

i don't like 16:9 and i wish we could use 4:3 again

16:10 is nice.

Yes. Then I got 21:9 to solve my problems.

They still make and sell 4:3

I want a dell 2408wfp.

but at what price, user? AT WHAT PRICE!?

3:2 is optimal desu

Usually cheaper than (or same price as) 16:9 screens actually

Dual 16:10 master race reporting.

5:4 + 16:10 here. feels good desu

there's 5 on newegg and they all look like old stock

1:1 is better

no it isn't

i recently snatched a u2412m off ebay in pristine condition for 120€, shit is amazing. try looking for one in there

>1:1 is more expensive
ftfy

t. poorfag

chew you havisfaction a singlelicious satisfact to snack that up?

i'm not poor, i'm monetarily challenged

Yes, 16:9 is a design-by-committee bastardisation. Way too wide for productivity, not wide enough for film.

Nothing wider than 8:5 is tolerable. Some will argue that it's the best option on the grounds of the divine ratio, however I still feel that 4:3 is the best option for a computer monitor since it most cleanly fits the highly resolving part of human vision. Wider screens necessitate a compromise between having the monitor occupy a small part of your vision or forcing your eyes to continually scan over the screen which creates long-term discomfort.
I'm really glad that 3:2 screens are becoming popular, perhaps it heralds a return to taller monitors. I still occasionally hear professionals bemoan the death of 'square' monitors.

They don't, not high-quality consumer monitors at least. Dell stopped making 4:3 and 5:4 ultrasharps after 2010.

Eizo still sells new 4:3 monitors

saviours of the industry. Now if only they didn't command a sizeable premium.

1:1 or 4:3 = Retardation
16:9/10 = Normal human beings natural eye ratio
21:9 = Asian eye slits

Peripheral vision can resolve very little detail, it's mainly for detecting motion. Such a thing is fine for films and games, adding to the immersion, but makes no sense for working with text.

Proof that 1:1 is perfect.

what's their highest end 4:3?

4:3 is the closest fit of available aspect ratios, but I would love to experience a 1:1 monitor. Hopefully prices come down at some point.

Does 320kbps audio cause physical pain in anyone else?

Yes, because it's a non-free codec.

1:1 is available

Yes, one Eizo model for over $1000. Call me a poorfag, but I can't justify that.

Where are the A4 monitors?

>They don't, not high-quality consumer monitors at least. Dell stopped making 4:3 and 5:4 ultrasharps after 2010.
they're not high quality nor consumer monitors

why not fucking call it 8:5?

A(anything) paper has a sqrt(2) aspect, which is only a little bit wider than 4:3.

Do bezels cause physical pain in anyone else?

I don't even remotely mind them

Yes but why not exactly A(X)?

>they're not high quality
Good joke.

NEC MD MD211C3

Aspect Ratio: 4:3
Resolution: 2048x1536
Contrast: 1.400:1 (static)
Brightness: 800cd/m^2
Colour Reproduction: 10-bit (1024 grey tones per R G B input) with 1.074 billion total colours (max.)
Programmable Gamma Correction: 14-bit

It makes no difference as long as everyone can agree to use the same thing. If everyone used 16:9 at least we could use the space effectively, we had no need of all this responsive shit when everyone had a 4:3 screen, shit actually fitted the screen, now there's so much variety all layouts suck at every aspect ratio.

>Medical imaging
And how much does it cost?
He did specify consumer screens.

>NEC MD MD211C3

about $4k

>20ms response time
yes, that sounds incredibly consumer friendly :')
and at 5k that is literally the most underwhelming specs imaginable.

No, because a human's field of vision is longer horizontally than vertically

for serious, what's the point of this? are doctors not smart enough to turn a regular monitor sideways?

not relevant, the human doesn't access data equally well in its entire fov.

medic friend says normal monitors don't show x-rays and shadows very well or something

Why don't you autismal chucklecucks just get a huge 4K monitor?
You can set it to 3840x1600 if you want ultrawide, or 2880x2160 if you want your precious 4:3.
Better yet, when you eventually want something else, which you definitely will, you can always change it again.

We have 16:9 because some guy cut out a rectangle that fit the other 5 competing ratios.
The only thought behind it, is ultimate compromise between 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, 2.2:1, 2.39:1 ratios, used by film industry.

>which you definitely will
For what?
Plebeian media consumption such as video games or movies, or, *LOL*, television?

because I don't want a huge screen, I want one where my screen has plenty real estate but I don't have to make my eyes travel tiring distances to change tasks or see other things.
4:3 isn't just bigger, it uses the space better

>consumer
see
>for serious, what's the point of this? are doctors not smart enough to turn a regular monitor sideways?
Wow.
Of course you can use it horizontally.

