I've never used this aspect ratio

I've never used this aspect ratio

For those who use/have used it, how is it?
Is it that good, or is it just a meme?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions#Computer_graphics
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

bad for gaming, bad for movies, bad for literally everything but some autist will now reply to me and be elitist and tell me how wrong i am

How old are you?

/comfy/

Even at 1024x768 it's "alright" but only on

I can't think of one good thing about it honestly, besides nostalgia I guess.

I play CS on 4:3 stretched. But I'm not retarded so I use a 16:9 screen like normal and sane people.

Good for writing documents and developing software at higher resolutions. Currently writing this on the 3:2 3000x2000 HiDPI screen of my Surface Book though (running a LFS bake)

good for spreadsheets and rts, maybe eve online if you mess with window locations
bad for movies, which is the main reason there was a switch

crap. old ass tv resolution. get a 5:4

1152x864 is objectively the most comfy resolution of all time
anyone who attempts to deny this is wrong and stupid

It was fine. Almost no one could afford a big display at the time, so in terms of vertical space it was similar to a modern 27" monitor, just with the sides cropped off.

>I've never used 4:3
You must be 18 to use blah blah

It's bretty good user. Bad for video (obviously) but nice for general productivity.

>I play CS on 4:3 stretched.
What's 4:3 stretched? I play it at 1600x1200 and it looks just fine.

4:3 stretched explanation:

Ok so let's say you have a 16:9 monitor
You can play 4:3 in two ways.
One of them is "black bars", which means having true 4:3, and the rest of the space to the sides is just black.
The other way is "stretched" which means stretching the 4:3 out to the edges of your 16:9 monitor. looks kinda odd, but some people love it

Was pretty ok. Moving away from 4:3 to 16:10 felt like a huge upgrade tho. 5:4 however never felt right. That aspect ratio was horrible.

It's good if you want to be productive and work on spreadsheets, code, having multiple things open at tge same.time for reference. Works best above 1280x1024.

t. resolutionlet

>YOU'RE WRONG YOU FUCKING DISGUSTING ANIMEPOSTER IT'S MORE NATURAL TO OUR EYES UNLESS YOU ARE SOME CHINK REEEEEE 4:3 BEST RATIO

??
You make it sound like 16:9 is the natural resolutio nfor 3D games which isn't true at all. You just alter what range of the picture you see when you change ratio. Kind of like my shitty pic

>What's 4:3 stretched?
4:3 stretched to fit a 16:9 screen, it makes the target (and everything) bigger but since it's a stretched resolution everything seems to move faster as well

Except my laptop I have only used 4:3 its quite comfy I mostly play old games on emulators and they look best in this ratio. this is it I guess can't say anything about anime, movie and other things

16:10 1000%

using your pic as example 4:3 stretched would be like pic related

yes it's a thing, see .

>You make it sound like 16:9 is the natural resolutio nfor 3D games
I never said that. I'm just explaining what 4:3 stretched is, since that user didn't know what it was. If you have a 4:3 monitor, none of that applies because in that case you're just using the natural resolution of your monitor.

>bad for gaming
Baka anime poster, what aspect ratio is touhou?

16:9 is trash, why not run 16:12? More information displayed on a screen since the top isn't cut off, better for gaming since you have a wider viewing area, and great for productivity.
Hop aboard the 16:12 train today

In what way is it better than 16:9 at any of that? The only one I can see is doing vertical shit like coding and writing documents and having only one thing open at once, in which case just get 1280x1024 (which is 5:4, not 4:3) and turn it vertical.

All other resolutions have their merits, but 4:3 is just ancient garbage.

Its the same aspect ratio you dunce

Native 4:3 is the best, way better than native 16:9. Take a 1080p monitor for example. Native res is 1920 horizontal and 1080 vertical right? Well on a 4:3, it is 1920 horizontal by 1200 vertical. 4:3 doesn't lose information, 16:9 does. The 16:9 ratio is NOT widescreen (which they advertised then as when they came out) but just 4:3 with the topcut off. One must compare a 4:3 vs a similar 16:9 to see what I mean.

it's better for reading, browsing, shitposting and work

that's the joke, m8
retards call 4:3 ancient garbage because they're not realizing that it's just a numbers game

>not understanding the obvious joke
Yes user. That's the point. Now take that glue out of your mouth.

