Often, when people hear widescreen, they think of it as being better, giving them more viewing space.
HOWEVER!
A 25" 4:3 "Regular" TV tends to look larger than a 32" 16:9 "Widescreen" TV. Why is this? Those devilish numbers are the diagonal measurement. They use this to confuse you. A 25" 4:3 TV is much taller than a 32" 16:9 TV, and in the end, it looks larger. To have a TV that feels at least as large, you'll need to get at least a 40", probably setting you back way more money than you'd like.
There are more reasons. Other than watching a movie, there is literally no advantage to a widescreen display. One might argue that a widescreen display offers more space on the left and right sides. However, more often than not, it is treated as instead cutting off space from the top and bottom, in terms of resolution. To cope with this, non-wide programming is either stretched, or is given those horrid black boxes you thought you had finally defeated by purchasing your TV.
Image!
IN CONCLUSION:
Widescreen is full of suck. Other than watching 16:9 movies, it poses no advantage; regular TV programming is stretched, it's low quality is exploited, and doesn't get any better. Non-wide video game systems are also stretched or boxed. They're overpriced!
Bare in mind in non-HD TV, both 16:9 and 4:3 are BOTH 720x576 resolution. Widescreen pixels are not square, they are rectangular. 16:9 does not have a higher resolution, and therefor has the same amount of data as a 4:3 image.
Also, 99% of TV is shot in 16:9 anyway, so it's best to have a 16:9 TV. The reason widescreen is better (or even the extreme widescreen you get in the cinema) is because the human eye sees widescreen. If you picture what youre seeing now as a TV image, its much, much wider than it is tall. To be honest i'd rather they made TVs that were cinema aspect ratio, but that will never happen.
What i don't understand is why people want widescreen computer monitors. My dad recently bought a massive 16:9 screen. It's mainly for his PS3 but its also for his computer. It just looks funny using the internet and stuff on widescreen. It can run at a nice 1920 by 1080 pixels though yummy on the PS3.
I dunno, 16:9 TV in the UK is pretty much just that. There's no zooming or cropping.
I think I've grown too acustomed to widescreen too. It's a pain going back to 4:3 TV and old games and having everything stretched now that all the displays I use are 16:9. 'Cept the DS.
Ah yes, i also run a nice 1280x1024 monitor, to me its the perfect resolution. It's 17" so the text by default appears a perfect size to read. Suprisingly though, its not 4:3 at all. It's 5:4 aspect ratio.
Although when computer monitors are widescreen, you DO get more data than 4:3. Unlike TVs, the pixels remain square instead of rectangle.
Originally Posted by Nick! Ah yes, i also run a nice 1280x1024 monitor, to me its the perfect resolution. It's 17" so the text by default appears a perfect size to read. Suprisingly though, its not 4:3 at all. It's 5:4 aspect ratio.
Although when computer monitors are widescreen, you DO get more data than 4:3. Unlike TVs, the pixels remain square instead of rectangle.
Edited by the Author.
Some games (Prey) have 16:9/10 options but are just 4:3 resolutions that fill the screen and just squashes more stuff in on the sides. Take a screenshot and you'll see!
My 1920x1200 monitor doesn't lose space over the 4:3 1600x1200 one (which I don't have anymore). All our TV has extra pixels on the side too, we don't get zooming.
Consumers use 4:3, I use 16:9 for production space. If you have a brain you can figure out the right size widescreen monitor you can use. About the TV quality, get used to it, I have mine stretched and I am very used to it plus the quality looks no different in 4:3 mode because the screen is too large for my cable's quality.
"Devilish measurements meant to confuse you"? -- come on, any idiot with an 8th grade education can tell you how televisions are measured. Lower slope = small y-side, larger x-side, and the same hypotenuse. Sure it might be a little smaller vertically, but if you consider that a same-sized TV would letterbox any movie you tried to play on it, you're viewable area is still going to be larger. And the solution to getting a natively wide-screen television image is to (get this) buy a high-def antenna or purchase digital cable, which you ought to be doing any since the only wide-screen TV's I've ever seen are high-definition. As for the game systems, most games on the $99 original Xbox are wide-screen and support at least 480p, and everything for the new systems will take full advantage of modern televisions.
