It's clearly better

It's clearly better

16:9 is better for games.
16:10 is better for work.
4:3 is irrelevant.

4:3 was perfect, we should have never abandoned it.

> we
lmao
(pic related)

I want to go back to 4:3, but i have an asus rog swift and dont wanna go back to shitty hz

Wish I had 16:10

4:3 is the best for work
4:3 is the best for games
16:10 is the best for entertainment

21:9 is where it's out. Basically fills your entire field of view you just need to adjust the field of view angle in game to match.

wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide

get a CRT, they have like 200hz refresh rates and are mostly 4:3

how do you figure out what hz is right for a CRT TV? also dpi for that matter.

only info I can find on the two I picked up is 300 scanline res

>that cable management

For a TV? 50Hz or 60Hz, depending on whether it's a PAL set or NTSC set respectively.
For a monitor? Look up the model number for a manual, and if that doesn't work, see if your GPU can define a custom resolution (I think AMD, Intel and nVidia all offer the option with their recent drivers), and just keep messing with the resolution and refresh rate until you get something that works and you're comfortable with.
Note that resolution and refresh rate are inversely proportional, so while a monitor may support 1080p and 120Hz display settings, you generally can't have both at the same time. You can find a common middle ground though, such as 720p at 85Hz for example, but it depends on the monitor.

Thanks, they're both televisions. How do I figure out the resolution? One is 13" and displays at 1280x720, but it comes out insanely blurry so I've been running at 800x600. The other is 9" and professional grade (JVC TM-90SU, used for monitoring in TV stations) and I believe I run it at 720p and it comes out beautifullly sharp without trouble. using xrandr on obsd, outputting hdmi -> s-video with adapter.

CRTs have no native resolution, so just use whatever looks best.

I prefer 16:12

4:3 is nice when sideways next to another monitor.

lol fuck all of you
Ultrawide masterrace

I want a 3840x2400 144Hz Freesync 2 monitor.

why the fuck don't the movies look like this???

>cables between keyboard and monitor
>Borderlands 2

You suck at so much.

no thank you

CRT TVs have a native resolution, it's 320x240 or some shit like that. Every other CRT has a native resolution too, the one which matches the actual number of pixels in the CRT. They just scale down better than LCD displays.

Monitor CRT Master Race.

Widememers need no apply.

I believe 5:4 is most comfortable for text information...
Formatted or not

>CRT TVs have a native resolution

Wrong, CRTs are not fixed pixel displays.

There's no such thing as a best ratio. With 16:9 you can add vertical pixels to make it 16:10, which you can then add horizontal pixels in order to turn it back into 16:9.

16:9 is only "better" for games because most games use Hor+ scaling, but it's worse for games that use Vert- scaling. Both ratios are perfectly fine for movie watching because black bars aren't a problem if you aren't retarded.

Just use the fucking ratio that works the best for you.

My crt is 160hz and its not even OC... It's from 2002

>I don't understand what a "ratio" is
>I think "widescreens" are actually "wider"
>can't grasp that with the same logic, 4:3 is "taller"

After using a 21:9 ultrawide I can definitely say that vertical space is more important for reading.

>ultra-meme is too narrow
>4k only works at 40"+
>4k monitors are all glossy or semi-glossy shit
>worry about dead pixels on 4k

Reminder that 21:9 is master race.

I love my 4:3 monitor even though it's like a decade old. Still gets 75Hz and plays 1080p videos quite well, but it's useful for everything.

stop shilling outdated technology

This may have been true back in the days of small monitors.
Now though 16:9 allows you to go bigger for less money.
There's very little reason to get an odd aspect ratio like 16x10, or 21:9 if you can get a 16:9 screen that has the same size vertical or horizontal that you care about but which is taller / wider than the other option for about the same price.

40" 2160p displays should be the new standard

>4k monitors are all glossy or semi-glossy shit

not true, mine is not lossy at all

what are some goof 4:3 monitors ?

This
People need to realize that you can always get a bigger 16:9 screen. But if you get a big 4:3 screen it eventually gets uncomfortable because nobody wants to look up. It's easier to look to the sides. With a 4:3 monitor you are limiting your sideway view greatly even if you could have picture there as well.

