The official 16:9 screen protest thread

I still have back problems because of that ...LOL

Man, I pay you a beer talking about the good old time !

 

I was writting just lgically and with facts where you seen what is not fact MISTER??
and as far as I know we are not talking here about anatomy web but 16:9 screen protest thread
it's all about how you write what size of fonts will you use in scripts it's about what HTML code you will use to display page in 4/3 or 16/9
talking about web developing is long story 'ya know ..
the main thing of web is W3C
W3C is working to make the Web accessible to all users
I dont know it perfectly but I know basics

 

Alright... maybe I have to jump in here. I'm just starting out learning web design in college, and while I admit that my knowledge of the subject isn't anywhere near expert level, I do know this:

Websites are usually designed to 'shift' text whenever you change the size of a window. I am doing this right now on this particular site and it works. The few rudimentary sites I have written up in Notepad do this as well. This is a feature that is supported by all basic browsers. This is a particularly useful feature for me as I usually have two or three windows open at once, particularly when I'm working on HTML.

Therefore, I really don't think a particular website is 'designed' for a particular screen format, as web designers try to make their sites accessible to the widest range of people(browsers, hardware, etc). Whether you like it or not, there are still tons of people all over the world who use and will continue to use 4:3 and 16:10 screens for various reasons... I know plenty of people who still use 4:3 CRT monitors because they work flawlessly and they don't see the need to upgrade.

The main reason I'm a little ticked at the screen format switch is the inevitable loss in vertical space which occurs every time the LCD manufacturers want to shave a few cents off of their production costs... I can see where the 16:9 format would suit people wanting a multimedia notebook that will be put into use playing movies as well as provide general computer use, but the 16:10 and especially the 4:3 formats are great for people dealing with tasks such as writing, coding, and other work. This doesn't mean that you can't do this sort of stuff on a 16:9 notebook, but the loss of valuable screen real estate because the LCD manufacturers want to cut costs is a major annoyance.

 

What is not fact is everything you wrote in this thread except for perhaps one sentence.

Not even remotely close to a fact. 16:9 is widely regarded as a movie format, not a "professional" business format. 16:9 also cuts resolution from a comparable 16:10 resolution, so you are wrong because I can see more of a two-page document on a 16:10 screen.

Wrong. The NBR forum and most other forums are liquid variable width layouts that are not designed for any specific resolution, much less an aspect ratio.

Those sites don't switch to 16:9. Those sites have liquid layouts that size to your browser window's width.

You don't get to choose a 4:3 or 16:9 format in Dreamweaver. That's complete malarkey and clearly indicates you have no idea what you're talking about because it doesn't make a lick of sense.

I'll disregard your misuse of the term "developer" when you really mean "designer."

Also, "yes there are more 4/3 websites than 16/9 I know cos everybody had square old sity mega monitors so web was designed for that horrible monitor when internet was launched and spreaded" makes no sense whatsoever. Even after parsing your wharrgarbl, I can tell you for a fact that nobody credible designs a Web site for an aspect ratio. Most fixed width Web sites are designed for a resolution such as 800x600 or 1024x768, and the width is of utmost importance, not the height. The height is mostly irrelevant because it is assumed that most pages filled with content will require scrolling. Height also varies due to your browser toolbars and your desktop UI components. Thus, you don't design for an aspect ratio, but rather, a page width.

Completely false and incoherent. eatbuckshot already addressed this point so there's no reason for me to revisit it.

Your argument has absolutely nothing to do with aspect ratio. You went off on an irrelevant tangent. eatbuckshot is correct; you do not need to have a widescreen monitor to view documents side by side. I used to put documents side-by-side at 1600x1200 on my old CRT and I read them just fine.

Wrong. You're not arranging a Web site by doing that. You're increasing the base font size used by your browser.

Wrong. My desktop PC's browser window is 1400x1050 on a 1920x1200 monitor and the only time I see a horizontal scrollbar on a properly laid out Web site is when it is specifically designed to only scroll horizontally, which is something I have only seen in a couple of art gallery Web sites where paradigm breaking is actually encouraged.

