Why did 4:3 stop being the standard aspect ratio?

Why did 4:3 stop being the standard aspect ratio?

no games

Because the human vision is horizontal and wide.

because homosexuality

Picture is bullshit
4:3 = 16:9
4x4 = 16
3x3 = 9
shits equivalent, only difference is # of pixels

You're gay

This. Our eyes are next to each other horizontally, not on top of each other. When the screen gets big enough you'll start wishing it was 16:9.

because for the same diagonal measure the area is less, and therefore its cheaper to make the wide panels, consumers see the bigger diagonal number and assume its the same size when in reality it's a rip off

because widescreen tvs took off
and then computer display manufacturers became cheap decided to just sell widescreen tv panels as computer displays
that's a decade of progress lost right there

>1.33... = 1.77...
really makes you think

@63354991
not even a (you) for you

Cause media and TV resolutions decided wider is better... it is but complete opposite for productivity.

4:3 master race

because 4:3 only exists because of the limitations of CRT monitors.

...

American education

>4:3 = 16:9

People actually started using their monitors for media consumption and not just shitposting on BBS

Many games are played better in 4:3 aspect ratio. Personally I don't like it, but most people like 4:3 for CSGO because of the CSS feel.

media consumption and clever kike tricks.
4:3 panel has more "screen space" (bigger area) than a 19:9 panel with the same "diagonal"
So you're basically getting shafted on muh pixels

>css feel
you mean the Quake feel

When we realized we had two eyes.

conspiracy of the wide-eyed

we know why it became widescreen, the real question is why did 16:9 win out over 16:10

The film industry.

thats for the lols

I'll tell you why I got rid of one of my 4:3 work monitors for a 16:9
>2 windows can be viewed better side by side, specifically helpful when editing code
>excel pivot tables can be used without having to constantly hide/unhide the field list
>power point presentations for 16:9 conference room screens can be edited accordingly

4:3 = 12:9 ≠ 16:9

Movies, IIRC.

>can't even do middle school level math
Consider suicide

1:2 = 1:4 = 1:16 = ...

Some major discoveries we're making here, lads.
Next time we split the profits from the logo, I'll take the half and you can keep the pittance. Equal shares for everybody!

>Get to try a 1280x960 monitor at work
>Open browser and hit the web
>mfw
I don't even. It was amazing, and i didn't drown in white space either.
I wish i could get 1600x1200 for my next one, simply to crank up the PPI and browse the web.
Meanwhile i will suffer black bars everywhere for it.

This is why

4:3 takes this into account. Your vision has a lot of overlap so the monitor doesn't need to be as wide as you think it does.

>can't even do entry level troll detection

1080p meme

Just get a WQHD monitor, and open the browser on one half of it. Effectively a 1280x1440 display.

4:3 doesn't take anything "into account" you fucking idiot. God I hate this website

I've never ever wished I had 16:9. It feels cramped as fuck using a 16:9 display at work. I have 16:10 and 5:4 displays at home which are both way better.

The only 16:9 display that isn't fucking utter garbage is a 30+ inch one I have at work, but since I also use below 30 inch displays it's a small consolation.
And even then it barely stacks up to my 24 inch 16:10 display.

Yes it does.

>I was only pretending to be retarded

I unironically got so confused by this for a moment before realizing that I was doing squares and square roots.
Well constructed bait

Not the same guy dumbass.

Because it cost 5 cents less to make. And most movies were made in 16:9 for some stupid reason, and normies apparently hate black bars more than pedophiles and zoophiles combined. But yeah, 16:9 is stupid and that's why I'll never give up my 8740w and its glorious 1680x1050 display.

I was actually pretending to be pretending to be pretending to be retarded

Most movies are made in a wider aspect ratio than 16:9. iirc 16:9 was actually chosen as a middle ground between 4:3 and wider cinema aspect ratios.

sensible le reddit chuckle

Take a (you)

Close enough. Point is, it sucks and should never have been the standard. The human field of vision is closer to 4:3/16:10 than a near-perfect rectangle.

Why are most sites still not optimized for wide screens?
Almost all popular sites have giant empty bars on both sides.

Reminder that 16:10 is the perfect aspect ratio. 4:3 and 5:4 are too squashed, the FOV is too small.