I just don't use the right bit of my 1440p, it's like a budget 16:10.

nice pic

It probably looked just fine when he had only one monitor

CRT is junk

Enjoy your pixel density

>phone placed uncomfortably beside mouse so you'd inevitable keep hitting it with your hand
>chinkpad placed in an awkward and hard to reach spot where it will be difficult to remove without nudging monitors
user clearly just wants to show off all the tech he owns instead of demonstrating the triple monitors

Which aspect ratio is the closest to the golden ratio?

its because dogs can't look up.
We've found you out user, you're actually a dog.

Resolution is the answer. Not aspect ratio. In theory 16:10 is better for spreadsheet, text, etc but in reality you get 16:10 with 1920x1200 while for 16:9 screens 2560x1440 or higher is already the de facto standard (if you buy new that is). I guess there are some high res 16:10 monitors but manufacturers nowadays don't bother updating their 16:10 lines so these will forever be stuck at 1920x1200.

Good thing im too poor to buy 2560x1440 monitors, and was cheap enough to buy a 1920x1200 off craigslist for $75

they will be.

4:3 is amazing

A 1440p screen wouldn't be that much more expensive. You can get them for $200 new so realistically speaking a used one might go for $100.

Does anyone still play trackmania? I loved that shit

16:10 is the best ratio there's no real debate.

>40" 2160p displays should be the new standard
completely overkill for desktop use. Not the resolution, the size. Any setup that requires you to turn your head even in the slightest is unergonomic. Where I live this is actually illegal for work place use. Unless of course you position the screen so far away that you don't need to turn your head. In that case you'd have to upscale so much though that the additional size wouldn't give you any advantage over a regular 27" (or 28" because that seems to be the new standard with 1440p and higher)

4:3 is for watching Star Trek NG

4:3 for niggers
16:10 for western white master race
16:9 for chinks/japs

Wrong. I'd choose a 1440p screen over a 1200p screen all the time. Higher resolution 16:10 screens are rare and expensive compared to their 16:9 counterparts. They're certainly not worth it.

>Any setup that requires you to turn your head even in the slightest is unergonomic

I hear this constantly from small minded small monitor users. You no more have to turn your head for a 40" display than you would for a multi monitor setup. Its actually a little less wide than the typical pair of 24" displays, and about as tall as a 24" display turned vertically.

>Unless of course you position the screen so far away that you don't need to turn your head. In that case you'd have to upscale so much though that the additional size wouldn't give you any advantage over a regular 27" (or 28" because that seems to be the new standard with 1440p and higher)

This also false, even at slightly more than arm length (about the distance any monitor would be wall mounted) the display is fully usable and doesn't require any kind of scaling or appared loss of usable space.
Unless you lean foward and place your eyes inches from the screen these are non-issues.

>Where I live this is actually illegal for work place use.

Sounds like a bad place to live.

t. madman
nigger this equals 110PPI. is this the stone age? a 40" screen needs at least twice that resolution. it's 2017. why isn't >200PPI standard by now? panels aren't even that expensive. we could easily go for 300+PPI. btw 40" is retarded for a desktop user. when sitting upright the top bezel must be at eye level. there's no way you're gonna achieve that with a 40" screen

>bad place to live
Not really. Germany. According to German law for work place use the upper third of the display must be at eye level. There's actually a lot of regulation on how to arrange the work place here. For example, the whole field of view must be illuminated equally. Black components are to be avoided. Keyboards must be bright with dark letters. That's why ThinkPads originally came with stickers that said "Not for office use" in Germany. They're still not allowed in the office unless docked. Just to spread some fun facts.
But note, no one will care about these laws unless employees file a complaint.

More like ultrashort.

Because it's short and ugly.

>1440 vertical pixels
nigger is this the 1800s?

>the upper third of the display must be at eye level
Well then mine would qualify. The upper third of my display is at eye level. That's a big difference from 'the bezel must be at eye level'.

>For example, the whole field of view must be illuminated equally.
Again, this isn't really a problem for a large format display since it fills a larger amount of the field of view. Similar to a triple monitor setup.

>Black components are to be avoided. Keyboards must be bright with dark letters.
Gross

>fills a larger amount of the field of view
That's the problem. A screen is arguably brighter than its surroundings. That's why a larger screen leads to more illumination of one part of your field of view while the surroundings seem a bit darker in contrast. I'm self employed now so I don't need to worry about these things but if I were to equip an employee's work place with a 40" screen it would have to be one with silver non reflective bezels and set it to no more than 150nits to make up for the brightness of the larger screen.