Also, who the hell maximizes their browser window to the size of the desktop unless you have a small desktop? That completely defeats the purpose of having application windows. On pages that have a fixed width layout, you will end up with vast amounts of whitespace to the sides. On pages that use a liquid layout, you're going to end up with hundreds of characters per line of text and have a ton of whitespace below on pages with little content. Why don't you try browsing these liquid layouts on a 30" 2560x1600 screen with the browser maximized and tell me how you like turning your neck 90° to read one line of text?

That's the only thing you've said so far that resembles a fact. However, for someone who makes zero reference to screen resolution in all his other posts, I find it hard to believe that you truly understand that concept.

Again, you have no idea what the hell you are saying. I have a 15.4" screen on my T500 and its native resolution is 1680x1050. I never see a horizontal scrollbar when Web browsing on my laptop for the same reasons mentioned above in reference to my desktop PC. Even if my T500 had the 1280x800 resolution 15.4" screen, I still wouldn't see a horizontal scrollbar.

You say you can't imagine monitors bigger than 18" with a 4:3 aspect ratio? It's been done for the last 50+ years. Are you just being deliberately ignorant or were you born yesterday?

The reason why your arguments are completely invalid is because you neglect screen resolution in any "16:9 is better than 16:10" claim. You say having a wider screen allows you to do less vertical scrolling on a liquid layout. What you seem to completely miss or fail to understand is that 16:9 resolutions reduce the screen height compared to their 16:10 resolution counterparts. 1920x1080 is 16:9. 1920x1200 is 16:10. Which resolution requires less vertical scrolling?

You're so obsessed with the concept of having a wider screen that you don't seem to get that pixels per inch is what truly determines the perceived size of objects on the screen, given a constant viewing distance. The pixels per inch measurement is based on screen size and resolution, the latter of which you practically never address.

If you said 16:9 is better for watching movies and TV like every other 16:9 supporter in this thread, you wouldn't be wasting everyone's time. As it is, you couldn't be more wrong about the reasons for why you advocate 16:9, and to pass off your incorrect reasoning as fact is utterly careless and dishonest.

 

I think 16:9 is okay, so as long as the screen is a decent resolution. Then you could comfortably have two office documents side by side. However what really annoys me are the glossy screens. I doubt you'll see a 16:9 in matte, so it makes them unacceptable for me.

 

Right, you look professional but never mind productivity on smaller resolution 16X9 screens where pixels are pretty scarce already.

 

nice post, except

that hurt me. i do this all the time. but i use one magic feature (that web page layout thingy): zoom. (ctrl +-, or ctrl mousewheel). on firefox, that zooms the whole page, and lets it relayout the flow so that it still fits.

that way, i read HUGE text with 80 - 160 chars per line max.

i always read webpages that way. problem is, i have to scroll more and more with the newer screens. as the actual resolution doesn't matter to me, i zoom pages so they fit horizontally well, and then, vertically, 16:9 delivers much less than 16:10 or 4:3 or 5:4 (i loved 5:4).

other than that, good post from your side


oh, and the simple one liner, why vertical space is important:

content gets stacked vertically. one post after the other, one newsline after the other, one search result after the other, one paragraph after the other, one titlebar, menubar, statusbar, taskbar etc after the other.

vertical space is key. horizontal is unimportant. (but needs at least some minimal width, like 1024 or 1280, to start getting unimportant afterwards )

 

Wow, haha. Someone sure got told.

 

Evoss seems to think that web pages have rigidly enforced pixel widths. He is severely misguided.

 

+1 Snakecharmed

 

Heh, that's fine. I wasn't taking barbs at you since you're not advocating something under false pretenses. I also wasn't considering the use of zoom. Personally, I don't like to use it because I'd find myself changing the settings on every site, and the results would never look quite right compared to the using the default font settings. At least Firefox zooms the images as well, but the typefaces look too different for my liking because what Firefox is really doing with the typefaces when zooming is increasing the font size. That said, you do take care of the readability problem of having way too many characters per line.

There's a reason why pages in a book are in portrait orientation and not landscape orientation. If people can't understand that, then they're really not in a position to speak knowledgeably about the non-multimedia "benefits" of widescreen. If someone's going to make such a presumptuously incorrect statement such as "ALL who use 4/3 must use scrolling [sic] from left to right and from right to left," then tell me why it's not necessary to scroll horizontally with Amazon Kindle.

