jwt27 wrote:

MaxWar wrote:

Its a bit like megapixels for digital cameras, it means nothing without good optics.

Anyway i dont uneratand why you said : "I have a 1200p screen yet I can't watch 'HD' movies at 1080p?? "
I have a 1200p display, you just end up with narrow black bars top/bottom. Unless you do some kind of stretching/upscaling , which i would not do.

What I was trying to say is, the 1080p number tells you nothing about the horizontal resolution. As if that's not important.

My screen is 1600x1200, and it does progressive scanning, so in 'HD terms' it would classify as 1200p. But 1080p won't fit 😉

I know what you mean, the use of the 1080p number is a popular simplification for the average joe, i would have prefered they name it differently.

But then i have never seen a 4:3 display with a 1080 vertical resolution, so when you see 1080p you basically know its widescreen. I have never seen 1200p advertised for Widescreen displays, and since this vertical resolution exists in 4:3, it would be a bit dumb as you explained.

VileRancour wrote:

@Sune: not sure what you mean by mentioning "VESA" specifically (thought that this didn't have much meaning these days, when the video drivers worry about standards, or lack thereof).

I'm talking about situations where there are no video drivers loaded, such as boot screens, boot loaders, Linux in framebuffer mode etc. Unless you can switch off scaling (and don't mind huge black borders) you will be looking at a horribly stretched image if your video card has no VESA mode that matches your monitors native resolution.

Granted it's a minor issue but it's still a stupid limitation that exists for no reason other than to annoy people who needs this functionality.

swaaye wrote:

Widescreen monitors are great for movies, and TV shows for about the past decade. That's why they are popular. 4:3 is not so hot anymore for that unless you like your old school TV shows that are 4:3. The price of monitors is pretty much cheaper than ever outside of really high quality panels so I'm not sure there's any ripping off going on.

Then I'd agree that widescreen ratios make a whole lot of sense - for TV sets. But for computer monitors? I don't know.

Computers are meant for more than just watching movies and TV shows, despite that overwhleming insistence from higher up that we are all just "media consumers" and nothing else. I do a lot with my computer; and for almost every task, I find that vertical space is at a premium -- far more important than horizontal space is.
That includes browsing the web (consider the way data is laid out on a webpage); file management/directory browsing; programming; spreadsheets; graphic design; chat and most forms of communcation; and so on so forth - even tracking music.

Why is that the case? I'm not sure. It may have something to do with the way our brains have been trained to gather information - for instance, something as rudimentary as a single page in a book almost always has a roughly vertical layout. Maybe our brains are wired to attach a bigger hierarchical importance to the "up vs. down" distinction than to "left vs. right" - or something like that; I'll leave such theorizing to neuroscientists / philosophers / crackpots. 😁 Point is, using a widescreen PC monitor (less vertical space) just feels less convenient to me for most things.

Of course, that's a subjective statement, but I think it's based on reality on some level.

Sune Salminen wrote:

I'm talking about situations where there are no video drivers loaded, such as boot screens, boot loaders, Linux in framebuffer mode etc. Unless you can switch off scaling (and don't mind huge black borders) you will be looking at a horribly stretched image if your video card has no VESA mode that matches your monitors native resolution.

Granted it's a minor issue but it's still a stupid limitation that exists for no reason other than to annoy people who needs this functionality.

Ah - I see what you mean. It's probably the same aforementioned mentality of "video drivers take care of everything anyway" that has led manufacturers to neglect/ignore such situations as you describe.

That horrifyingly ugly stretching annoys the hell out of me too, but that's just the effect of digital displays being inherently limited to a single native resolution - something that seemingly won't change anytime soon, even with up-and-coming tech.

The best we can hope for is that physical resolutions would increase dramatically, providing ultra-fine pixel grids, so that artifacts like that become visually negligible (more room for sharp, integer multiplication, with only marginal blur). But, at the risk of being branded a luddite, this only serves to illustrate the flexibility of analog - something that's lost with the transition to discrete digital domains.