Its :3 with a hat

there is no way you're over 18

I like to call 16:9 "consumer widescreen" as opposed to true widescreen used for cinema

It's shit, 5:4 is the master race.

So the general consensus seems to be that that 4:3 is better for productivity and general non-gaymen use.
is that right?

Still use 4:3 but with 16:9.

4:3 comfy as fuck for reading DOC\XLS bullshit and scrolling web like a baus.

There's nothing wrong with it for gaming either if the resolutions weren't so small by modern standards.

It's great.
1:1, 4:3 and 3:2 are all great aspect ratios.
16:10 is a somewhat half-assed compromise
16:9 is garbo made popular because of media consumption and corporate greed combined with marketing (a 16:9 display has less area than a 4:3/1:1/3:2/16:10 display of the same diagonal)

1920x1200 is 16:10, which is objectively the best aspect ratio

it mattered back when resolutions were shit and screens were small. only autists care about it today

>Well on a 4:3, it is 1920 horizontal by 1200 vertical
>I didn't pass highschool math
1920x1200 is 8:5 moron.

That looks more like 5:4 to me. What's the rez?

Looks cancerous but I get it, cs is a horizontal game, stretching the wide angle means more screen real estate devoted to noticing people move from the sides.

>Video games
Fuck off manchild,

...

...

wow you must be very smart

Oh i'm sure 4:3 can be used to game, but I am mainly considering this for productivity benefits.

Also, aren't there higher-res 4:3 screens?

And if you can - always get 16:10. You may think that 120px of vertical height on a 1920px display is nothing but the difference is immense. 120px on a 1920px horizontal is almost the height of the windows statusbar + entire chrome window decorations.

either use 5:4 or 21:9, everything inbetween is rubbish.

High res 4:3 CRTs are fairly common but I don't think they're being sold retail anymore so everything is second hand. Not many high res 4:3 LCDs in general.

I've used it back in the day.
It was nice back then since you didn't multi-task, but with improved hardware multi-tasking created a need for wider screens, and thus 16:9 emerged.

And on similar note, 16:9 or 18:9 for the smartphones?

16:10

I use 16:10 to watch movies with subtitles.

4:3 was still very common even 15 years ago so you've been reported.

I mean I've probably used it at some point, but I was very young and don't remember it well. Most of my shit has been 16:10 and 16:9

>4:3
>1920x1200
Inner city education gents

Great for old games and old ui looked great on it. Also a lot of old anime was 4:3 and it looks great.
If you want to you can get an old cheap 4:3 laptop (t60) for about $30 on ebay to try it out.

Get on my level, plebs.

It's good for pretty much everything but movies.

>t. brainlet

Aspect ratios are irrelevant outside of mobile devices. Just buy a larger higher resolution display or a secondary monitor if you're autistic about vertical space.

...

The best for most things. Unless you spend time at your PC watching films or playing console ports of games (which you should really be playing on a TV anyway), 4:3 offers way more room. Anything under 1200 pixels tall looks cramped and awful to me now. Documents also look excellent on 4:3 because you can display 2 A4 pages at once almost perfectly.

That said, 3:2 is also very good and arguably better for some things.

If anyone wants to get a good, cheap 4:3 LCD your best bet is a Dell 2007fp. If you can find one in good condition (which can be difficult these days) you're in for excellent colour accuracy and a very strain-free image. That said also, they often have yellowing these days. Go for about £50 in the UK on eBay and a good condition one can beat out many £200 monitors new.

What the fuck is this?
I'm searching for 4:3 and 5:4 screens, and can't find any good stuff?

On wiki, theres this big list of ratios, and they have some really nice sounding ones like QSXGA for 5:4 and QSXGA+ for 4:3, but I can't find either of these resolutions online?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions#Computer_graphics

are they just making shit up?

The abbrevations are pretty much a meme at this point, and beyond XGA (1024x768) nobody really knows what they mean.
Monitors are really only advertised over their diagonals or resolution these days. Every 19" screen you find is almost always a 5:4 1280x1024 one.

>18:9
reduce your fractions

ok then lemme rephrase.
the page says 2560x2048 and 2800x2100 exist
but I can't find those resolutions anywhere?