>The only 16:9 display that isn't fucking utter garbage is a 30+ inch one I have at work, but since I also use below 30 inch displays it's a small consolation.
Yes, on small screens you might feel your vision has been limited because of 16:9 but I specifically said when the screen gets big enough. That's when you start seeing limitations in square screens. They either force you to look uncomfortably high up or down to see the edges. It's much more comfortable to just move your eyes sideways like people already do with two monitors side by side.
>inb4 the number of pixels though
Just get a higher resolution one then. There will be a limit in your vision when pixels are too small to see and that's what you should aim for. Monitor like that might not be available yet but it will.

Because most people browse the internet with smartphones these days and it's easier to just make one version that works for both.

>most movies were made in 16:9

No they they're not.

that's actually kinda neat
sqrt(16/9) = 4/3

Because people with 1024x768 screens will freak the shit out at you if you make your website wider than 1000px.

Reminder that a couple of years from now 21:9 will be the standard.

Better than the 16:9 trash we're stuck with now.

I agree: the wider the better infact.

Eventually I want a screen that spans all 4 walls.

No it doesn't. 16:9 CRTs would've been difficult to manufacture and thus, would've been expensive.

Making websites for exact measurements is a cancer that people should be fined for committing.

24 inches isn't a small screen. Neither is 27 inches. Both are perfectly fine for 4:3 and 16:10. Not fine for 16:9. I really don't feel like using a TV for a monitor is necessary.

4:3 is still the best ratio for viewing or creating text-based content.

The amount of dead space I see when people post their HD widescreen set up makes my blood boil.

You can have two different portrait windows open side by side on a widescreen monitor. Multitasking is much more difficult on a square monitor.

>multitasking

Not with a human brain you wont.

Literally the jews. Hollywood, television.

4:3 = 16:12

We were cut from 16:12 to 16:10 and then 16:9, now they're pushing 21:9. They keep taking our height away so we can't get real work done, only watch movies.

Hollywood doesn't want you to know! Get a 9:16 monitor with this one weird trick!

>should I file my taxes?
>nah, I'm going watch Age of Ultron in Ultra Wide for the fifth time today
Fucking Hollywood greed, where will it stop?

...

3:2 best aspect ratio

Because 5:4 is superior and best

inb4 500 replies

This

I liked 1280x800 12" screens but any bigger and it gets tiring

Also, horizontal space is more valuable than vertical space. Unrelated columns are more readable than unrelated rows. You can scroll vertically more easily than you can scroll horizontally. Etc.

F. A. L. S. E.

Fucking wrong
Autistic as fuck
Loser opinion
Snobby thinkpad user
Eat shit

I have a 1600x1200 Trinitron CRT and it's excellent for everything that isn't movie-watching. I have a 52 inch widescreen TV connected to my PC for the times I actually need to view 16:9 content.

these are expensive as fuck man

try being a student and having to scroll about 3 times/pages just to write a report cause you're europoor and have 1366x768 in 15" but the software is fucking american

and your uni teachers have 2K screens on 25" cause daddy state pays

wrong, 4:3 was the standard size for movies since the 1900's

kek

>would've
16:9 and 16:10 CRTs exist.

Think of 21:9 as two 5:4 monitors without a bezel.

i'll bite

fuckin christ that got me

...

The absolute state of Sup Forums

>SCREENCAP ME INCLUDE IN

movies

Big Shaq, that you my man?

>WORDS MY ZOOM UP

This + LCD adoption. LCDs are particularly bad at vertical viewing angles, and this problem becomes more obvious the taller the screen is. Using a wider shorter screen allowed manufacturers to save money on materials (by angle measurement wizardry), offer a hip new product that was instantly distinguished on the market AND hide the shortcomings of that product. It was marketing genius.

Also, 4:3 is scientifically closer to actual human field of view than 16:9, so that argument is bogus.

9:16 is also shit because it's too narrow, that's like reading those medical journals that have two columns of text on a page. Fucking retarded.

16:10 is best
screen ratio is 1.777 but subtract the the taskbar and top bar and you're left with a 16:9.5 usable area, which has an aesterhically pleasing ratio of 1.68

...

>16:9 and 16:10 CRTs exist.
Yes, and guess what ?
They are/were more expensive than 4:3 CRTs.

so this is the power of american education

>16:9 = 4:3

Include me in the screencap.

Multimedia started becoming more popular than productivity.

...

Explain to me how this is 16:9

Neat.

rly makes you think eh

Uncommon aspect ratios cost more money? Whoa!