Thanks for all the reps, guys. I'm not trying to get under anyone's skin, but I do not like it when people make false statements that can mislead others who are genuinely trying to learn. If I have knowledge on a subject, I'll speak up. If I don't, I'll leave it to someone who is an expert in that field or area so the reader can learn things the right way.

 

hm. firefox zoom works quite 1:1 (okay, that's even sort of a joke ).

fonts get rendered at a higher res, but that's a good thing (else it would be blurry ).

at least with cleartype on, zooming on firefox behaves most of the time just as it should.


on a 24" 16:10 screen i often read text (like on this very forum) with bigger letters than my fingerprints but it's very relaxing to do so.

 

I belive there was more of them so:

I haven't said anything that I can't see more of a 2 page document with 16:10 screen so what you complaining about here ???
I know I 16:10 is higher so I can see more! What 5-10% more ? there is no such big diff. between 16:10 and 16:9
(here u doing an injustice to me , completly making up things like arse how
want show yourself ..

OK i don't know what is liquid variable
am accepting this complain

I was meaning when I enter to for example ebay home page is 4:3 when I enter to my ebay I will auto switch to wide or resize to wide
don't know what hell is difference between switch to wide and resize to wide ??

OK I agree here I tought there is this option

Designer designing how web page will look what and where will be all elements placed on page
Developer then will start creating website how designer stated it
What is your problem here ???
again; you are such a injustice to me making up , adding up things to make yourself big stick !

What I think here is that all websites are now almost same in width or height some slightly different and its up to browsers how they display the pages
what i remember in past there was problems with some websites to display properly now it's much less of them ..

Here you COMPLETLY didn't get me AT ALL!!
Here what i ment was that if you have set very high resolution on so small display your fonts and icons are so tiny and it's very difficult to read something !!! do you understanfd that ?? (I think not)
I have 18'' 1920x1080 (16:9) and its so hard to read something on internet!
and if you have so tiny 15'' monitor and that your high resol. 1600x1024 then that must unbeliveable that you can read without problems
What you are some kind of robot
oh noo u re some mega geek with massive glasses with 200x biopterin who reading form 10 cm distance I belive!

this was pointed to this somebody wrote: I have myself a 15" 2048x1536
THIS RESOLUTION ON 15'' ?? ARE YOU FU***** KIDDING ME ???
and YOU want tell me you are just fine read somethning with this resol ??
on 15 inch sit ??? give me a break maan !!!

AGAIN here :
I didnt said nothing about arranging just
SERIOUSLY MAAN WHAT ARE YOU
you some patient from some kind of asylum ?
you making things?

Of course when resol. is higher fonts and icons are smaller so you canceling
horizontal scroll but with that your little 15'' square you must use quite high resol so your fonts (what I think) must be so small..

dear me! why I should turn with my neck in such a huge amount of space in 30'' you don't know that you can make/use word wrap ???
WHERE do you live man ??

oh really ? Thanx

that's why you have to use too high resol. on so small display ..

you want me to say 18'' and higher widescreen monitors are producet for aspect ratio 4:3 ???
OMG really man you unbeliveable

don't worry I know about that

NO am not obsessed but am impressed with wide screen type
because it looks futuristic and perfect for me ! that is the sense of productivity today... man wake up

No I dont wasting time to everyone what you saying stupidly notices here??
people wasting time here because they entered here to read
I didnt said 16:9 is better for watching movies
I said 16:9 monitors and TV's looks much better ant that is why they are produced these days !
and all display producers they start producing these 16:9 displays
to satisfy conditions to everyone (except YOU) who uses and doing everything on their laptops not only just bloody internet and text

 

Simple, because there is a point of diminishing return. No one is implying that 16:9 is the panacea of screen width. However, it does give the best compromise when it comes to matching movie watching with doing other computer related tasks.

 

uuuu NO, it does NOT give the best compromise between watching movies and other computer related tasks.....it CRIPPLES all other computer related tasks. There is no compromise here. 16:9 screens are geared 100% towards watching movies and have complete disregard for any Apps out there. 16:9 "laptops" are NOT real laptops. They are portable movie players that run Windows....you can not call them laptops anymore.

16:10 was a big enough compromise. You had just BARELY enough vertical resoluiton for Apps and it was more than wide enough for watching moves....

