The official 16:9 screen protest thread

Nothing about 16x9 is more advanced than 16x10.

 

You are right about this and I actually think now I see where 16:9 may come in handy and how everything now makes sense.

Bare with me for a moment...

Well, normally, the 1280x800 should become 1280x720, the 720p widescreen standard actually refers to the 1280x720 resolution. But as I said above, using a 1280x720 resolution on a laptop would be madness, although there are some netbooks which use it. As a result, laptop manufacturers obviously use a higher resolution than the 1280x720, the 1366x768. Even in this case, you lose some vertical but you win in width. Now, the 16:9 is supposedly cheaper than the 16:10 (obviously -> it is a lower screen resolution), but for all those laptops that used to get the 1280x800, getting now the 1366x768 it actually an upgrade as long as the price is marginally increasing.

Now, this transition from 1280x800 to 1366x768 would apply for most of the entry level laptops, the bulk of them. Thus creating the new standard for most laptops.

But what about the higher resolutions 1680x1050 or the 1920x1200 which are obvious losers here ?

Having the new 16:9 standard means you will design notebooks that fit a 16:9 screen. Many manufacturers use the same chassis, although they might change the components, or internal organisation of the laptop, not to mention that many models will have options to use either of the 3 types of wide-screen -> 1366x768 , 1600x900, 1920x1080. So all in all, this will force even the higher resolutions to change in order to fit the new wide-screen standard of the chassis.

Taking all into consideration, now I see why the 16:9 is imposed. However, if this is the logic upon the new standard is being imposed, then we should still see 16:10 notebooks around, especially in the business and gaming section.

 

Wrong! There was plenty of opposition for ALL of the above.

 

well, new technologies that bring NEW ENHANCEMENTS are okay. new technologies that are just there to make more money out of the consumers, not so much.

and you know what the block buster films would be without 5.1? just the same.. i have a simple stereo setup with two high quality studio monitors, and it just blasts away all other 5.1 systems i've seen. so far, i still have no need to have soundeffects behind myself as long as i don't have a screen there

 

Now that's just crazy talk. Once you've listened to a good surround sound system your stereo will never be the same.

 

well, i had quite some good surround systems to hear, and i go to the cinemas regularly. for me, background sound is very irritating and thus annoying, distracting from the movie. and other than that, there isn't much about surround. yes, a big sub woofer shaking your ***, fine, but for the neighbors below my apartment, i don't install that

so stereo works perfectly for me, better than 5.1.

i'd love to use a 5.1-style setup for djing, though. imagine, in a club, hearing sound from everywhere, every different instrument from somewhere else, and all.. that'll rock (but would be hard to have under control.. but that would be the fun of it )

 

You do realize you're supporting my point...right? And there's nothing sacred about stereo either.

 

no, actually, i don't

all i say is, i always check out new technology, estimate if it's of use for me, of gain, or of loss. 5.1 is a loss for me, as it's distracting for me, and the sub woofer is for my neighbors.

but 16:9 is not a technical change nor advancement. it was just a simple "how can we make a 15" screen cheaper? by changing the aspect ratio to let it have less actual surface area!". this was an economical change for making more money. and as such, it's crap. except when 16:9 is the perfect fitting aspect ratio. otherwise, it's a reduction on choices, and thus bad.

 

I'm probably one of the few who is glad for 16:9

I have the 18" sony AW, 1920x1080 LED screen.

If it was 16:10 it wouldn't fit in my 17" targus bag or very many bags at all.

Only reason i went with 16:9 is that at 1920x1080 you've still got some decent real estate.

Saying that 16:10 is significantly better at most things a PC can do, Coding, Writing, Image Editing etc and as someone here said 4:3 still has its uses!

 

well, a 17" 16:10 laptop would have 1920x1200 pixels, so you would have more space doing stuff, without much smaller pixels..

but of course, on a big screen, any aspect ratio sort of works, as you always have enough space anyways.

 

Is a laptop with 16:9 really not a laptop, the OP said that it was a portable movie player that could run Windows OS. I don't believe that at all, other that screen ratio, what sets 16:9 apart from 4:3, they do the same things! Was he just being extreme?

