The official 16:9 screen protest thread

......,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Our future.

 

After reading part of this thread I am starting to feel like I'm the only person who likes to have multiple windows open side by side. While programming I have a text editor and terminal side-by-side on one monitor and browser on another monitor. On my 16:10 monitor, running the text editor and terminal is a bit cramped. I look forward to having a 16:9 screen.

 

Yes you are the only one.

 

Well, depending on what resolution you use now, and what resolution you move to, you may find that your screen is even more cramped. If you're at 1440x900 now, then you will have more room if you move to 1600x900. If you're at 1920x1200, however, you'll end up moving to 1920x1080, which means you'll be losing space. Lower resolutions will often suffer the same problem.

 

jesus. i can't believe this lame thread continues. you guys are so lame for this.

 

Well, you know where not all sheep.

If we - the people - disagree with something its ou right to peacefully protest.

We don't want to be force fed with "technology" that is a step backwards.

On the extreme end:
George Orwell 1984 an Animal farm will tell you what happens otherwise.

 

What resolution did you have?

If you moved to a "higher" resolution on 16:9, then you'd be getting more vertical space, but otherwise, you should have more or less the same amount. 16:10-->16:9(as the numbers imply) didn't give any extra horizontal space, it simply cut vertical space.

For example, 1920*1200(16:10) got cut to 1920*1080(16:9), which still has the same amount of horizontal space, just less vertical space.

 

i was browsing the forum and came to the "office 2010 web app testing" thread.



a simple random example on how much 16:9 sucks.

 

Good example, but:
In this case the browser takes up a bit of space as well as the Windows Live part...

 

Don't get caught up thinking that because a 16:10 resolution has a matching number with a 16:9 resolution that they're the same. Changing aspect ratio changes screen dimensions (height and width not just diagonal) which changes DPI and even on screen sizes with near equal screen area the two aspect ratios look different.

If you insist on just comparing total number of pixels then you can't say that 16:10 added any horizontal space over a 4:3 either because by the same reasoning that 1920x1080 is less vertical space than 1920x1200, 1920x1200 would be a loss of vertical space against 1920x1440.


Fact is 16:9 is a wider aspect ratio just like 16:10 was a wider aspect ratio than 4:3. You can see this by breaking down each ratio to it's smallest part.

4:3 gave 1.33 horizontal pixels for every vertical pixel.
16:10 gave 1.6 horizontal pixels for every vertical pixel.
16:9 gives 1.78 horizontal pixels for every vertical pixel.

More horizontal pixels per vertical pixel means you end up with a wider screen.

 

and less actual screen area per diagonal size. (quite important for marketing reasons)

 

yes, but exactly a netbook example: web-based apps (with google chrome, which has its tabs in a way that it doesn't need more vertical space), win7, and some typical low-end usage (a powerpoint presentation).

and on an ordinary netbook, it would look much worse btw this one has at least quite a high resolution

 

Well I agree that the thinking is flawed in many ways because you could compare each resolution from either a horizontal or vertical standpoint. (ex: some think that 1600*900 is the 16:9 version of 1440*900 while others think it's the equivalent of 1680*1050)

In such a case, it'd depend on the naming scheme of the resolutions by manufacturers(ex: XGA vs WXGA would be so-called "equivalents"). At least, that's how I'd see it.

 

my thinking is simple: a 15" screen on 4:3 is bigger (physically) than a 15" screen on 16:10, than a 15" screen on 16:9.

=> in screen size, it's a loss. they can nowaday market 16" laptops, that are smaller than original 14" laptops, in actual screen size.

second: the width increased for same-diameter, and the height decreased. so if you nowadays buy a 15" screen and bought a 15" screen years ago, you get more width, less height, and less area.

now the problem is, more width == unimportant in most use cases. less height, and less area, very important in most usecases.

this doesn't take resolution into account yet, obviously. but in most cases, it actually stays the same. resolution often doesn't increase (but dpi does a bit) on small screens, and on big screens, it's the same. only the middle screen range is rather untypical, sometimes this sometimes that. but mostly, no gain in the consumer sector as well.