 

I understand things just fine. I could answer you word for word if I chose to do so, but your inability to form coherent sentences combined with your poorly supported opinions and rude ad hominem assumptions and attacks tells me all I need to know in dealing with you. If you want to delude yourself by thinking you know what you're talking about or that you've "won" this argument, go right ahead. I won't be wasting my time any further in replying to you. Have a good day.

 

LOL, you presume way too much; ALL screen sizes are arbitrary. I might agree with you when the screen is below 14 inches, however, once you move to the desktop replacements category, a widescreen aspect ratio should be mandatory.

 

Sorry am not english and it was so hard for me to write all this with some difficult words looking to dictionary ..
even plenty of yours phrases I absolutelly didnt understand ..
I dont want win anything
I want allegiaremy self
I said above I am not professional in websites how they are detaily done
I know pretty much about LCD displays , resolutions and aspect ratio
I know how new movie HD movie cameras works to produce films in 1.85:1 , or
new 2.40:1 aspect ratio or ultra -panavision 2.75:1
that's why are produced lcd monitors and TV's in 16:9 to almost match cinematic screens even not 100% but closely
even there will be still some of lose or corp of width or heigth if something wasn't designed fot that specific use in first place (original)
(there is section : Problems in film and television almost at end of page )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9#16:9_standard

 

LOLz! and you think 16:10 is not widescreen??

 

All that's fine and good, but you're going off into a realm best suited for a cinema class discussion. For all intents and purpose, the widescreen standard is 16:9.

It's not a standard Jeeves, by anybody's definition. So lets stick to the standards shall we.

 

I love 16:10. It's the best!

I don't want 16:9... no! I just refuse to go from a resolution of 1920x1200 to 1920x1080. When my laptop won;t take it anymore, I might consider moving on... I have a wide screen TV for movies... not my laptop LCD display!

 

Get with the program...or you'll get left behind.

 

I had 16:10 1920x1200 laptop as well FS amilo xi
thanx to that resolution my eyes are slightly damaged goes blur cant focus on that resolution ,definetly NOT for reading, uncomfortable ...
(even 1920x1080)

 

Ok for the last time, 16:9 is only being used as a cost reducing and efficiency factor. That was the biggest reason for the switch. If TVs were still 4:3, we'd still have 4:3 computer LCDs. It's that simple. Companies don't want more than one standard when they produce screens. It's both more expensive and more of a hassle for them so they normalize all screens to one standard.

Now why did TVs first change to 16:9? It's not because of black bars nor is it because it looks better(back in the day when I could pick between fullscreen and widescreen for DVDs, I always liked fullscreen better so idk the hype about widescreen movies). 16:9 aspect ratio resolutions are apparently those that scale best for movies regardless of the resolution/aspect ratio they were filmed(hence why some widescreen movies have black bars and others don't; they weren't shot at the same aspect ratio or resolution).

16:9 isn't "better" for movies in terms of aesthetics so get that out of your head please people . Heck, movie theater projection screens aren't 16:9, they're 4:3(least those near me are).

Fact of the matter, lots of the laptop world is changing towards 16:9. Deal with it.

If you can't, just keep your 16:10 as long as they're here. I know lots of people with 4:3 laptops who are very happy.

 

that what you saying that was time ago
I copy something here :

Practical limitations
In motion picture formats, the physical size of the film area between the sprocket perforations determines the image's size. The universal standard (established by William Dickson and Thomas Edison in 1892) is a frame that is four perforations high. The film itself is 35 mm wide (1.38 in), but the area between the perforations is 24.89 mm×18.67 mm (0.980 in×0.735 in), leaving the de facto ratio of 4:3, or 1.33:1

Cinema terminology
The motion picture industry convention assigns a value of 1.0 to the image’s height; thus, an anamorphic frame (actually 2.39:1) is described (rounded) as 2.40:1 or 2.40 ("two-four-oh"). In American cinemas, the common projection ratios are 1.85:1 and 2.40:1. Some European countries have 1.66:1 as the wide screen standard. The "Academy ratio" of 1.37:1 was used for all cinema films until 1951 ( With the incarnation of George Stevens's Shane). However, when television, which also had a screen ratio of 1.33:1, became a threat to movie audiences, Hollywood gave birth to a large number of wide-screen formats: Cinemascope, Todd-AO, and VistaVision to name just a few. D uring that period, the "flat" 1.85:1 aspect ratio became one of the most common cinema projection standards in the U.S. and elsewhere.