 

well, it's a laptop better suited for movie watching, and he maybe only uses it for movie watching.

just as a 4:3 is better suited for most other work (most work is about reading and writing, and vertical listings, and such).

 

Hi
You NOT probably one of the FEW who is glad for 16:9
You definetely one of the PLENTY and PLENTY who is glad for 16:9

 

most aren't glad for 16:9, they just are glad they bought "the right laptop" (while having mostly no clue what would be right) and love to say "look, that gorgeous 16:9 full-hd screen, it's full-hd you know!!"

 

I think am gonna buy this one
http://www.nec-display-solutions.co...-8205/ID-8205.xhtml?cat=PublicDisplays&e=e3s1

 

That is a TV - or at least a screen to mount on a wall - not something you work on.
I had my laptop connected to my grandmother's plasma TV - 50" or 52" I think - and when I could see the whole screen well I couldn't read text any more - with new glasses!!
(my old ones were too weak)

I must lend my support to Dave here

Higher screens are better for writing suff - and most work on computer involves writing of some sort (inlcuding programmes).

On something like the Sony AW you can argue that for graphics design in Photoshop 16:9 isn't too bad because you have "space at the sides" for menus, levels etc.

But for most Office work you need height!

 

Plenty displays to choose : 16:9 16:10 4:3 5:4
http://www.nec-display-solutions.com/p/eeme/en/products/choice.xhtml?cat=LCD&e=e3s1

 

i'd take that one

http://www.nec-display-solutions.co...D-MD205MG+1/MD-MD205MG+1.xhtml?cat=LCD&e=e1s1

2560 x 2048 would be so awesome..

but i can't see the prices, and i guess i know why??

 

btw, you know that full-hd beamers are quite cheap nowadays? i payed 1400$ for mine, having now my wall filled with amazing bluray glory

 

The price is on application and will make your smile down haha
nec is professional so price is high ..
or copy model number and paste it on google search

 

i think it's a greyscale screen.. that could explain the high res (as they only need one subpixel per pixel)..

well, i can live quite well with the 2.3m fullhd screen i'm typing on right now

 

2 metres ??? that is bigger than that 82'' nec what i was lookin at ...
what brand ?
can you up some pics ?

 

He's got a projector

Check Dave's sig.

 

aaaa hahaaa yeeaah now I have got it

 

The only reason that made me go 16/9 (1366 X 768) ,is that I use my laptop to watch movies when I'm away from home for work purposes (few weeks at the time).
Also, being a gamer, I prefer a resolution a little inferior, if I can gain a bit in performance.

My LCD TV is a 40" 720P and when I'm used to watch my DVDs in 720P, so no change here.

 

LOL, no screen aspect ratio is sacred OP. They are as arbitrary as the transmission frequencies use to send digital television. In addition, they are not "horrible" to those whose interest or profession--like spreadsheets and video editing--make having a wider aspect a welcome advantage.

Lastly, if not for the movie application, chances are we'd have no high resolution screen nor any of the other welcome improvements that have come along with it.

 

sure, as we didn't had >2000 pixel screens BACK WHEN THERE WHERE CRTS?!!?

and even before tfts got interesting for televisions, you could buy 2560x1600 pixel screens that are beyond todays fullhd.

and you know, most spreadsheets and all have their content MAINLY vertical (or vertical expanding, at least, each new data set is a new row).

so wider screens are no advantage mostly.

the only thing where widescreens are kinda nice are timeline based apps (video editing, music production, 3d animation packages). but even there, more height == better as you have more parallel running timelines wisible. so going from 16:10 to 16:9 is no gain.


just think about it, with your brain, forget all marketing crap and fuzz and just think (while reading that page, which is MOSTLY vertical, too)

 

Actually, it's is you my friend (and some others) that are not thinking logically. As I've already stated, traditional aspect ratio screens are nothing magical. To put things into perspective: ALL screens originated from the movie industry!