 

You can normalize for screen area between a 16:10 and 16:9, which is what screen manufacturers are attempting to do with sizes like 11.6", 16.0", and 17.3". The original 16:9 screen offerings like 13.3", 16.4", and 18.4" didn't really normalize for screen area but instead took the height of the next smaller sized 16:10 screen and the width of the next larger sized 16:10 screen. (e.g. 16.4" had the height of a 15.4" screen and the width of a 17" screen)

When you do normalize for screen area between a 16:10 and a 16:9 the 16:9 screen allows for a higher pixel count at a readable DPI than the 16:10.

 

Naming is a good way but even that is kind of borked and arbitrary. WXGA for example covers 1280x720, 1280x768, 1280x800, and 1366x768 and while Sony refers to 1600x900 as WXGA++ Dell calls it 900p and Fujitsu uses WXGA++ to cover 1680x945.


I prefer to look at DPI when comparing 16:10 and 16:9 resolutions.

 

still, a laptop with a 15.6" sounds "uh, look the old one was only 15", now i got more" while it's still less area in the end. people like big numbers (think of the gigahertz marketings).

 

It's not all that difficult really. They just don't want you making a profit off of all their hard work. You can understand that, right?

I'm not sure where this comes from, but I'm open for suggestions if you have a better term.

Stop it!

What would you have us do...just roll over and play dead?

Remember, it's "the squeaky wheel that get's the grease." That's why there's websites like this to give us a forum to express our concerns and voice our opinions.

On the other hand, there is also a phrase known as "beating a dead horse!"

 

The complaint is that everything is called content.

Some films are classics that a lot of people considervery good, or good - but some will dislike them.

A brilliant film and a horrible one - both are now degraded to "content", that is the problem.

And saying a screen fits"content" well doesn't say which content.

If could say a car "does the job" - it could be a wreck blocking your driveway, its job is to block the driveway.

 

16:9 can display Casablanca's 1.37:1 aspect ratio or Star Wars' 2.35:1 aspect ratio just fine.


16:9 wasn't chosen as the HD standard because it was the most common aspect ratio being used by film makers but because all the commonly used aspect ratios fit inside a common rectangle that had a width-to-height ratio of 1.77:1.

That means when displayed on the same 16:9 screen Casablanca and Star Wars will have an equal image area without any cropping or distortion.

16:9 was designed to fit all "content".

 

And along the way laptops are downgraded to portable video players...

 

They don't have to be.

Screen resolutions aren't hard capped at 1920x1080...that's just the highest resolution currently offered on laptop screens. Instead of wasting your time trying to hold onto a aspect ratio you're going to lose anyway you should be asking notebook manufacturers to take advantage of the potential of 16:9 to offer more total pixels on smaller screens and ask for higher resolutions.

Any 16:9 screen 16" or larger can display 2048x1152 at a better DPI than any 16:10 screen 15.4" or larger can display 1920x1200.

 

Well, nobody is arguing against large computers with screens to large to see in one go anyway.

But my preferred laptop size is "small" - and my Vaio SZ is 13,3" at 16:10.
1280*800 pixels
At a higher resolution I would need to increase my DPI because I would no longer be able to read things.
The successor is the Sony Z with a 13" screen - either you get less height at 768 pixels or you get a screen with tiny pixels which has a 900 pixels height.

I also read a fair bit on my laptop - online newspapers - 32 Pixles do fit quite a few lines.

Also - as Dave posted earlier, Office doesn't work as you loose too much space "at the top".

Going from 4:3 to 16:9 I actually gained height, from 1024*768 to 1280*800.

Any new laptop I will buy will be a loss or I will have to carry a magnifying glass.

 

Same principal applies to smaller screens as well.

1366x768 has 32 less pixels vertically than 1280x800 but it has 80 pixels more horizontally. That's more pixels on a smaller screen (13.1" has 6 sq. in. less screen area than 13.3") at a comparable DPI.

