why we should have stayed with 4:3 monitors, and NEVER had gone 16:9 let alone wider

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Human eyesight has a field of vielw of 155 degrees horizontal and 120 degrees vertical.
(don't ask me.. somebody has measured this in some science paper)

this propertion accounts to 4:3.075

so 4:3 is almost the EXACT way our human eyesight works.. if we have 4:3 screen thats large (and close) enough to out face it would perfectly fill our entire field of vieuw and we would see EVERYTHING nothing in (for our eyesight) dead angles..

this is why ultrawide makes EVEN less sence..

# bring back 4:3 screens for pc! 4000x3000 4k screen make it happen!

oh btw if you also want to fll the human pixeldensity perfectly.. the maximum pixels the average human can see is 576 million (that is for moving object for static it is just 10-15 million)

that mean a monitor with 88000 x 66000 pixels would be the perfect monitor for a human

[A&A]

If you really want to stay 20cm away from it then get one. :D

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Originally posted by A&A:

If you really want to stay 20cm away from it then get one. :D

I want one.. but with better resolution than the 1600x1200 crt I used to own.

4000x3000 is closer to what you would want today..
and sadly those never were made..

so when I say bring 4:3 back I don't mean 768x1024 and 1200x1600
I mean 2000x1500 and 4000x3000
(basicly to put them on par with the 1440p and 4k screens but than in 4:3)

[_I_]

if you want 4:3 its easy

buy a 4k display 3840x2160
in gpu control panel, make a custom res
1440x2160, and enable gpu scaling to native
it will letterbox the 4:3 in the center of the display

enjoy

[Che]

The aspect ratio does not matter. Many people tend to forget about this.
It's all about the screensize. 4:3 monitors are smaller than 16:9 or 21:9 monitors.
Having a smaller monitor occupies less of your view. While the monitor is in the middle you see everything around and behind it which is reallife.

16:9 increases monitor view and reduces waht you see irl. Same goes for 21:9 and 32:9.

If you move the 4:3 right in front of your face then you get the same effect however you shouldnt do that. this is why you get larger monitors so that you can sit further away.

4:3 became obsolete, and there is a reason for that.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Originally posted by Che:

The aspect ratio does not matter. Many people tend to forget about this.
It's all about the screensize. 4:3 monitors are smaller than 16:9 or 21:9 monitors.
Having a smaller monitor occupies less of your view. While the monitor is in the middle you see everything around and behind it which is reallife.

16:9 increases monitor view and reduces waht you see irl. Same goes for 21:9 and 32:9.

If you move the 4:3 right in front of your face then you get the same effect however you shouldnt do that. this is why you get larger monitors so that you can sit further away.

4:3 became obsolete, and there is a reason for that.

sure size is nice which is why i advocate to only use 40 inch for 4k..

but nobody is saying to return to 21 inch screens of 1200x1600.

4:3 is not obsolete if you had a 50 inch screen 4000x3000 pixels.

4000x3000 50 inch
3000x2250 40 inch
2000x1500 30 inch

would be monitors we shoiuld have today with 4:3 keeping updates.

4:3 does not prevent yankiing up the numbers and size

also 4:3 if placed ast right distance 100% fills your view as it should.
larger screens can be put further away.

but 16:9 let alone 21:9 or worse will always have that wastee part of you visual frame that is seeing your wall not screen..
your visioj IS 4:3.. so to fit widescreen in it you must place it further away leaving top parrt of your vision unused.

[smokerob79]

Originally posted by De Hollandse Ezel:

Human eyesight has a field of vielw of 155 degrees horizontal and 120 degrees vertical.
(don't ask me.. somebody has measured this in some science paper)

this propertion accounts to 4:3.075

so 4:3 is almost the EXACT way our human eyesight works.. if we have 4:3 screen thats large (and close) enough to out face it would perfectly fill our entire field of vieuw and we would see EVERYTHING nothing in (for our eyesight) dead angles..

this is why ultrawide makes EVEN less sence..

# bring back 4:3 screens for pc! 4000x3000 4k screen make it happen!

oh btw if you also want to fll the human pixeldensity perfectly.. the maximum pixels the average human can see is 576 million (that is for moving object for static it is just 10-15 million)

that mean a monitor with 88000 x 66000 pixels would be the perfect monitor for a human

I guess you missed the fact we only got 4:3 because of broadcasting issues.....

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Originally posted by smokerob79:

Originally posted by De Hollandse Ezel:

Human eyesight has a field of vielw of 155 degrees horizontal and 120 degrees vertical.
(don't ask me.. somebody has measured this in some science paper)

this propertion accounts to 4:3.075

so 4:3 is almost the EXACT way our human eyesight works.. if we have 4:3 screen thats large (and close) enough to out face it would perfectly fill our entire field of vieuw and we would see EVERYTHING nothing in (for our eyesight) dead angles..

this is why ultrawide makes EVEN less sence..

