Thread 106207628

How can we bring back 4:3?

Just buy a 4:3 monitor.

>>106207628 (OP)
>less screen space
no reason to bring it back

>>106207628 (OP)
It never left. Go play a 480p video on youtube.

>>106207628 (OP)

dell has 17" and 19" no hdmi on 17" though

Shit thread, may it be wiped

>>106207628 (OP)
We don't. There is one aspect ratio that's coming back though. It's geometrically perfect. Divine, even. I'm looking forward to seeing it kill the consoomer aspect ratio (16:9) eventually. Picrel.

>>106207628 (OP)
Convince people that aero snap isn't useful

>>106207628 (OP)
Make "retro" monitors with CRT shape and builtin shaders.

>>106207642
For any given diagonal size a 4:3 monitor will have more total screen than a 16:9, 16:10, 21:9, etc. wider aspect ratio.

>>106209013
What
16:9 was made by retooling equipment that made 4:3 panels, hence why 1366x768 existed, it was an extension of 1024x768
the practical implementation of 16:9 is always taking the base 4:3 and adding to it

>>106207747
based
I feel my comfortable with my 16:10 laptop screen despite being only 16" compared to my 16:9 desktop.

>>106207747
Macs are literally the goyest of hardware though? It basically doesn't exist outside of them and never will

>>106207628 (OP)
Why settle for 4:3 when you can go even squarer?
Eizo makes 1:1 monitors for ATC and other niche uses.

>>106209697
>1366x768
thats NOT 16:9

voila!

>>106209972
1920x1440 is also 4:3 btw

>>106209983
my high end CRT had 1600x1200 and you can also upload 4:3 videos in 1440x1080 to get a higher bitrate due to higher resolution onto youtube

>>106207642
>>less screen space
No it's not, that only depends on screen size and resolution, not by aspect ratio.

>>106209910
It's a cheap hack that aimed to retool the existing machinery
It demonstrates the point that there's no reasonable production method where you can make 4:3 without making a 16:9 panel that's just better

>>106210531
isnt that just based on what the existing machinery expects
like if 4:3 was the mainstream scale then the machinery would be majority 4:3, but now its majority 16:9 because thats the norm
I just find it so sad that people quickly discarded CRTs during the 2000's despite them being superior to the LCDs of the time in so many ways, and also way more expensive to produce

>>106207642
4:3 literally has more screen space

3:2 is superior

>>106210668
You don't get it
Imagine a machine sewing a red carpet on top of a conveyor belt
Naturally that conveyor's width is enough to accommodate the carpet and the machine is programmed to make the carpet of a specific width
Imagine that carpet was to be cut into specific sizes
It makes much more sense to cut that carpet in different spots depending on demand than to remake everything, that assembly line can make both a 192x108cm carpet and a 144x108cm carpet because what dictates how that machinery works is that 108cm of width
Even if you wanted to make a second type of carpet with 180x135cm dimension you would still be able to make a 240x135cm carpet on it unless you explicitly wanted your machines to make the longer edge and to use a wider conveyor

>>106207628 (OP)
>can we bring back significantly less horizontal space for our screens
no.

>>106207628 (OP)
16:9 is two 4:3

>>106207628 (OP)
4:3 doesn't go far enough. Bring back 5:4.

>>106209697
A 24" 4:3 display is larger than a 24" 16:9 one.

>>106207628 (OP)
Have the width of a 4K monitor but the height of a 5K monitor

>>106207628 (OP)
16:10 is good enough

>>106211329
10:16 is too narrow if you have a 4K monitor rotated 90°, though. It’s too narrow for a lot of things, like a Discord window with the user list. 3:4 would be way better.

>>106207628 (OP)
16:9 is better since it can display both 4:3 and 21:9 content with bearable black bars. 4:3 looks awful on a 21:9 monitor and 21:9 looks awful on a 4:3 monitor.

>>106209697
Horizontal space is overrated. Computers are all about text input/output and 4:3 simply does better job at that. There's a reason it was a standard since inception. 16:9 makes sense for media consumption but most people have TVs and smartphones for that.

>>106207628 (OP)
1:sabotage the major movie industry and their collusion with HDMI
2:fund artsy retro indie shit that uses old aspect ratios
3:????
4:3

>>106211774
You can't make a 4:3 screen without opening the path to making a 5.3333:3 screen on the same assembly line
You just can't unless you go through some weird petty clown route with custom machines for the tiny clientele that cares about that
And that makes it strictly worse
Besides if you care so much about text output just flip the monitor on the side
That approximates paper way better
It's better for it to be too long than too short

>>106207628 (OP)
just take the 3:2pill

>>106207628 (OP)
Buy a nice 1440p OLED monitor and set it to 1920x1440.
Put some tall speakers in front of the black areas if they bother you.

>>106207747
sometimes I see a laptop with a 3840x2400 resolution and I cream my pants instantly, it's just so fucking peak

Display shape doesn't really matter when the resolution is high enough.

>>106212588
It's perfect for GBA emulation honestly.

>>106213502
That one has a 4:3 display.

>>106210720
see
>>106210225