VileRancour wrote:

Then I'd agree that widescreen ratios make a whole lot of sense - for TV sets. But for computer monitors? I don't know. […]
Show full quote

swaaye wrote:

Widescreen monitors are great for movies, and TV shows for about the past decade. That's why they are popular. 4:3 is not so hot anymore for that unless you like your old school TV shows that are 4:3. The price of monitors is pretty much cheaper than ever outside of really high quality panels so I'm not sure there's any ripping off going on.

Then I'd agree that widescreen ratios make a whole lot of sense - for TV sets. But for computer monitors? I don't know.

Computers are meant for more than just watching movies and TV shows, despite that overwhleming insistence from higher up that we are all just "media consumers" and nothing else. I do a lot with my computer; and for almost every task, I find that vertical space is at a premium -- far more important than horizontal space is.
That includes browsing the web (consider the way data is laid out on a webpage); file management/directory browsing; programming; spreadsheets; graphic design; chat and most forms of communcation; and so on so forth - even tracking music.

Why is that the case? I'm not sure. It may have something to do with the way our brains have been trained to gather information - for instance, something as rudimentary as a single page in a book almost always has a roughly vertical layout. Maybe our brains are wired to attach a bigger hierarchical importance to the "up vs. down" distinction than to "left vs. right" - or something like that; I'll leave such theorizing to neuroscientists / philosophers / crackpots. 😁 Point is, using a widescreen PC monitor (less vertical space) just feels less convenient to me for most things.

Of course, that's a subjective statement, but I think it's based on reality on some level.

I find this bit you wrote particularly interesting. It goes right to the point of: "why exactly go widescreen? ". This is just like the kind of subject that gets me going, brace yourself for a long post.

Widescreen; Is it really only best for movies?

I think there is one big biological argument in favor of widescreen: The human field of view. It is oriented on the horizontal plan more than the vertical. It then makes sense that widescreen has been the movie industry standard for ages. It just fits better the window of what we see. I think it applies as well for computer work. I personally use a 16:10 display. I prefer it to 16:9, but i prefer both to 4:3 anyday. For video editing, and audio editing (which i do alot), widescreen is certainly a big advantage over 4:3 to me, music tracking? i dit quite a bit of that and like it on the horizontal much better. For web browsing? Well i like to have a zillion pages opened at the same time. Widescreen allows me to see more tabs at a time. For games i.e : FPS shooters, widescreen is more realistic as it better fits the human FOV.
To me widescreen is pretty cool, but when i would prefer a display on the vertical, i have my screen mounted on a rotatable vesa mount and can make it do a 90 in no time.
I agree some part of it is subjective, but as you said, its also based on reality on some level.

But then? there is also something about vertical that is somewhat easier to browse. You obviously are not alone to have been thinking on a vertical plane. As you said, books are mostly all on the vertical. Just look at the very computer that started the modern interface that we know, the one that apple copied and that later windows copied ... The Xerox ALTO : See how they decided to orient the screen.

Now that is interesting isn’t it ? Makes easy sense though as Xerox is a paper and copier machine company. Their target audience is the office environment where the standard format is the 8 1/2x11 paper sheet. They just wanted their display to be a faithful representation of the actual physical paper everyone used.

But then why is the standard paper format on the vertical?
Most books since the ancient time are on the vertical so it probably comes from there. It also makes some simple physical sense as books on the vertical are simply more durable and solid than books made on the horizontal. More binding/paper size ratio and shorter pages from the middle are harder to tear off compared to a horizontal book. Moreover, when opened flat on a table, they make for a more practical size. Now this is also interesting as when you put most books opened on a flat surface, they usualy end up pretty close to a size ratio of 4:3. I just tested with a couple paperback books i have. Seems like even the "classic" screen size for computers and tv sets somewhat has something similar to books 😀 .

I do read quite a bit, helps me go to sleep. Seems the ideal reading format (books) is more on the vertical than the horizontal. When you read, the horizontal FOV of the human eyes is not as relevant. When you read you are focusing on a small area and basically moving that small area of focus through the text. Up/down head movements are somewhat easier and more comfortable than the left/right rotation movement, its also easier to keep track of where you are as the beginning of each line is closer to the ending of the line before. Also, its simply much easier to hold a vertical book...