 

that's true. and i haven't said anything against that.

but screens should be useful for what they display. and that's why that protest thread exists, not? because 16:9 is not useful for computing tasks, which are, what a computer is made for?

 

Not entirely. More correctly, computers are tools, which can be used in a variety of way. Some are functional while others can be purely for entertainment. In fact, the most expensive computers on this website are designed specifically for that purpose.

 

well, any form of entertainment does not gain from 16:9 over 16:10, except movie watching. which is one form of entertainment, where there are much better and cheaper solutions outside of laptops.

• for gaming? no
• for surfing? no
• for "doing photoshop stuff"? no
• for messing with huge amount of files? no
• for reading? no
• for writing? no
• for most work except, as stated, timeline based stuff? no
• for timeline based stuff? not even then really..

anything besides movie where you have a physical gain?

the only real gain i've seen is from one above: losing 10% screen estate means the game can gain 10% in fps. see, that's a pro for 16:9.

so we have two pros:
16:9 does not

• give you borders for 16:9 material (well, duh.. but don't forget most movie material is not 16:9).
• 16:9 loses screen space, which

can improve performance in certain cases

 

Actually I'm pro 16:9, at least on 11.6". It's a perfect fit to the formfactor. Width is generally more important than height for me. I don't mind scrolling vertically.

 

I think you're being intransigent. The reasons you stated only exist because that's what we've become accustomed to; and there's no physical reason why that can't change.

Recall the Beta vs VHS wars of the 70's? The much superior Beta (in more then one way) got refused because it didn't cater to it's audience: People wanted to watch a whole movie on one tape without any interruptions. Now people want their computers to serve multiple purposes--especially with the increasing cost--and manufacturers that don't give the people what they want, will get left behind.

 

you try to run away from the facts.

most content that exist since tons of years is mostly vertical. lists are vertical, text is vertical, books are.

so please, lists pros for losing 10% vertical space over 16:10.

i can list you cons: everytime you touch your mousewheel on your pc/laptop and scroll up/down, you hit a contra. and believe me, that's most of the day for about anyone using a pc when not watching a movie.

 

Actually, Dave, 16:9 can be useful for Photoshop, but only because Photoshop sort of developed to accomodate this.

The menus are to the side, so on a 4:3 screen you'd loose to much width.

16:9 or 16:10 are useful for Photoshop, but only because the programme was laid out like that.

However: Adobe was inconsistent, when you go to Dreamweaver its no longer clear cut as you have a "menu" at the bottom as well and thus want more height...

 

He he! this is great

 

well, it mainly depends on the picture (what if you made a photo in portrait mode? )

but still, you don't get more width in 16:9, you get less height, most of the time. and thus, you still lose.

 

Portait - 16:10 I think is ideal for that.

I know what you mean, and I would personally go for 16:10 rather than 16:9 because I know it.

An obviously the loss of height in the long tun is bad.

Also, most software isn't designed for 16:9 - look at MS office - the menu is at the top, not the side.

 

problem is, most software is not really that usable when designed for widescreen. office being a prime example.

gui components, in general, don't like to get transposed. the usability then is completely different (maybe for the better, maybe for the worse), and thus a lot of rethought has to be done.

interestingly, over all those years of "widescreen will come", we still don't have much ui that fits widescreen. maybe because it really isn't that suitable.

 

The thing is, unlike when we went from 4:3-->16:10, we're not gaining any horizontal space, we're simply losing vertical space.

To say that anything that requires more horizontal space works better in 16:9 than on 16:10 is false because they have the exact same(or nearly the same) amount of horizontal pixels(for most resolutions anyways).

Let's do the Photoshop example. Yes, horizontal space is pretty important in Photoshop because menus tend to be used on the side and if you tend ot use lots of them, even with a portrait image, you'd end up using maybe 1/3 of the screen for menus. Now, say we talk about WSXGA+ resolutions. In 16:10, you have 1680*1050 and in 16:9, you have the equivalent of 1600*900. Really, you're not gaining any extra horizontal space to work with.