 

Movie theaters are old where I am(I live in a suburb with less than 30,000 people per town), so my statement still holds since I am referring to those I have experience with lol

Fact of the matter is though, 16:9 is chosen because it has a particular property that makes it useful. "It looks good" isn't a reason for the switch.

 

+1 for the death of 16:9 pc screen's

 

Again this statement is 100% incorrect. The switch to 16:9 was made because its cheaper to produce NOT because it more useful.

 

I was talking about HDTVs, not laptop screens...(read my previous posts to get the whole story)

For laptop LCDs yes it's purely to reduce cost and avoid the hassle of getting a separate batch of LCDs for computer screens alone, but for HDTVs there actually was a reason other than cost. Just google 16:9 aspect ratios and you'll see a variety of topics on them being used to scale movie camera resolutions in panoramic views.

I mean, from 4:3 to 16:10 there's an increase in pixel area so you're telling me that change was to decrease costs as well?

 

16:9 is not a compromise. 16:9 is the standard for watching movies. 4:3 is better for productivity. The compromise is 16:10.

 

The change from 4:3 to 16:10 was mostly for the form factor on laptops. A keyboard is much wider than it is tall, so in order to reduce unnecessary palm rest space and/or to fit in a larger keyboard, the screen size ratio needed to be changed.

Furthermore, there's was also the "coolness" factor. Widescreen is seen (by the masses) as new and cool (old CRT monitors/tv's are all 4:3, while new ones were all 16:10/9".

 

I think for that productivity would be 16:10 1920x1200 on from 24'' to 30'' monitor ..
modeling in graphics , editing in photoshop, so productivity ..

 

16:10 isn't uncomfortable and it did not damage your eyes lol and if it did..... um.....

 

I said 16:10 AT 17'' laptop screen 1920x1200 resolution set this resolution for a few months and read ..

 

I've been doing that for almost 3 years.

 

Are you kidding me??? Unnecessary palm rest?? The is no palm rest anymore on widescreen laptops. Who are you trying to kid? Palm rest do not exist on widescreen laptops 14" and under. Too funny.

Secondly, Now this is too funny...the keyboards have NOT changed in size. Where are you coming up with this nonsense???

Thirdly, yes I agree the uneducated general public found the widescreens to be "cool" but those people were not REAL laptop users. They were the typical general public who bought a laptop to check emails once in a while and have the laptop rot away in their closet.

 

Not ALL screens are created equal. Resolution not withstanding, some are better than others.

Your reasoning is skewed. By "compromise," I was referring to the 16:9 widescreen standard.

 

I don't know what you're looking at, but every laptop has a palm rest. I would give an example, but that would pretty much require me to randomly spout off laptop models. But hey, I'll do it anyways. Look at the dv4t, the Sony Z, and any Asus EEE PC for that matter.

There are two main examples here, firstly in the netbook section, where netbooks have keyboards that are 93% or so of standard size, and the only way possible, without making the laptop much larger, is by making it widescreen. Secondly, there's the new 15.6" laptops, such as the Asus G50/51 series, that manages to place a 10-key along with a standard keyboard in a 15 inch laptop. This was not possible for 15 inch 4:3 or 16:10 laptops.

You cater to the majority. The "uneducated general public" outnumbers "REAL" laptop users by a wide margin. Whatever you define a "REAL" user to be.

 

Fact is, the transition to widescreen occurred for a variety of reason--chiefly because of their duel use for movie watching. That said, some of the reasons that have been mentioned are true. While others, are merely related after the fact.

 

What's the deal with this trend towards screen with less and less vertical resolution?
I had vertical 768 pixels in 1998!!!
Who was the genius who thought we wanted that in 2009????

What? You want to watch movies on your computer? You can perfectly watch movies anyway if you have 900, or 1050 pixels hi. But I can't efficiently write code all day if I can't see enough lines of text on my screen.

It's getting increasingly difficult to find new laptops with good screen resolution (and battery life unless you get a Mac or some fringe models from Lenovo or soemthing)

You want to watch movies? Get a TV!!!

good night

 

They don't want anyone to watch movies. It's just a gimmick my dear

In fact, they(screen companies) just want to save money by being able to use the same rectangle of LCD to provide both HDTVs and computer LCDs rather than buying separate pieces for each because of the different aspect ratios.

