16:9 was a mistake

16:9 was a mistake
>Hurr you have two eyes so you see wider
>implying when you focus on something your view doesn't become a circle.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions
necdisplay.com/p/medical-displays/md211g5-a1
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Are your eyes rigid tubes, like an Owl? Can you not just flick your eyes across the screen effortlessly? Are you 2 inches from your monitor?

I just wish I had a 1:1 monitor so I didn't have to physically rotate it every time I wanted to look at trap doujins but I don't want to buy a second monitor to keep in portrait mode just so I can more easily look at trap doujins because then it would look like I have a problem.

You're free to set your monitor to 4:3 mode if you're not using the extra horizontal resolution :-)

Why the fuck are there no 4:3 monitors with a non-shit resolution, or anything other than widescreen??
All I can find is the same old 1024x768 and the occasional 1600x1200. same goes for 5:4. Nothing past 1280x1024.

Wikipedia lists standards for these, like QSXGA 2560 x 2048 for 5:4 and QSXGA+ 2800 x 2100 for 4:3, but these don't seem to actually exist? are they just making shit up? Where do I get these beautiful things?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions

>he doesn't read his trap doujins on an ereader

Because I don't like looking at anything on a tiny low res screen

Resolution doesn't matter much on e-ink displays, my mango looks better on my kobo then it does on my fullHD phone or monitor.

What SHOULD have happened was using TVs for computers just like the early consumer models... and when businesses complained up and down about the text being too big and not being able to fit enough data on the screen...
> Enough bitching causes TV Resolutions to increase and TVs to be produced with a higher native resolution
> Which causes a push for increased Bandwidth in the cable infrastructure

Having a higher resolution TV wouldnt have impacted bandwidth for standard cable anyway, the picture may have become a slight bit blurrier but then again maybe it wouldn't have (NES and various consoles had a display res of ~300px or so and that wasnt too noticeable due to the inherent RF inaccuracy).

So rather than Computer Monitors becoming a thing at all, we just would have gotten better TVs out of it on a civilization level.
> Better signal transmission between the computer and the TV monitor would have become a thing to correct RF inaccuracy
> meanwhile some higher standardized resolution like 960x720 may have came about that would have floated us all the way through the 90s

>hurr I hate standards

Maeks me fink. Why don't we have circular monitors?

From what I heard, this is something that Wayland could theoretically allow for.

>>implying when you focus on something your view doesn't become a circle.
how close are you sitting? it's 1ft away for each 6" of screen, so 24" monitor = 4ft

claim the rotated monitor is for productivity purposes (and point to a sheet of paper while you're at it if you do need to explain it)
unless you don't want to admit to your own problem -- but owning a 1:1 monitor just to look at hentai more conveniently is in the same fucking boat as having a rotated monitor

businesses that were willing to plop down money for computers at the time were also willing to plop down money for dedicated RGB displays instead of dealing with RF or composite bullshit
desire for higher resolutions just meant that people were always going to follow the easier path of using higher resolution dedicated computer monitors rather than for TV standards to increase to suit

Medical grade for radiologists.

They're also extremely expensive.

necdisplay.com/p/medical-displays/md211g5-a1

That one is like 14,000.

2:3 master race

also 3:2 :]

This is why we don't have "tall" monitors anymore.

Besides, VR headsets are in the process of deprecating monitors. Just a couple more hardware (and a few software) iterations to go, and you'll be able to sweep your head all over the place and have available desktop space.

who /1:1/ hier

Man, medical-labeled tech is bullshit. Why do companies accept this? It's wasting money for nothing. A fucking low res LCD small display on a fetal monitor costs 300 bucks to replace, as if i'm buying a big fucking tv.

google eizo 1:1 1920x1920 monitor. $1500 but worth it IMO.

Extremely uncomfortable shit that makes a third of people dizzy. Requires expensive GPU and will get sweaty as shit, not to say people will go blind quicker in the future

VR causes blindness? Show me a study.

Bullshit regulations.

Yes, No, Yes

>Strapping a monitor to someones head for 5 hours at at time isn't going to cause problems

Studies are probably being started now. This is about chronic illness, so we'll be seeing them in 40-60 years perhaps.

So you are basing this claim on nothing other than old wives tales

Everything in medicine of overpriced to hell and back. Even a damn scalpel costs couple dozen bucks when dollar store knife would do the same job.

We should make tiny VR helmets for mice with camera at the front, that just replays them what the camera is seeing. For a year. Then take the helmet off and see how that goes.

Autismj

Not really, scalpels are really great stuff, but should not cost more than 15 bucks and 4 bucks for each blade and it's really pushing it, at least that's the price in other places.

>Extremely uncomfortable shit
I've only used a VR headset once, but I didn't find it at all uncomfortable

>makes a third of people dizzy
You can't apply the same numbers gathered from studying gaming to productivity scenarios.

>requires expensive GPU
To render a desktop and various? No, it does not.

>will get sweaty as shit
That's a completely subjective thing, and even if that does happen, the parts that might get sweaty are replaceable.