I think this is getting complex and very interesting when you consider all this stuff, and not so obvious what is the "best" format. I think the best format for a book is vertical, but for a Computer screen, i think its simply more versatile to have a horizontal shaped screen. Anyway this subject just struck a chord with me, i like to analyze this kind of stuff!

I basically replaced my laptop a couple of years ago just because it had a 4:3 screen. Doing left/right scrolls is *much* harder than up/down so it makes sense to put as much info on the screen as possible without having to scroll left and right. I don't see "less vertical space issue", it's all a matter of screen size...I do however hate the 16:9 screen sizes, I think 16:10 is much better for computer screen 😁

MaxWar wrote:

I find this bit you wrote particularly interesting. It goes right to the point of: "why exactly go widescreen? ". This is just l […]
Show full quote

VileRancour wrote:

Then I'd agree that widescreen ratios make a whole lot of sense - for TV sets. But for computer monitors? I don't know. […]
Show full quote

swaaye wrote:

Widescreen monitors are great for movies, and TV shows for about the past decade. That's why they are popular. 4:3 is not so hot anymore for that unless you like your old school TV shows that are 4:3. The price of monitors is pretty much cheaper than ever outside of really high quality panels so I'm not sure there's any ripping off going on.

Then I'd agree that widescreen ratios make a whole lot of sense - for TV sets. But for computer monitors? I don't know.

Computers are meant for more than just watching movies and TV shows, despite that overwhleming insistence from higher up that we are all just "media consumers" and nothing else. I do a lot with my computer; and for almost every task, I find that vertical space is at a premium -- far more important than horizontal space is.
That includes browsing the web (consider the way data is laid out on a webpage); file management/directory browsing; programming; spreadsheets; graphic design; chat and most forms of communcation; and so on so forth - even tracking music.

Why is that the case? I'm not sure. It may have something to do with the way our brains have been trained to gather information - for instance, something as rudimentary as a single page in a book almost always has a roughly vertical layout. Maybe our brains are wired to attach a bigger hierarchical importance to the "up vs. down" distinction than to "left vs. right" - or something like that; I'll leave such theorizing to neuroscientists / philosophers / crackpots. 😁 Point is, using a widescreen PC monitor (less vertical space) just feels less convenient to me for most things.

Of course, that's a subjective statement, but I think it's based on reality on some level.

I find this bit you wrote particularly interesting. It goes right to the point of: "why exactly go widescreen? ". This is just like the kind of subject that gets me going, brace yourself for a long post.

Widescreen; Is it really only best for movies?

I think there is one big biological argument in favor of widescreen: The human field of view. It is oriented on the horizontal plan more than the vertical. It then makes sense that widescreen has been the movie industry standard for ages. It just fits better the window of what we see. I think it applies as well for computer work. I personally use a 16:10 display. I prefer it to 16:9, but i prefer both to 4:3 anyday. For video editing, and audio editing (which i do alot), widescreen is certainly a big advantage over 4:3 to me, music tracking? i dit quite a bit of that and like it on the horizontal much better. For web browsing? Well i like to have a zillion pages opened at the same time. Widescreen allows me to see more tabs at a time. For games i.e : FPS shooters, widescreen is more realistic as it better fits the human FOV.
To me widescreen is pretty cool, but when i would prefer a display on the vertical, i have my screen mounted on a rotatable vesa mount and can make it do a 90 in no time.
I agree some part of it is subjective, but as you said, its also based on reality on some level.

But then? there is also something about vertical that is somewhat easier to browse. You obviously are not alone to have been thinking on a vertical plane. As you said, books are mostly all on the vertical. Just look at the very computer that started the modern interface that we know, the one that apple copied and that later windows copied ... The Xerox ALTO : See how they decided to orient the screen.

Now that is interesting isn’t it ? Makes easy sense though as Xerox is a paper and copier machine company. Their target audience is the office environment where the standard format is the 8 1/2x11 paper sheet. They just wanted their display to be a faithful representation of the actual physical paper everyone used.