None of these specs are modern day high end unless you're specifically a doctor that needs good displays for roentgen. Not even if it was 4k cheaper

I really want a square monitor now

The resolution is excellent, 1400:1 contrast is exceptional and it's a true 10bit panel.

I really want to date you now

Have you tried a 2560x1440 screen? Works fine for me, eyes don't get tired. Of course you could also set it to 1920x1440.
Pic related is 25" with small bezels, I don't think it's very big.

16:9 is the best for web browsing if you want a 4:3 view of the page because tree style tabs are the best tab management system.

compare that to a surface studio that comes with an entire computer on top of it and is an acceptable 3:2, and sells at a premium because of the microsoft jew. and is still cheaper even in the high performance model.
4500x3000
true 10bit panel
1100:1 contrast (again, not a doctor, I don't need this better than 1100:1 which is excellent).

so no, it's not consumer friendly, and no, it's not even really high end unless you're in a very specific field that none of us are in, and it comes at the cost of drawbacks that are kinda big. 20ms response time is uncomfortable even when not consuming media

16:10 since 2004 or 2005. It's the patricians choice.

Most grown-ups prefer 16:10 unless their plebs who "consume media".

>only $1200!
why is it that square-y resolutions are so much more expensive

Makes perfect sense when you have documents side by side.

Low production volume because plebs buy 16:9

So it's easy to compare to 16:9.

marketing

I'm not suggesting that anyone buy the NEC screen, that would be a huge waste of money.
However, to say that it's a poor quality or low-spec screen within its domain is plainly false.

I do kind of disagree about response time, i think people often think they can notice more than they do. I've used 50ms panels and i still think bad PWM is more aggregious (and far more common taday)

The Surface Studio is glossy.
My employees can sue me for providing them with a glossy display. It's illegal here.

you a big business guy friend?

>My employees can sue me for providing them with a glossy display. It's illegal here.
Where the fuck do you live that glossy computer displays are illegal?

Germany outlawed pig-disgusting glossy displays at workplaces.

What exactly do you do where you provide other people with office space? why are you even here?

Why?

Ergonomic studies[4] had shown that prolonged work in the office environment with the presence of discomforting glares and disturbances from light reflections on the screen can be a cause of mild to severe adverse health effects, ranging from eye strain and headaches to photosensitive epileptic episodes. These effects are usually explained by physiology of human eye and human visual system. The image of light sources reflected in the screen can cause the human visual system to focus on that image, which is usually at a much farther distance than the information shown on the screen.

Interesting. I don't actually like glossy displays, but was curious why they were banned, since there would have to be some kind of reason for it.

If you do fall for the yuge screen meme just set it a few feet back. I can't even in front of my cousin's 32" QHD HP. Even had to sit my own MG279Q 27" back another 6-8 inches just because it was so big and my eyes had that "travel lag."

And while the square monitors look like a fun thing, what happens when you ball out and put 2 next to each other? Then you have one big ugly bezel'd rectangle senpai

You have two seperate monitors, what's wrong with bezels wHen you're not spanning content?

32" QHD is literally balla resolution and size.

Anything else is shit by comparison until 32" 5K screens exist.

Never thought of it like that because I am a simple gaymur tending to my gaymes
Yeah his HP has beats too I guess, nigger.
The way his is set up is just too fucking close for me, needs to be moved back some. And I like the higher density on mine, not to mention the 144 refresh rate. Money aside, I would have got a 32" if they made them.

It's not 'glossy' moron, learn the difference.

Matte = matte smudging clearcoat solution over LCD glass
Glossy = Glossy clearcoat solution over LCD Glass
Glass = direct LCD glass or extra glass pane fused to LCD glass.

Glossy displays are shit.
Glass displays are fine since if you need anti-glare you can just add a film over the glass (exactly like a screen protector on a phone)

If you're layingou t fat cash there is always the Dell 30" OLED.

30"/4K/FUCKING HDR OLED/120hz with

Yes, that's why I would love to be able to afford the new Microsoft Surface Studio

1:1.6180339887

The same reason they don't call 16:9 what it really is, 5:3

The bigger numbers sound better

>16:9 screen
>good for games, movies, youtube
>flip it turnways
>9:16 screen
>perfect for muh moes and shitposting

user that's not the same ratio

he's like one of those sexcam girls who has a wifi dildo up her ass and vibrates whenever you tip her.

user 16:9=/=5:3
16:9=1.77:1
5:3=1.6:1

been there, done that and its shit
3:4 is way better

shit, that's fucking nice. I hadn't realized they were making 4k's above 60hz already. I don't even wanna know the price