>people will go blind quicker in the future
And now you're pulling shit directly out of your ass. Have you ever studied lighting? Or optometry?

You could have just brought up the fact that it's bad for your neck to strap anything with any substantial weight to your head for long periods where you're relatively motionless. Instead you pluck dumb shit out of the air.

>falling for bait
Stay mad newfags

Repetitive stress injuries happen due to keyboards and you think the added weight of a headset won't do anything?

Part of the reason these injuries happen when you otherwise wouldn't expect them to is that in an office environment, you're basically never warmed up, but you aren't actually at rest, either. In that situation, all bets are off on whether you hurt yourself doing dumb shit, and people do that all the time.

>haha i'm not actually retarded, i'm just trolling

We don't really know what impact having the thing strapped a few centimeters from your eyes will have in them yet, as i said it's a chronic illness thing that will only become evident in some decades, you can't say it's bullshit just from not knowing. Also, yeah i'm a doctor actually, i'm the same as .

Could be done in dogs, who age faster. Still it's the impact on humans that interests us.

Displays are reliant on pixels, which generally always adhere to a geometric grid, usually square.

16:10 = forever

Multi tasking.
You don't just have one thing in the center of your screen, most people have a lot of shit going on (even if it's just one window there's content all around it)
Because most people don't want that shit.

Because of the shit threands of turning everything into a tablet we have shit like google with its fat ass bars taking space up and down, you're only left with a tiny strip of page which you must scroll through. What does this people even think.

And not really, most people just watch shit one thing at a time, only offices perhaps would be using widescreens, but it seems the square ones were pushed out of the market.

>threands
*Trends

I don't like current VR tech because it uses the face as a load bearing surface and makes me blind and vulnerable and unable to see my mug of tea.

>I'm a doctor
I asked if you study lighting or optometry, not if you're a doctor. Nobody cares if you're a doctor. People have been saying "that's going to ruin your eyes" since TVs were invented, and yet nothing. Here you are saying it again with no evidence or even a correlation to back it up at all in any way. Surely if what you're saying has any merit, there would be some study somewhere to back it up. Meanwhile, you're not citing anything except saying you're a doctor. If you WERE a doctor, you'd probably cite me something. I actually know guys who are in med school right now and neither of them say anything without knowing what they're talking about. So I don't really think you're a doctor, sorry.

I turned one of my monitors portrait for a while, but because it was on my desk and not some separate lower mount I was often using only the bottom half. I've had both in portrait the past several months, after trying it once for multi-monitor splitscreen video games with the bf.

*both in landscape

16:10 or 8:5 for the autists, is the best.

More vertical resolution is better. More vertical resolution with additional horizontal resolution is better still, because most current video content is at least that wide and nothing is sacrificed. 16:10 was only preferable in the days of 1920 x 1200 vs 1920 x 1080.

They did it because normies want maximum diagonal inches for as cheap as possible.

>not wanting 16:9 to maximize your Sup Forums browser with

>We don't really know what impact having the thing strapped a few centimeters from your eyes will have
>We don't really know
You don't really know, because you're dumb. "We" really know that, in a relaxed state, eyes focus on infinity and we can build an optical system that makes your eyes focus on an optically infinitely far screen, even if it's 5 cm away from your eyes. So, virtual reality is, theoretically, but practically not too far away from that, more relaxing for your eyes than an actual reality.

man I wish I could afford a Macbook Pro™

16:9 was a marketing ploy to say the diagonal is bigger while the area is the same

gook detected. I bet you get wet over 21:9

24 month special financing is available for everyone who passes the credit check.

I went to a dentist who used fucking shit tn monitors or something. In the chair I could see some weird shit on the xray but from where he was sitting he couldn't see it. I had to get up and point it out and he still couldn't fucking see it.

fucking this. My old laptop is 16:10. I cant find any new monitors worth a shit that are 16:10. I found one that was acceptable but it costs several thousand.

>have 16:9 screen
>divide all windows in half

> easier path
> easier
The easy solution, a shortcut, wont bring a stronger civilization - or infrastructure. As evidenced by technology having been stalled twice and maintained at the current level for the last decade.

U n n e c e s s a r y T e c h n o l o g y

distancing people even further from their natural form and function

...

You know what is an even bigger mistake? Landscape orientation.

there, made a pic for it

>reading painfully long lines of text against a white background
Do you honestly do this?

>because then it would look like I have a problem.

> maximizing the browser window
> why would you do this?

Try reading a wikipedia article with a maximized window. Then try with a narrow window.

I have no problem with it on a narrow window. Sorry. In fact its kinda comfy and I read even faster.

Exactly. There's a reason books and newspapers are the width they are. Widescreen sucks for reading.

i miss 5:4 :(

Electronics need to be more heavily isolated from the mains power for medical purposes, the closer to the patient the more intense it gets. Isolation transformers are expensive, after the standard markup and extra engineering that needs to be done to fit them in,

>VR headsets are in the process of deprecating monitors
fucking
lmao
I bet you're the kind of retard that thought 3D was the next big thing

Its true. ever since I tried vr the vision In my non-dominant eye has been deteriorating.