2:1 is pretty comfy if you turn the font size way down. pretty useless on a phone though since the screen is too small to comfortably read on.

I would like this pape. May I have this pape?

You're thinking of 1920x1440. And your argument can be reversed too. Take 1920x1440 for example. Well on a 16:9, it's 2560x1440

Those are sadly not yet available to consumers, they're pretty much only for expensive medical monitors.
The largest a high-end CRT could support as 2560x1920, the largest 4:3 LCD you can reasonably find anywhere is 1920x1440.
Native support for 5:4 resolutions other than 1280x1024 is highly unusual.

>what is reverse image search
its too big to post here anyways

well that sucks

Don't bother looking unless you're prepared to drop $15k+

If you never seen content in 4:3. You are a very young fledgling OP. Now go watch/play some 80's or 90's games, movies, tv series, and anime.

>comfy if you turn the font size way down
>too small to comfortably read on

Sorry, was a dumb way of wording it.
2:1 on a pc monitor(oriented vertically) would be pretty comfy. On a phone it doesn't matter since reading on them sucks.

>multiple things open
as a 1024x1280let i disagree
theres so little space having chrome, a couple explorer windows and literally anything else on the screen makes the edges of the windows, other useless shit etc take up like 40% of the space.
might just be that i'm a retard and should minimize all the shit always

I really enjoy using 4:3 monitors, but I think it's like 99% down to nostalgia. Hope this helps op.

Check your locak cragslist equivalent, they literally give monitors like that away for free. Now you'll have enough space for anything you'll ever need.

damn
I guess 16:10 is the best you can get and still have a non-shit resolution then?

Well there's 21:9 as well, it's pretty close to dual 5:4 monitors

It was alright for its time, I only used it on CRT monitors though.

yeah but
-its not a crt, dont know about people givin away non crt's
-i actually have 2 crt's and the flashing light makes my eyes hurt, kinda
-they take a lot of space
-my graphics card has 1 dvi port

otherwise i probably would use the crt for gaymen and the other for productivity

LCDs are decent enough for browsing Sup Forums and writing shit. Not that bad for gayman either (used to run three of them before I got my ultrawide) but obviously the input lag will be higher than a CRT or a gaming monitor.

>the flashing light makes my eyes hurt
most CRTs should have no problem running at 75Hz

It's the perfect aspect ratio for the human eye.

i'm kind of a brainlet, how do i get them past 75hz?

>past 75hz
get them from 60Hz to 75Hz, you mean? should be in display settings. you may have to tick a box to show "not recommended" refresh rates. if that doesn't work, your graphics card's utility should let you create a Custom Resolution (including a custom refresh rate).

is anyone else really sad about this? like, I really wanted to fall for this meme, but I aint gonna get some CRT or shitty resolution monitor in echo "2000 + 18 - 1" | bc

thanks, will try that tomorrow
can they go higher if i lower the resolution?
could setting a custom resolution with a high refresh rate damage the monitor?

>can they go higher if i lower the resolution?
don't think so. since it's an analog signal you're more likely to hit a hard limit that the monitor can't support, rather than a bandwidth limit (too much info going though the cable).
>could setting a custom resolution with a high refresh rate damage the monitor?
unlikely. if the refresh rate isn't supported the screen will go blank for a few seconds and will reset back to what it was originally. as long as you make gradual increments it won't damage anything.

Why the fuck is everything widescreen when it should be fucking tallscreen.

>Win 10
what the fuck are you doing there?

>can they go higher if I lower the resolution?
Usually, they can. My 17" CRT could run 1024x768 at 100 Hz, but 800x600 at >150 Hz.

Just turn your monitor

It fucking sucks, cripples my two-window workflow.

I use 4:3 primarily and I would warn anyone away from falling for the meme, unless it's to be used for retro gaming in which case it's perfectly suited. For general everyday use however it simply lacks screen space and regulalrly leaves you aching for a little extra room to the side.

Nothing beats retro gaming on a 120hz crt@240p

i'm getting conflicting statements here but thanks for the help anyway, i'll see what i can do

i haven't had a CRT that could go past 92Hz no matter the resolution, i assumed that applies to most CRTs out there. either way, give it a go.