Why do many hate 16:9?

Consumers don't know what they want. Thats what manufactures are for: to tell them.

 

Darn im good;

Eurocom squeezes four GPUs into Panther 5.0 - Tans Computer News

 

You'll get no cudos from me yet. Not that its not a good catch, but I want to "see" this screen in action. Or at least read some objective reviews.

 

4K on a 17.3 inch screen... Let's hope that Windows 8 dpi scaling is much better than Windows 7's.

 

I hope no one takes that seriously.

 

To be fair, that was the mentality about 1080p up until a few years ago. First it was considered impossible, then unnecessary. What a difference, a day makes...huh?

 

your joking right???
1920x1080<1920x1200 You can squeeze the exact same side by side with both screens but with 1920x1200 you get a lot more vertical....your point is pointless

2560x1440<2560x1600


again a pointless point

Who said it was impossible? I remember when I used to have 1600x1200 back like 13 years ago???

i'll take the HP ZR30w please

 

If I had a dollar for each time this discussion came up ...

I'm hoping the Apple iPhone 4S and especially the iPad 3 spur interest in high-res displays.

 

And if the Samsung Galaxy S III actually has the rumored 1920x1080 display, that'll be pretty good incentive for laptop makers to step up their game with higher resolution screens as well. Being able to get a higher resolution panel in a smartphone than in a full-sized laptop has to be a joke.

 

Screens in smartphones are concerned with being sharper. They are often used at closer distances than laptop, thus have to have a higher dpi for things to remain sharp.

I don't want anything higher than 1080p at 12 inches unless the extra resolution is free. It's not worth trying to fit more things into a small display since it starts becoming hard to read, and things are already sharp enough at the distance I use my laptop at most of the time. It's like televisions, even at 4K, a TV won't have as high a pixel density as some smartphones and laptops, and they don't really need to be since they are viewed across the room and an increase in sharpness would be overkill. Also, if the new iPad is anything to go by, a significantly higher resolution display increase power consumption significantly.

 

Nope. 3840x2400 is the best bar absolute none.

-- Sincerely, a happy T221 owner.

 

if i remember correctly it has horrible refresh rates and terrible ghosting

 

I would have to agree that 16:9 is a horrible choice for mainstream computing. Have you ever tried working with a word document in portrait layout? Just going from 16:10 to 16:9 feels like I'm being robbed. Think about the way most websites are laid out with respect to your screen. Out of the 23 tabs I have open, only 2 or 3 of them scale. The rest just leave empty space on either side. If we read top to bottom doesn't it make more sense to have more space vertically? Also it would decrease the toll on your middle finger from all that scrolling.

Sorry if i'm ranting.

 

There needs to be a "Turing Test" for screens. I won't be happy until you can put a large window in a wall and a same-sized screen next to it with a camera on the other side and not be able to tell the difference from 10 feet between the real-world and the image next to it from the camera on the other side.

1080p, when i saw it for the first time in '99 (CES) was incredible.. but still.. its part of an 'uncanny valley' for viewing where you know that you are watching a TV, no matter how advanced the tricks are.

4K is a lot closer.. but again.. until they can get All of the angles right from blacks, contrast, color and all of the other things that make an image.. its still "watching TV".

 

Other players are involved with 16:9, Hollywood & IEEE

A Hollywood feature nowadays can make as much money on the small screen as the big one, the studios are eager to ride that success directly into the living room. HDTV makers are doing their best to accommodate them.

Make the glass 1st.
One of the most interesting is roll-to-roll glass. Glass, with its superior uniformity and durability, has always been the substrate of preference for LCD panels. Today's batch processing uses rectangular sheets of "mother glass" substrates that go through various processing steps and then are cut into separate display panels. The largest substrates, used in Sharp's Gen 10 plant, are 2.88 by 3.13 meters. That's more than twice the area of a king-size mattress, but we may be approaching the limits of efficient batch processing of LCD panels.