 

To true

I think Photoshop is the only one I can think of that does work reasonably well on widescreen.

And why - it takes longer to scrol sideways than up and down due to the longer distance

The only reason why it works in Photoshop is ecause f levels which are "quite wide" to display.

 

your pics are mostly (not all) landscape mode, so you really gain from it. a friend of mine who is a model photographer (yep.. he makes nice pics ) has mostly portrait mode. he'd prefer a 4:3 screen at 30" to the current 16:10 30", obviously, and that's in photoshop

so while yes, photoshop makes quite good use of wide screens, horizontal height is often independent on it. losing on it is bad.

i even notice it on my beamer, compared to the tft i have. the beamer is 1080 pixels high, the tft 1200. even while i have tons of space on the beamer, i still just have less..

 

True, most of my pictures are in landscape mode, but not all.

So I may be biased towards a slightly wider screen.

 

Why is this even worth debating anymore? Manufacturer's will NEVER go back to 4:3, EVER! Widescreen is just much more adaptable. Just get a high resolution screen and all your scrolling issues (are they really issues) will be solved.

 

Well, I read my newspapers online, it is nice to have 800 pixels in height
(16:10 on my screen)

I think most people will in the long run accep 16:10 instead of 4:3 - also because there was no loss of height.

I think the key argument against 16:9 is the loss of height.

And higher resolution screens aren't always an answer - at least not on small laptops like say the Sony Z at 13".
My SZ is perfectly readable at 1280*800 for me.

I could possibly read a higher resolution, especially as I have taken to wearing glasses at home too now (short sighted), but I don't necesaarily want a higher resolution on such a small screen.

If you talk about a (in terms of size) monster like the Sony AW (18,4" or so) then it won't matter that your screen is 1920*1080 as you get the extra height anyway.

And isn't it that for productivity 16:10 is overal said to be best?
Small laptops are aimed often at business people, so prductivity is an issue.

 

they are issues, even at 1080 pixels height. and especially at 12 - 13" laptops, which have less height (or ridiculous high pixel density so i can't see anything anymore ) and are my size of choice because of portability.

scrolling is just the most simple example to make people aware of the problem: that content is vertical, most of the time. and we scroll all day long..

to realize how much of a problem it is, take away the scrollhelpers like mousewheel or touchpad-scrollthingie, and try to live with that for a day or two.


why we discuss it even while we have no chance against the big ones producing that crapscreens of today? well, why not? it's a discussion board here.

 

and btw, if my next laptop won't be 16:10, it will be my 3rd downgrade in height after the other. the size of the laptop stayed the same all time, but i started with a 5:4 res over to 4:3 to 16:10, next 16:9?

i just lose. everytime. i'm allowed to be annoyed by this.

 

Gentleman and/or ladies, the fact of the matter is, screen sizes of all dimensions has always been controlled by the TV/cinema industry--where it originated. In that view, their influence should be paramount; and we cannot ignore it's ability to establish a new paradigm. In addition, the only reason most content fits traditional screens better is because of that standard which was available at the time. As the new dimensions become more numerous, the change to adapt to the new dimension, will eventually lessen the impact of the unfamiliar experience.

When you think about it, it is the TV industry that stand to lose the most anyway. Since ALL of it's content for the past 60 years has been created in the 4:3 aspect ratio which it started. Still, if it can adapt to new dimensions, so to can all the other industry's content.

 

I really don't think the television and motion picture industry should be allowed to dictate what size screen my notebook has. Heck, if anything, all their DRM laws and encrypted cable channels and such are making it more and more difficult to watch their product on a computer.

Additionally,

I really hate the phrase "content". It does a disservice to both programmers and writers/producers/directors/actors. The greatest works of mankind are now just so much "content". Casablanca--its just content. 2001 ? Content. Star Wars ? Content.

 

im ok with manufacturers switching to 16/9 to cut, but i'm NOT okay with them marketing 16:9 with buzzwords like FULL HD and 1080p and HD READY as if 16/9 is something new and awesome, it's NOT. they insult my intelligence, and treat me like some dumb . rant over.