On the computer side of things, there's plenty of reasons to want wide-screen. I have a 24", 1920x1200 monitor that I use. If you think of it in 1600x1200 4:3 terms, that gives me an extra 320 pixels of space on the side to cascade stuff like music players, instant messengers, and the like. It also lets me edit 1080p video, watch Blu-Ray movies if I choose to upgrade, and experience more immersion in games due to the aspect ratio being closer to that of natural human vision. Of course, since it sounds like you're probably running games off of a GeForce 2, and stuck in the N64 generation of consoles judging by your weak arguments against wide-screen displays, you probably can't appreciate this.
4:3 accounts for 74% of gamers playing Steam games. Out of the 1,414,244 people who took the survey.
So we widescreen is nowhere near the majority of computer gamer people yet. Wonder what the household % of widescreen TV users is?
Literally everyone will have a widescreen TV purely because it's broadcast in widescreen format! And it's much nicer to watch films on widescreen as it makes the border smaller.
Originally Posted by Bibin A 25" 4:3 "Regular" TV tends to look larger than a 32" 16:9 "Widescreen" TV. Why is this? Those devilish numbers are the diagonal measurement. They use this to confuse you. A 25" 4:3 TV is much taller than a 32" 16:9 TV, and in the end, it looks larger. To have a TV that feels at least as large, you'll need to get at least a 40", probably setting you back way more money than you'd like.
A 25" 4:3 TV has the same height as a 32" 16:9 TV.
Originally Posted by Nick! Bare in mind in non-HD TV, both 16:9 and 4:3 are BOTH 720x576 resolution. Widescreen pixels are not square, they are rectangular. 16:9 does not have a higher resolution, and therefor has the same amount of data as a 4:3 image.
Actually, 16:9 does have a higher vertical resolution compared to the same image letterboxed in a 4:3 frame.
It's not like you have any choice anyway LCD and Plasma Widescreen TVs are pretty much the only ones sold nowadays.
It's a trade-off, with widescreen you get a larger picture for movies and newer video games, while with narrowscreen you get a larger picture for TV shows and older video games. I'd argue that the former is preferrable. Older video games typically don't look too good blown up to larger sizes, and typically the video from a DVD looks better than video from a digibox or analog. Unless you're lucky enough to have HDTV channels, but those are 16:9 anyway.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I deliberately go out of my way to ensure that I get a square monitor or TV. I hate widescreen. I have 2 1280x1024 19" monitors, and it's the BEST highly recommended.
Widescreen FTL. And also, trying to find decent wallpapers is so hard for widescreen monitors - especially when you're very picky -_-
Wallpapers come into the decision? Widescreen is much better for audio and video, well any design or production that is timeline based. Most widescreen monitors also have motion detectors (at least Dell monitors) so if you rotate it then the display will rotate too, many of the pro writers I know do this so they can view a full A4 sheet without needing a very high resolution monitor.
Plus widescreen gaming means you can see more to the sides. Very evident in HL2/source games.
I really can't see how widescreen isn't the preferred format unless you play old games, watch old TV more than newer stuff (which is a legit reason since a lot of new stuff is cack).
Originally Posted by Dr. James Wallpapers come into the decision? Widescreen is much better for audio and video, well any design or production that is timeline based. Most widescreen monitors also have motion detectors (at least Dell monitors) so if you rotate it then the display will rotate too, many of the pro writers I know do this so they can view a full A4 sheet without needing a very high resolution monitor.
Plus widescreen gaming means you can see more to the sides. Very evident in HL2/source games.
I really can't see how widescreen isn't the preferred format unless you play old games, watch old TV more than newer stuff (which is a legit reason since a lot of new stuff is cack).
Some of us can't afford Dell ;_; and dont tend to write essays etc. I rarely play games - even then, I think I'd still choose 4:3 because you can use if effectively with new games, AND with the classics... I generally tend to design websites and faff around on my computer in general.. pretending to make games here and there so that's my reasoning as to why I don't particularly have a use for widescreen.
Also, I'd prefer to have a 32" 4:3 TV/Monitor than a 32" Widescreen, wouldn't you?
And yeah... they don't make TV like they used to ;_; ... I'ma make a topic.
No I wouldn't! Because my 2 big uses of a computer include Logic and Final Cut which work much better in wider displays! Plus with MMF a wider display means you can have the layers panel up without shrinking down the level editor view.
