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!