But then why is the standard paper format on the vertical?
Most books since the ancient time are on the vertical so it probably comes from there. It also makes some simple physical sense as books on the vertical are simply more durable and solid than books made on the horizontal. More binding/paper size ratio and shorter pages from the middle are harder to tear off compared to a horizontal book. Moreover, when opened flat on a table, they make for a more practical size. Now this is also interesting as when you put most books opened on a flat surface, they usualy end up pretty close to a size ratio of 4:3. I just tested with a couple paperback books i have. Seems like even the "classic" screen size for computers and tv sets somewhat has something similar to books 😀 .

I do read quite a bit, helps me go to sleep. Seems the ideal reading format (books) is more on the vertical than the horizontal. When you read, the horizontal FOV of the human eyes is not as relevant. When you read you are focusing on a small area and basically moving that small area of focus through the text. Up/down head movements are somewhat easier and more comfortable than the left/right rotation movement, its also easier to keep track of where you are as the beginning of each line is closer to the ending of the line before. Also, its simply much easier to hold a vertical book...

I think this is getting complex and very interesting when you consider all this stuff, and not so obvious what is the "best" format. I think the best format for a book is vertical, but for a Computer screen, i think its simply more versatile to have a horizontal shaped screen. Anyway this subject just struck a chord with me, i like to analyze this kind of stuff!

Have you ever watched a rabbi reading from a Torah scroll? The scroll is held horizontally when it is read rather than vertically.You can't get much more horizontal than that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb0y80Sk8zs

sliderider wrote:

Have you ever watched a rabbi reading from a Torah scroll? The scroll is held horizontally when it is read rather than vertically.You can't get much more horizontal than that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb0y80Sk8zs

Actually no. Never looked at a Rabi reading the Torah. Then i watched the video and the text in the Torah it is still organized in narrow Vertical paragraphs.

The thing is quite impressive, takes two people to manipulate.
But btw, are not gentiles, like me, supposed to be forbidden to look at this thing ?

Nah, don't think that's true.

Hebrew (among other languages) goes right-to-left, too, which could be yet another interesting discussion on the subject of perception. 😜
For instance: the Latin alphabet is written left-to-right, and so is Japanese... now, most video games originate from countries that use such a writing form. Ever noticed how in sidescroller games, you almost always start on the left, and advance to the right? This convention is so strong (and the exceptions so rare) that I've always assumed it had to be something ingrained like that.

Anyway, good long post up there. I get what you're saying about the human field of vision being oriented on the horizontal plane - that's a major point.
However, when we actually focus on something, the area we process tends to narrow down towards the middle of our FOV - peripheral vision doesn't play a part. So the "practical" field of vision is much narrower than the whole... note that 4:3 screens are still wider than they are tall, conforming to our vision's horizontal orientation - but in light of the focus issue, you could equally claim that they're even better contenders within the theory 😁

In fact, I seem to recall that 5:4 monitors (1280x1024 - not even as wide as 4:3) were advertised as a "natural fit" for reading / writing / editing, since that ratio allows two A4 pages side-by-side on the screen, or a good approximation of an open book. Best taken with a huge grain of salt (4:3 seems to me a better fit, like you said yourself), but there ya go.

(Also consider the fact that text becomes less readable when individual lines get too long - aka the reason that newspapers are almost always printed in narrow vertical columns. Same about web pages having sidebars, and constraining text into a narrower tube, sometimes with additional horziontal margins.)

That Alto monitor looks like fun 😀 I doubt that such a form factor would scale well, though... at 19" I'd probably have to start tilting my head up and down too much, and that would be decidedly less fun.

Oh, and to end with another fun observation:
You widescreen guys in this thread seem to vastly prefer 16:10 to 16:9. And, surprise surprise - 16:10 is very close to the mystical Golden Ratio! Coincidence? CONSPIRACY? You be the judge 🤣

Carmack apparently prefers 16:9... or at least he did at one point 😜

http://www.geek.com/articles/games/john-carma … -1995-20110920/