I don't like dual monitors much. I think they're great for OSX where I can be on FCP on my big monitor and have Photoshop or Finder in the other. In XP I disable my smaller monitor since I use it for games.
Originally Posted by Kirby Smith "Devilish measurements meant to confuse you"? -- come on, any idiot with an 8th grade education can tell you how televisions are measured. Lower slope = small y-side, larger x-side, and the same hypotenuse.
I don't mean that to say that a simple schoolchild couldn't figure it out, but that's just the thing; the average consumer will look and see 25" for a TV. They think of how large their old 25" 4:3 TV looked, and then buy it, not realising that for your screen to really feel as large as a 25" 4:3 TV, you'll need at least a 40" TV.
Dual monitors drives me nuts because there is always this stupid line in the middle of whatever I'm doing fullscreen. Now, I used to have a great dual monitor setup in which I removed the LCD bezels entirely; looked pretty good. Still wasn't as good as having my nice 4:5 monitor though.
Originally Posted by Dr. James No I wouldn't! Because my 2 big uses of a computer include Logic and Final Cut which work much better in wider displays! Plus with MMF a wider display means you can have the layers panel up without shrinking down the level editor view.
I don't like dual monitors much. I think they're great for OSX where I can be on FCP on my big monitor and have Photoshop or Finder in the other. In XP I disable my smaller monitor since I use it for games.
Try using 'UltraMon'. Everyone has their purpose for buying things to suit their needs etc, at the end of the day. So.. I bought my brother a widescreen monitor. If I need one - it's there Otherwise I'm very happy with my dual 19" setup
Originally Posted by Bibin Originally Posted by Kirby SmithI don't mean that to say that a simple schoolchild couldn't figure it out, but that's just the thing; the average consumer will look and see 25" for a TV. They think of how large their old 25" 4:3 TV looked, and then buy it, not realising that for your screen to really feel as large as a 25" 4:3 TV, you'll need at least a 40" TV.
A 32" Widescreen TV has the 4:3 viewing area equivelent of a 26" 4:3 tv. A 40" Widescreen TV has the 4:3 viewing area equivelent of a 33" 4:3 tv. YOU DO NOT NEED TO BUY A 40" WS TV TO GET THE SAME SIZE AS A 25" 4:3 TV. Sorry for writing all caps, but you apparantly ignored me explaining it in the last post
Also, play the DVD of a 2.35:1 movie and suddenly the 4:3 tv will feel VERY small compared to the WS TV (which will still have black bars but a much bigger picture)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
There's a 1.5" gap between the displays in my Dell and iMac setup. Considering that's 2x20" it's not a bad gap. But I don't want it completely seamless, the gap visually separates different applications I'm working with and keeps it a little less cluttered looking.
Yeah I have to say that widescreen is just better for just about everything, I hate using MMF or Photoshop on a 4:3 monitor... It just feels cramped.
Oh and Tim I have over 80 wallpapers that fit my monitor or a higher resolution perfectly and they're all pretty awesome. I'm also planning on getting a second 24" (Dell) at some point, still saving up .
Originally Posted by Tim, the cat.
Also, I'd prefer to have a 32" 4:3 TV/Monitor than a 32" Widescreen, wouldn't you?
Originally Posted by Bibin I've found 1280x1024 to be easier to use for me than 1280x800.
Thats because you're 224 pixels. Who the hell would switch to wide screen just so they can go from 1280x1024 to 1280x800. Anyone can look at that obviously and see that the only reason it's wide screen is because it's subtracting from the height. At least 1440 x 900 subtracts from the height, but adds to the width. It's not a dramatic improvement, but the outcome of total pixels is increased at least. Wow.
Widescreen was not invented because humans "see in widescreen". It's mainly because composing a picture is easier than on a 4:3. It gives the image proportions closely matching the "golden rectangle", which is generally considered aesthetically pleasing and is used by many famous artists. Once you start filming in widescreen you will notice how easy it is to compose a good image and you never want to go back. On computers widescreen is pretty much useless unless you play alot of games and watch movies. Btw, my 15 inch notebook kicks ass @ 1600x1200.
Its hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Originally Posted by Nioreh Widescreen was not invented because humans "see in widescreen". It's mainly because composing a picture is easier than on a 4:3. It gives the image proportions closely matching the "golden rectangle", which is generally considered aesthetically pleasing and is used by many famous artists. Once you start filming in widescreen you will notice how easy it is to compose a good image and you never want to go back.