Corning and Asahi Glass Co. have now separately developed 0.1-millimeter-thick glass, which is about as thick as a sheet of copy paper. Corning uses a proprietary fusion glass technology, while Asahi uses a more traditional float technique (in which liquid glass is poured onto a bath of molten metal). In either case, the resulting glass is so thin it can be rolled onto spools.

 

You work in LCD manufacturing?

 

Yes you are, buy join the club. The real issue here is with your misguided belief as to the application of the computer. Computers are machines; and can be applied in may way and with unlimited applications. The idea that the display is somehow inferior because it does not favor the word documents is ludicrous.

The world's leading industries will be in media. So that means the 16:9 ratio is poised to satisfy them. On the other hand, I can read a text even if the screen was hexagonal. Okay, maybe I exaggerate? But you get my point.

 

And you can't watch a movie with slightly larger black bars?

 

Computers do more than play movies. Just about everything else, such as web browsing or office tasks, is far better on 4:3 (unless you have a widescreen resolution that can fit 2 windows side by side without scrollig and the equivalent 4:3 can't, then 16:10/16:9 becomes more attractive).

 

Wait till the year 2016 rolls around. 16:9 1080p HD or 4320p UHD?

Sharp in collaboration with NHK unveiled the world's first Ultra High Definition-capable LCD display.

This 85" LCD display has a resolution of 7,680 x 4,320 pixels, which is equivalent to 16 times the resolution of HDTV, allowing for the display of incredibly detailed, high-quality images.

Sharp's UV2A LCD technology, allows for an unprecedented level of precision when controlling the alignment of liquid crystal molecules in an LCD structure, Sharp has been able to create a flawless 33megapixel display. The display supports 10-bit color depth for each channel as well as refresh rate of 60Hz.

The final goal is for UHDTV to be available in domestic homes, though the timeframe for this happening varies between 2016 to 2020.

 

I just wonder how the cable and satellite companies will manage the bandwidth of such high resolution video. They already compress the heck out of 720p. Not to mention bandwidth caps for streaming all that video. I think over the air TV will regain popularity because you can send so much more signal.

 

fiber optic to house directly?
But then plenty of ISP is doing consumer level 1000mbps (not in NA). 100+MB/s
4320p is like wat ,16x 1080p? 1080p is 6MB/s,

But i doubt 2160p(4k display) will be even popular in 2016.

 

Yes, he is jumping the gun a bit. We still likely skip past 2k or transition past it as we did 720. Then after that happens, we'll get to 4k standard sometimes around 2020.

 

I wouldn't call it plenty. Japan, Hong Kong, and South Korea have Gigabit Internet Access so far. They all are highly densely populated countries that make rollouts of stuff like this a lot cheaper.

I don't think we'll skip 4K. 4K TV's are coming out very soon, since they allow the possibility of glasses free 1080p 3D I believe.

 

even you get 4k display, still need 4k hardware. 1080p almost cripple anything pre core2duo w/o GPU acceleration.( actually my old core2duo laptop cant even drive youtube 1080p...)

 

You mix up 16:9 vs 16:10 with your highly subjective evaluation regarding the resolution development on the market.

 

1080p is a Stream of 2 Megapixel Images. 4K ratchets that up to 9.5 Megapixels per image. 4320P is a whopping 33 Megapixels! (All of this Plus Audio)

At 24fps, you are talking about a HUGE difference, even with compression. In RAW format, an hour of 4K video is 120+ GB..

Compressed, Blu-Ray BDXL (120gb) media maxes out on 4K for being able to hold a Feature length Film. to do 4320p, they would have to come out with another disc-based standard.

New Blu-Ray discs offering four times hi-def due out in 2013 | Mail Online

Streaming is also possible.. Youtube does 4K now.. But man.. talk about needing bandwidth. (I dont think you can upload more than a Music Video in 4k)

 

UHD infrastructure implementation is not far away and 16:9 is the standard.

This Will take one heck of a compression scheme to get that kind of content delivered to the customers. Good grief... 24GB/sec?? Fiber to the home like
Verizon FIOS is done. $79/mo, triple play phone, INET, HDTV.

Use Cisco or Fujitsu SONET OC-192 optical mux’s @ 9,953 Mbps (10 gig) or larger OC-768 mux’s (40 gig). These are operating and in production today.