16:10 is literally the golden ratio

It is but currently 16:10 screens just can't keep up. They standard is still 1920x1200 while 16:9 has moved way beyond that.

>what is 2560x1600
you're a niggerfaggot

I didn't say it doesn't exist. It's just rare and for the most part even more expensive than a reasonably priced 4k 16:9 screen.

Terrible game for this demonstration. The fucking gun takes up the entire vertical of the middle screen which tells me they didnt so much expand horizontal field of view as chop off the vertical and then blew up that was left. What is the fucking point!?

i got you senpai

To make sure that high ground advantage beats peripheral vision.

so get a 4k screen, set it to a 16:10 res with pixel-perfect scaling so you get the rest of the screen off if you're that autistic

Oh god I didn't anticipate the level of retard I was dealing with. With a 4k 16:9 screen you get 2160 vertical pixels, so why would anyone run it with anything but native res? There's no point. With a resolution that high the need for 16:10 is completely eliminated. With current software no one could really take advantage of even more vertical space on a large desktop screen. On a laptop it's different of course because of the higher levels of scaling.

Nigger the whole purpose of 16:10 is giving the user more vertical space, not less horizontal space. Would you seriously prefer a 2560x1600 screen over a 3840x2160 screen just because it's got a different aspect ratio? Face it, 16:9 at 4k is the go to standard until there are some valid WQUXGA options.

then i don't see the problem

I really like this image, mind if I save it?

16:10 is clearly better here

>i don't know how scaling works

whoops did that backwards

Terrible

>I confuse dimensions with ratios
>I use a ratio designed for movies to do computer work

Don't make a mess when you kill yourself.

Wtf? When did germany become communist???

1945~1949

Dogs look up constantly. Have fun viewing things close to ceiling, just so you can cover your horizontal field of vision with your 4:3 monitor. It's not practical to have almost anything high above your head so monitors are better when they are stretched horizontally instead. People can see almost 180° just by looking forward and moving eyes is easier than turning your neck.

There's dozens or hundreds of ways to combine resolution and aspect ratios into arrangements that will be better or worse suited to your particular usage habits. Use what works best for you.

I just got this setup, and it's really growing on me. Having to "look up" isn't uncomfortable or difficult, it just took getting used to. A decade of side-by-side monitor arrangements is a lot of training to overcome.

I'll be replacing the 21.5" 1080 on the bottom with a 27" 1440 next, so they'll actually match physical width and x resolution. Another 16:9 on top would have been too much vertical space.

One of my roommates is probably going to stack two 21:9 monitors, and my other uses a more traditional side-by-side 16:9 arrangement. They all work well. I just like mine the best.

Shit, sorry about the orientation. It showed correctly in the phones gallery, in gmail, in dropbox, and in Windows. It's just 4chin that's fucking retarded.

1x1 is perfect for everything. everything else is just a bad representation of the perfection

ultrawide is better for work, as it allows two square windows side by side

16:9 is worthless for work, 4:3 is optimal, and ultrawide is like 2x 4:3 put together

it literally is perfect.

>hurr you have a wider field of view horizontally
yeah, and that's why 4:3 looks square even though it isn't. It's perfectly matched to your natural wide field of view.

>1:1 master race

16:10 will always be superior

>Dogs look up constantly. Have fun viewing things close to ceiling, just so you can cover your horizontal field of vision with your 4:3 monitor.

Field of vision is symmetrical +- inter-eye distance you faglord.

>some shit game keeps vertical angle of view constant therefore 4/3 is bad.

1:1 is the only choice

>not using 21:9 in portrait

>Viewing entire wikipedia articles without scrolling!

I feel like it's hard to make use of that much vertical screen real estate without the horizontal space to match it, but for some things it would work great. Like status logs or something.

What on the actual fuck
>being able to see the entire thread without scrolling

No, the purpose of 16:10 was to compromise between 4:3 and 16:9. It was an ideal transition resolution between the former to the latter since it had roughly equal black space when scaled proportionally across 16:10.

Since everything is either 16:9 or ultrawide, there was little desire to maintain or improve 16:10.

>resolution
I meant ratio.

noooo why would you post my waifu senpai!

wrong.
14:9 was a transition aspect used by some television stations to minimize black bars on both formats

16:10 is golden ratio, i.e. two pages of text next to each other