In the 50s, cinema faced competition from the growing popularity of television. Widescreen, multi-channel sound and 3D projection were all used to lure people back to the cinemas.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Nioreh Widescreen was not invented because humans "see in widescreen". It's mainly because composing a picture is easier than on a 4:3. It gives the image proportions closely matching the "golden rectangle", which is generally considered aesthetically pleasing and is used by many famous artists. Once you start filming in widescreen you will notice how easy it is to compose a good image and you never want to go back.
In the 50s, cinema faced competition from the growing popularity of television. Widescreen, multi-channel sound and 3D projection were all used to lure people back to the cinemas.
Well, that along with it being illegal to watch films before their release at the cinema etc
Originally Posted by Nioreh Widescreen was not invented because humans "see in widescreen". It's mainly because composing a picture is easier than on a 4:3. It gives the image proportions closely matching the "golden rectangle", which is generally considered aesthetically pleasing and is used by many famous artists. Once you start filming in widescreen you will notice how easy it is to compose a good image and you never want to go back.
In the 50s, cinema faced competition from the growing popularity of television. Widescreen, multi-channel sound and 3D projection were all used to lure people back to the cinemas.
Well, that along with it being illegal to watch films before their release at the cinema etc
I somehow don't think film piracy was a large factor in the 50s.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I don't know about most people, but I do find it MUCH more 'pleasing' to watch a movie or view a picture in wide screen. So whether or not it's easier to produce, is ilrelivent to me. It's the panoramic feel I get from watching it. That considered, I don't think it's possible to say flat out that it was not invented because humans "see in wide screen". It was more then less likely a combination between our panoramic vision and ease of development. It's service to say that the only reason we ever aimed for relatively "square" screens were ever made, was because it seemed to make more sense. Not realizing that it is in fact much more visually pleasing to watch a movie or something, in wide screen. At least it is for me anyway. It might be an interesting poll to take large scale with.
The reason I use the word panoramic though, is because it makes much more sense then to describe how we see in "wide screen". Consider that our world... is more so based off of viewing things across a horizon. We don't expect to constantly look up and down to see people, we look across a horizon. When we look out into the distance, we tend to be much more pleased with very wide open scenes. We are naturally attracted to a wide field of view. Panoramic. Wide screen takes advantage of this.
Plus, dunno if it's a UK thing or not it appears that widescreen isn't just stretched. I can flick between 4:3 and 16:9 on my TV software and 16:9 definitely has more going on at the edges. Theres nowt-zooming to be scene. But I think this was said before. I forget.
Ok yes a regular tv might "look" larger than a widescreen one but put in a widescreen dvd and all of a sudden you've got a lot less viewing space on that 40" 4:3 tv compared to the 16:9 one. I'm not really sure how it "looks" larger anyway. You eyes are set side by side, therefore you can actually take in more information on a widescreen tv than a 4:3 one. All you're losing is height. Obviously if you watch a standard def tv show on your widescreen tv you will have black bars on the side. If "you thought you had finally defeated" them you obviously weren't thinking ahead. As long as content comes in more than one format there will be no answer, it is simply a part-time inconvenience during a transition. It's like saying that when tv first went to color, the people who bought color tv sets were angry because it didn't magically turn older shows from black and white.
Movies have (almost) always been in widescreen, and tv shows in 4:3. So we had widescreens in theaters, and squarish ones in our homes. But nowadays we want the movie experience at home, therefore they have given us widescreen tvs. If you don't care about watching movies in their native format then don't buy an HDTV. I watch more movies than I watch tv shows making an HDTV a great solution for me. Not "overpriced".
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Most new TV shows are in widescreen anyway.
Fact of the matter is, why would you buy a TV or monitor thats 20 inches in height, that has a 4:3 ratio, instead of buying a TV thats 20 inches in height, on at 16:9. You're not losing anything, you're just gaining black bars on the side to make up for your loss. Game Boy Advanced went through the exact same thing with the new games vs the old games. You're not losing anything, but you are preparing for future media.
My two cents.. I like widescreen, just as long as you take one of the smaller ones. You should also have software that supports it, looks ugly on a comp that doesn't have widescreen support. One of my uncles just bought a widescreen one and it was pretty darn impressive.