The action will come from data centers already operating at speeds of
10/40/100 gig. Also (250,000 or +400,000) sq ft Data Centers are built,
turned up, and in production. The winds of change are blowing!

 

Code:

Cost is the issue there.. an OC-192.. i mean.. whats the price on something like that, 50-100k a month?

Back in the Late 90's i had a full T1 in my house and it was $1,500 a month. (Was running a home ISP)

 

Hint: Cost savings and other players

Did a project Migrating from OC-48 to OC-192. AT&T and Verizon put in bids.
AT&T won…..Cost savings $72,000/mo. verses older OC-48 monthly costs. More for less is a good deal.
EMC & IBM were also involved concerning storage/BW GigE circuits. These storage devices are bigger
than a refrigerator doing 10/40/100 gig and I/O’s of 8 petabytes of stored data.
The winds of change are blowing!

 

How did we get on the topic of fiber trunks?

 

The 16:10->16:9 'squat' LCD change was very obvious in two ultraportables: the Dell E4300->E4310 and Lenovo X201->X220 transition. Both saw their chassis becoming wider but shorter.

In the X220's case, the touchpad lost two physical buttons and became a clickpad in an attempt to compensate and keep a decent touchpad size.

In the E4310's case, the volume buttons were moved from below the LCD to the right side of the keyboard. Dell needed to beef up the cooling for the i5/i7 CPU resulting in a noticably larger and heavier unit than their previous E4300. Seems it wasn't popular and was quickly EOLed. The E4300 is a Dell classic system.

Wish Dell and Lenovo went back to a 16:10 LCD for these ultraportable systems. It gives the perfect chassis width and length. HP could consider it too - their 16:9 2560P a large deviation from their previous 16:10 2540P.

 

This is due to an increased demand for smaller ultraportables. Don't mix up screen size development on the market with aspect ratio. The transition to smaller sizes just happens to occur at the same time as the 16:9 transition.

For mobile phones you see a totally opposite development regarding screen sizes where the sizes increase in the 16:9 transition. But just as for ultraportables it has nothing to do with the aspect ratio transition it self.

To blame 16:9 for smaller lap tops is just as ridiculous as blaming 16:9 for larger mobile phones. You would have seen the same development independently of aspect ratio.

 

Actually, for 16:10, the most common size for 12 inch laptops was 12.1 inch. Other than Panasonic who keeps the 12.1 in their SX, 12 inch ultraportables are now 12.5 inch, so 12 inch ultraportables are actually getting bigger, not smaller.

 

16:9 is 11.6 or 12.1 inch.

 

Most are either 11.6" or 12.5". The Lenovo Thinkpad X220, Dell Latitude E6220 and HP Elitebook 2650p, for example, are all 12.5".

 

Yes, but there are many that are also 12.1" So it's not like they don't exist. I have an Eee 1215b and Hannspree Hannsbook that are both 1366x768 12.1" as are Samsung Netbooks, Fujitsu lifebook, HP Elitebook 2540p, among many many others.

 

The length of the diagonal doesn't correlate 1:1 with screen sizes among different aspect ratios. Imagine having a 12.5" 16:1 screen, for example. The diagonal is just used to convey screen because it's a single number and it's easy, but measuring across the diagonal doesn't actually make much sense when you are talking about the size of something. We don't generally use that strategy when talking about the size of... well... anything. How would generally compare the size of two objects which don't share the same shape?

A 12.5" 16:9 screen is the same size as about a 12.1-12.2" 16:10 screen.

 

The 2540p is 16:10. Not sure what Fujitsu(s) you're talking about, but the 12 inch P771 is also 16:10. Though it seems that 12.1 16:9's are a bit more common than I thought.

12.5 inch 16:9 is still bigger than 12.1 inch 16:10 though. I never said linear, sorry if it seemed like I implied.

Also, for those who are interested
12.5 inch 16:9 is about 10.894x6.130in thus about 66.8in2 area
12.1 inch 16:10 is about 10.261x6.413in thus about 65.82in2 area