The loss of how many lines of text you'd lose depends on the online news site you're reading and the browser you use. Lines that you lose vertically also get stretched out horizontally on the wider screen negating some of the loss. On NBR for example (with it's 10pt font?) the loss of 32 pixels is about just over two lines of text.

 

I still fail to so how a 16:9 1920x1080 is superior to 16:10 resolution of 1920x1200.

 

So what do I gain from 80 pixels in width? Nothing.

I don't read my news in fullscreen for the specific reason that I don't want to turn my head for every line of text.

1280 pixels is too wide for a text to comfortably read it.
So the 80 pixels to the side are pointless and the 32 pixels at the top are lost.

 

Simple, it isn't - except if you are a movie lover with an alergy to black barson your screen.

And if you have DVDs with 4:3 recordings (I have) then 16:9 is worse than 16:10.

 

Oh, to get an idea of 800 vs 768 vertical pixels, unlock the task bar and drag it up twice. It sucks.

 

auto hide=win

 

Or annoying.

I don't want things flashing up and down on my screen.

I like my taskbar static.

 

QFT. With the shrinking aspect ratios, you have to take the actual physical size of the LCD as well as the resolution. Here's my case in point involving the two notebooks in my signature:

My XPS m1730 has a 17" diagonal WUXGA(1920x1200) display, a 16:10 format.
My T60p has a 15" diagonal UXGA(1600x1200) display, a 4:3 format.

Both machines are running the same operating system(Vista Ultimate x64), so icon sizes and etc can be set to similar settings.

The LCDs on both of my computers are the exact same height. The T60p has the same vertical 'useable area' as the M1730, both physically and resolution wise. The only thing the ThinkPad is missing is the extra 160 pixels per side.

On that same note, I looked at a 16:10 ThinkPad T500 a couple of days ago, sitting right next to my 4:3 T60p. While I was impressed with the T500 and am tempted to pick up a W500(same chassis, better components), it dawned on me just how 'squashed' it looked. The palmrest was also noticeably shorter, which might not be as comfortable as I'd like for extensive typing.

If screen sizes start getting shorter, I'm afraid that's how things are going to be... just squashed flat, uncomfortable to type on notebooks. As someone who does a lot of typing as a fiction writer and a college student, typing comfort is a key concern.

 

Why is 16:10 1920x1200 superior to 4:3 1920x1440?

You wouldn't compare 1680x1050 to 1920x1200 like that so why do it with 1920x1080? Because the horizontal pixel counts match? That doesn't make them the same resolution. Just like with the comparison of 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 screen sizes matter because they change the DPI and make the two resolutions different.

 

1920*1440 is not !!! 16:9

16:10 1920*1200
16:9 1920*1080

i.e. loss

 

For gaming a better peripheral field of view. For photo and video editing more work space. For movie watching broader support of commonly used aspect ratios.

Computers just aren't useful for reading webpages....which btw can easily be designed to make better use of wider aspect ratios.

But 16:10 shows movies filmed in a 2.39:1 aspect ratio worse than 16:9.

 

No it's 4:3....but you missed the point.

16:10 1920x1200
4:3 1920x1440

i.e. loss

 

No manufacturer is forcing you to buy these laptops. Give support to the companies who continue to make laptops with 16:10 screens instead of ing at the ones who don't.

I'm guessing that it wouldn't really impact your life if you were absolutely "forced" to use a 16:9 screen on a day-to-day basis. I don't believe that anyone would lose sleep over losing 120 pixels vertically (and that's the maximum).

 

Well, for landscape photos 16:10 is best.
I rasied the photo editing angle a little while ago with Dave.
If you edit portraits 4:3 is best.
And I recently checked that and have to agree.

So no, for photo editing 16:9 isn't better.

And web pages - its uncomfortable if you have to turn your head to read the screen.
A page that is too wide is uncomfortable to read.

Why do you think are books higher than they are wide?
Not because its pretty, but because its more comfortable.

 

16:9 is wider than 16:10 and offers higher pixel counts at a comparable DPI which means more actual work space in the app.

