How can we bring back 16:10 monitors?

Dell still makes a 1200p display, just buy one; or get a MacBook.

So is human ass
You don’t need to make it more narrow, just taller. Behold:
Now just imagine two of these side by side for all you wide types. 1920x1920 alone, 3840x1920 together.

Attached: 589B3950-B11C-4A9F-9FA5-AD2FAF3A7B46.jpg (678x451, 31K)

>Dell still makes a 1200p display
Not really, they simply are still selling a display that was designed and released in 2011. The U2412M is NOT a "new" monitor by any stretch, and hasn't been updated internally since it was first released.

The only modern 16:10 display dell has made is the UP3017 (2560x1600)

If you use your computer through your ass, you should probably monetize that. I'm sure that would be popular.

How do you think I’m posting right now silly user?

3:2 superiority checking in.

Attached: suface-studio-5.jpg (1280x687, 144K)

If they sold that as a monitor they'd make bank.

Though they probably get more at the end of the day by pairing it with all that shitty mobile hardware.

>16:10
Can we never make you big bigs happy?

Attached: gross.jpg (639x360, 50K)

We need to make 3:2 the standard not this shit 16:10 18:9 or whatever the fuck these cunts who believe bigger numbers = better are doing!

>The Apple Macbook Pro with Retina Display doesn't have this problem.
it have every other problem.

They could still sell accessories, like that Dial.
Don't get why they didn't remove all intenal components not display-related and fill the base with weight and sell it as a monitor. Could still make a pretty penny on it.

4:3 is garbage, 16:10 is almost a golden ratio so it's the most natural aspect ratio to use. Humans don't see squares, 4:3 is simply a product of the limitations of CRT technology.

>16:10 reduces to 3:2

Attached: file.png (800x450, 142K)

Device aspect ratio is little to do with human vision and much to do with reducing surface area while increasing a number to fool idiots into still buying it. And that's a good thing because you morons eat it up and actually argue in their favor that "human vision is widescreen" and "we only see 24 fps anyway" and other idiocy.

This why 1:1 is the best.

who are you quoting?

He said 3:2 is better than 16:10, not that they're the same, and he's right.

3:2 is ideal especially for anything shot on 35mm.

If it must be rectangular, then you're right.

>If it must be rectangular
What other shapes did you have in mind?

16:9 is 1.778:1
16:10 is 1.60:1
3:2 is 1.5:1

it's too tall. you will get horizontal bars on most video content, screens will be more expensive, etc.

I started working recently and was pleasantly surprised that all monitors were dell 16:10 , I guess they aren't dead

A spherical cap would be okay for a single user in a mostly stationary position, i.e. most computer users.

I'm referring to mastering and production work

35mm still photography is still a thing, and 3:2 is the same aspect ratio.

Looks like someone is working on it.

Attached: idome2.jpg (1200x900, 340K)

>that incredible amount of distortion
attractive

It's not distorted when you're sitting in the middle of it. That's the point.

Seems like it'd also extend outside of your field of vision in that case.

Peripheral vision is wider than people think, and the goal is to create a full-vision display.

And that's a good thing.

2584:1597 would be perfect.
Or any other ratio with x/y = 1.618 .

There is a golden ratio called (i forget), but it is the ratio of a credit card, and many other things, such as 16:10 monitors that are more close to it than 16:9. It has something to do with human aesthetics for beauty. The ancient Egyptians had figured it out. Again I forget what its called, feel free to google it.

>2x1
dat ratio tho

I'd prefer something like this over a VR/AR headset.

Its actually called "The Golden Ratio", and this is what all screens should be, 16:10 was essentially perfectly close to it. Fuck 16:9.

It's called "golden cut" (at least in german). You can find it in nearly any natural form (from the human body (face, torso ratio ...) to flowers and animals) which is why humans find it pleasing and "natural" to look at. Like the A4 paper format for example. It is calculated this way if I remember correctly: 2/1, 3/2, 5/3, 8/5, ... 2584/1597; .

This

Attached: 1527793361635.jpg (403x389, 19K)

Why the fuck did Japs pick 16:9 anyway when 16:10 looks so much better?

I think because thy wanted to have a 2:1 ratio after the taskbar eats away from 16:9 to 16:8.

It's because they have slanted eyes

Attached: 1529778625115.jpg (599x547, 68K)

>3840x1920 together.

Or just a single 3840x2160 monitor.

Attached: fibonacci.png (1080x1364, 766K)

That's 8:5, not 16:10 you fucking brainlet

Numbers need to seem bigger. Just see the 1/3 pound burger vs. quarter pounder case.

How do you make win10 look like that?

it wasnt easy

any where we could begin the journey of frustration?

I'm using one.

It was most commonly referred to as 16:10 you autistic fucking spurg