# bring back 4:3 screens for pc! 4000x3000 4k screen make it happen!

oh btw if you also want to fll the human pixeldensity perfectly.. the maximum pixels the average human can see is 576 million (that is for moving object for static it is just 10-15 million)

that mean a monitor with 88000 x 66000 pixels would be the perfect monitor for a human

I guess you missed the fact we only got 4:3 because of broadcasting issues.....

I am aware..
but 4:3 actually aligns PERFECT with human field of view all you have to do is make screen big enough and close ebough and yank up those pixels.

going 16:9 made them worse.. no matter what distanve you place them.. fueld of vieuw will be wasted.

[Illusion of Progress]

I could see an argument for 16:10 having stuck around instead of 16:9 displacing it, or for taller aspect ratios (which do exist, although barely) to be more common in the consumer space, but not for staying entirely on 4:3. If ultrawide was the only standard, I'd agree with you, but it's not; it's incredibly niche.

I could also see an argument for taller displays (as opposed to wider) for web consumption, because they are objectively better for that. I suppose you could get a wide display and rotate it if you want, but there are potential issues with it (you may sometimes deal with issues from the changed sub-pixel orientation, especially in regards to text).

But 16:10 and 16:9 are by no means "too wide" (16:9 is a bit lacking vertically IMO, especially at 1080p and below, but it's not too wide).

Ultrawide, as far as I know, is mostly for media consumption (games and video) or additional productivity (more applications/windows open at once, so more of a multi-monitor replacement). No, you probably can't see the entirety of the ultrawide at once without moving your eyes (and if you can, I'd argue you're just sitting far enough back that you're losing too much vertical), but it can add immersion because of the additional peripheral space.

The big thing is that it's somewhat easier to go wider as opposed to taller.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

One of the good points with something like Ultra Wide 32:9 is to have one screen do this instead of 3 like we used to do with NVIDIA Surround.

[Andrius227]

That can't be right. I have a triple monitor setup and i can see all 3 monitors without moving my head...

Although i would never buy an ultrawide monitor, i like 16:9 for gaming.

[Quint]

bait used to be believable

[wbino]

Originally posted by De Hollandse Ezel:

Human eyesight has a field of vielw of 155 degrees horizontal and 120 degrees vertical.
(don't ask me.. somebody has measured this in some science paper)

this propertion accounts to 4:3.075

so 4:3 is almost the EXACT way our human eyesight works.. if we have 4:3 screen thats large (and close) enough to out face it would perfectly fill our entire field of vieuw and we would see EVERYTHING nothing in (for our eyesight) dead angles..

this is why ultrawide makes EVEN less sence..

# bring back 4:3 screens for pc! 4000x3000 4k screen make it happen!

oh btw if you also want to fll the human pixeldensity perfectly.. the maximum pixels the average human can see is 576 million (that is for moving object for static it is just 10-15 million)

that mean a monitor with 88000 x 66000 pixels would be the perfect monitor for a human

What type of car do you drive?

[primeinsurrection]

'Some science paper' probably means an MSN article.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Originally posted by primeinsurrection:

'Some science paper' probably means an MSN article.

no it means a publication amongst the many you get send to you if your a physics phd.. (after all your judged by piblications and quotations) this one was more for medical department but it peeked ny interesr so I glossed over it.
btw they also killed the myth that different races of humans have different fields of view. (but there are small differences in the speed and ability to shift from close objects to ones further away. (focossspeed) and in the ability to differentaliate tints of same colour.. (if your life depends on seeing a white annimal in the snow or a green one in jungle or a brown one in savanna.. the ones that see less contrast die out)

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Originally posted by wbino:

Originally posted by De Hollandse Ezel:

Human eyesight has a field of vielw of 155 degrees horizontal and 120 degrees vertical.
(don't ask me.. somebody has measured this in some science paper)

this propertion accounts to 4:3.075

so 4:3 is almost the EXACT way our human eyesight works.. if we have 4:3 screen thats large (and close) enough to out face it would perfectly fill our entire field of vieuw and we would see EVERYTHING nothing in (for our eyesight) dead angles..

this is why ultrawide makes EVEN less sence..

# bring back 4:3 screens for pc! 4000x3000 4k screen make it happen!

oh btw if you also want to fll the human pixeldensity perfectly.. the maximum pixels the average human can see is 576 million (that is for moving object for static it is just 10-15 million)

that mean a monitor with 88000 x 66000 pixels would be the perfect monitor for a human

What type of car do you drive?

I don't.
cost of car ownership is insane here (licence will put you down 6 grand.. and mandatory insurance and car ownership tax easely a few hundred each month and parking cost like 20 euro oer hour..
plus most expensive petrol..
a car is a luxery not an essential. no car dependend hellhole..
we have walkable neighbourhoods
we have excelent public transport
and perfectly safe bycicleroads ecerywhere.

the one rare time I need a car I lend or lease one. which is maybe 2 times a year..
(usually lend as I hade to have those distracting navigation screens in a car so older models)
I prefer slightly older coupes. like a volvo 780 or rover 800 when i lend one. (90s models)
plenty particulairs who lend at a fee their car for a day..
cheaper than owning one.

and those older models dont have all that electronic humbug I aint used to use given my very limited driving hours..