Try just moving your eyes and viewing the screen from slightly further back. If that doesn't work consider a larger screen size (16:9 14" is only 4sq. in. larger than 16:10 13.3" which is half the size jump of 13.3"->14.1" 16:10)....last option may be to get glasses...or a better prescription.

What I meant is webpages can easily be redesigned around a 1366x768 resolution instead of 1280x800 which is most commonly used.

What happens when you open that book to actually read it instead of just staring at the cover? It becomes wider and not higher doesn't it? Wider screens allow you to view two pages side by side just like an open book.

Notebooks also aren't really books though are they? They're built wider than they are higher because they have to accommodate a keyboard which actually benefits from having a wider aspect ratio. You can get a more comfortable keyboard to type on with from a 16:9 aspect ratio (especially on smaller notebooks) without adding extra wasted palmrest space like you would have to with a 16:10 aspect ratio.

 

It was only to illustrate quickly the difference between 768 and 800 vertical pixels, because 2 levels of taskbar ~= 32 pixels.

 

Sorry, but what a stupid suggestion is that?
I got a 13,3" laptop because I wanted a small laptop and not a large one, and the resolution at 1280*800 is fine.
If it gets higer (aka Z at 1600*900) I won't be able to read it, if its 1366*768 I loose height.

Of corse you can make a webpage wide - but then its uncomfortable to use unless your menu is either to the left or right nd very wide.

Please show me a book where sentences are printed from the far left page to the far right page.
They don't exist.

On the same note, if you print text on an A4 page its generally a "portrait" - not in landscape mode.
The exception is graphs or some timetables.

Again, looking at the SZ and Z.
The SZ has nice palmrest, the Z had complaint in the Sony forum that the palmrests are too small.

And some people don't want to carry a large and heavy notebook.

 

Because no manufacture has replaced the 1920x1200 with 1920x1440. They all replace it with 1920x1080, that's why I am asking.

 

You fail to understand his point. He's saying taht when we went from 4:3 to 16:10, 1920*1440 became 1920*1200. He's asking you what's the difference with now? You've had loss in that case as well and everyone got over it.

 

1920x1440 was a 4:3 resolution....it was a typo to call it 16:9.

The 16:9 replacement for 1920x1200 should be 2048x1152 which has only made it onto a few desktop monitors but is very capable of being used on notebook screens sizes that commonly use 1920x1200.


@DetlevCM: You should be looking at 14" 16:9 monitors because they are closer in size to your 13.3" 16:10 than 13.1" is. Don't get caught up trying to match the numbers like diagonals and resolutions between 16:9 and 16:10. They're different now just like how they were different between 4:3 and 16:10. 4:3 screens had a larger screen area than 16:10 screens with matching diagonals...and in order to actually get a wider version of a 4:3 screen you had to move to a longer diagonal (e.g. 12" to 13.3").

 

I somhow dread my next laptop...

Also, this means your laptop will be wider...

A 16:10 13,3" is a greeat format as it fits in well with paperwork.

My SZ is pretty close to a A4 sheet of paper.

 

A 14" 16:9 screen is .9" wider and .2" shorter than a 13.3" 16:10 screen and is only 4 sq. in. of difference. It's less than half the size jump of going from 13.3" to 14.1" 16:10 (a gain of 10 sq. in of screen area).

 

Can you use a decent measurement by the way?
cm - or use both.

I don't fancy trying to convert into inches.

And I still won't like 16:9.
Not on a laptop.

 

http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html

14" 16:9 30.99cm × 17.43cm

13.3" 16:10 28.65cm × 17.9cm

14.1" 16:10 30.37cm × 18.98cm

 

Why will I go round calculating display sizes??

And remember that actual screen size isn't flush with the laptops casing size.

 

You should calculate DPI to understand how viewable a resolution is on any given screen size.

The screen size doesn't represent the size of the entire notebook but bezel size around the screen can be larger or smaller regardless of what aspect ratio is used. It can be applied equally or totally ignored when comparing the screen sizes.