 

Let's get the names the company's making the 16:9 screens and hound them with public ridicule, and a bombardment of emails.

Let's also get the executives names that are running these companies and keep using their names so they show up in google searches.

 

Hmm, let's see, how about, all of them?

It's easier to name the list of companies without 16:9 laptops:

Apple

Ok, that's all I could think of. Your turn.

 

So you would rather have 4:3 laptops?
1 A rectangle shaped notebook will always look better than a square one.
2 It's your two eyes that are forced to focus at an improper angle when you use 4:3
3 While not so usefull office-wise on a notebook(I usually zoom the text), on my desktop I usually have two office/powerpoint/excell open and also since most web pages aren't wide I can do more at the same time while I browse snce the screen isn't completley covered.
4 Palmrest? are you kidding? I have a gaming NB and the transition from normal keyboard to whatever palmrest there is was a nightmare!

The only thing that got me concerned when I like you would not quit 4:3 was the loss in FPS, so when I set out to buy my first 4:3 LCD my favourite shop did not have any.
So it was decided to get a 16:10 22" LCD TV.
After opening the first game on that "monitor" I sweared I'd never go back to 4:3.

You guys reaaly should head to the antique section on ebay and get 4:3 laptops since you don't wantch HD movies (not that there's much hd on 15"-17"), probably don't game either, so a pentium 3 or 4 would be just the right thing to be productive in office

 

One thing I like about my standard notebook is the screen is taller and easier to read. The PPI of a 15" 4:3 notebook is 115, while a 15.4" WSXGA+ notebook is 128. I personally don't care about more stuff on the side, but I'd take a 16:9 notebook if it offered good image quality.

 

actually, it' about size of the screen. a 100inch screen of 4:3 sounds the same to sell as a 100inch screen on 16:9, but it has MUCH less screen area => costs much less.

pixel count doesn't matter that much for tvs, and the argument about "cinematic experience" was just a marketing gimmick for "we can sell you a 100inch that delivers less than your old 80inch but as it works for movies, you won't notice how much of your tv material gets cropped, and how you STILL have a smaller screen.


it's called MARKETING. all of those reasons they state you how a widescreen is better for anything including movies and gaming is just for marketing. it's cheaper. that's why they do it.

 

Sure, it probably costs less as well, but there is somewhere an underlying reason as well. My friend who's in movie production apparently said that it's not BS that 16:9 aspect ratios can scale movie camera resolutions well. He says it's also the reason some movies still have black bars on 16:9 HDTVs while others don't(i.e. not filmed at the same resolution).

However, I'd agree that if it costs less, this would be the primary reason to swap.

Bah, I'll stick with my 1m high 60" projection TV thank you very much lol

 

Did you bother to read his post? He favors 16:10 over 16:9. He said nothing about 4:3.

Yes it does, and 16:10 gives more vertical real estate, plus many games scale better in 16:10 resolutions.

Again, he wants 16:10.

If your screen was 16:10, you would be able to see more of the top and bottom of the pages which means you would need less scrolling.

From what it looks like, you dont seem to like the newer palm rests, maybe because theyre smaller? Idk, either way, Lithus's logic is correct when sayin that 4:3 notebooks have larger palmrests to compensate for the keyboard as well as the screen. Personally, I prefer WS over standar.

Again, this about 16:10 vs 16:9, 4:3 has nothing to do with the topic.
So it was decided to get a 16:10 22" LCD TV.

You should really, and I mean REALLY actually try reading a post or two to get a gist of the topic before you post, lest you may let yourself open again to made a fool of

As a side note, many of us do game, as I mentioned before, games are better fitted to 16:10, but of course, if you really were a gamer, you would know that wouldnt you?

 

I game and I prefer 16:9...

:::waiting patiently for harrassment:::

 

Definitely won't harrass you for it, as your preference is your own. Although, I will admit now that I'm using a 16:10(M1730) and a 4:3 notebook(T60p) for the same situations, I'm starting to prefer the 16:10... I may even start looking at getting a W500 sometime in the near future. I liked having a 15.4" WUXGA display, actually.

However, may I ask your reasons for 16:9 over 16:10?