But.. I'd save till the day they become common in the market. Maybe when everyone has Vista and a 3d graphics card.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by Muz But.. I'd save till the day they become common in the market. Maybe when everyone has Vista and a 3d graphics card.
Meh. Vista is just same old but with a new interface. Oh, and a crapload of DRM too.
It's that kind of ignorance that pisses me off, because you have no fucken idea. I agree though, what does Vista have ANYTHING to do with widescreen? Nothing.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Meh. Vista is just same old but with a new interface. Oh, and a crapload of DRM too.
It's that kind of ignorance that pisses me off, because you have no fucken idea. I agree though, what does Vista have ANYTHING to do with widescreen? Nothing.
Okay then, would you be so kind as to tell me what positive things Vista brings besides Aero?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Meh. Vista is just same old but with a new interface. Oh, and a crapload of DRM too.
It's that kind of ignorance that pisses me off, because you have no fucken idea. I agree though, what does Vista have ANYTHING to do with widescreen? Nothing.
Okay then, would you be so kind as to tell me what positive things Vista brings besides Aero?
Faster (for me at least)
Mild changes and rearrangements are much cleaner
Per-Application Volume.
Better Dual Core support.
Better use of idle ram.
A quick search I can't go without anymore.
MUCH EASIER error trouble shooting. (Yes, Vista errors just like any other operating system, so don't even go there.)
End Task actually works!?
Process Window doesn't hesitate to show up and doesn't show up 500 times when you press it more then once.
After updating to Service Pack 1, I haven't had absolutely compatibility issues. (With the exception of a shitty free webcam I got free.)
A restore disk that automatically repairs anything wrong, without automatically begging you to reinstall Windows.
Much cleaner folder interface (Of course this is ENTIRELY matter of opinion, so don't use this against me please.)
There, in an attempt to avoid petty less fighting, I did in fact just list a relatively solid list of improvements to Windows. No, none of them are truly innovative but to be honest, if both Windows XP and Vista work beautifully for me, then why the hell not go with the one with all the tweaks and improvements? Trust me, I have no problem accepting that people don't want to use Vista, but to say it sucks is nothing but pure unnecessary ignorance and it annoys the fuck out of me.
Originally Posted by -Mr. Lazy- Vista and wide screen do kind of go together though. I had to turn of the gadgets on my 17" 4:3 because it took up too much space.
Or you were just on a low resolution. I had widgets on 1280x1024 before I got widescreen, and they didn't bother me at all. Infact, I kind of liked them, because they gave balance to the desktop, without me having to throw a bunch of icons onto the right side of the desktop.
Originally Posted by Bibin Have fun pretending you enjoy linux.
It's not as much enjoy as it is being useful. I play games on consoles. The things I use my computer for (chatting, surfing, Java programming) works perfectly well on linux.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Bibin Have fun pretending you enjoy linux.
lol yea. I go for OSX because of the pro application support and XP for games. Theres nothing really pulling me towards Linux. Just seems like a world built up on freeware clones of high end app suites. But not everyone needs Logic/Final Cut/Photoshop et al so I can see why people want it.
lulz at Vista too. At some point the MacBook Pro 17" was rated as the best Vista laptop but heck XP was much faster for me. Boot times, basic navigation, even timed from pushing the power button to get into TF2 and XP was much quicker.
It does have more security. But frig me trying to a file from my friends XP system to his brothers Vista system was a nightmare over the network. Why can't networking on other systems be as good as OSX
As long as you aren't using IE in XP, and have updated to SP2 and installed the updates (really guys, it's not hard, like, at all to do this), it's a very secure system. Just don't go doing stupid stuff and you'll be fine.
Originally Posted by Dr. Uppity That much is true. Virus free XP for a year now and I'm only using AVG.
Unless JAP, PeerGuardian etc protect from that kind of nonsense too?
I too have gone Virus free for over 3 years now, and all I've ever used was AVG. Hell, time to time I haven't used anything! So people who bitch and complain about viruses and stuff, seriously need to stop getting into places they don't belong. It's not that hard to stay clean on the internet.
Advertisement
Post Reply
yummy on the PS3.
Edited by the Author.
LCD and Plasma Widescreen TVs are pretty much the only ones sold nowadays.
highly recommended.
