Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Congratulations, you’re old. Everything is HD now, there’s no reason to make those anymore.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Congratulations, you’re old. Everything is HD now, there’s no reason to make those anymore.
GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 week ago
A 5:4 monitor would be closer to square than an HD monitor. I’m not sure if the OP meant an HD size or actually 5:4 since I haven’t seen anything that size except for digital picture frames and portable console screens.
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
1280x1024 is a pretty common size for old LCDs.
GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 week ago
I had CRTs that could do that, too, but if you opened a picture of a circle, it looked like an oval.
I’m not saying those screen ratios, or those resolutions, didn’t exist, but I wouldn’t say they were the norm.
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Yeah, I don’t think I’ve seen a native 5:4 CRT. I imagine it’s a lot harder to make a different aspect ratio with CRTs, since LCDs are essentially cut out of a sheet, while CRTs are molded glass.
With LCDs, though, 1280x1024 was a fairly common native resolution. If you were getting an LCD above 1024x768 that wasn’t a widescreen, it was almost certainly 1280x1024.
myplacedk@lemmy.world 1 week ago
5:4 was great. I could see a full screen video edge-to-edge, and still have room for a toolbar.
Today I have no idea why I would like that, but I did.