One of the hallmarks of Microsoft is that we dream big - Steve 'Understatement' Ballmer
|
|
|
LEDs and OLEDs come of age for PC monitor use
OVER THE PAST YEAR perhaps you've noticed our repeated warnings here that the 16:9 display format, good for movies but surely nowhere near suitable for real computer work, has almost completely invaded the PC monitor space.
That happened no doubt due to the minor cost savings that greedy LCD panel vendors can make by cutting everything to the same proportions, coupled with the sheeplike complicity of both monitor and PC system vendors, desktop and mobile alike.
So, when checking out the two critical display-related exhibitions earlier this month - the Display Expo in Taipei a week after Computex, followed by Broadcast Asia in Singapore a week later - I was worried that we will not see any new proper monitor entries in the natural 'golden ratio' 16:10 format, not to mention the good old 4:3 sizes of the VGA and XGA generations.
Fortunately I wasn't completely right, I managed to find 3D multitouch 16:10 proportion 24-inch and 26-inch 1920x1200 displays, like the one above, and LED units in the same format.
In fact, during the Display Expo, ChiMei and AUO, two of the leading Taiwan LCD panel and monitor assembly vendors, indicated that after Apple's Ipad and Iphone use of the 4:3 format the two vendors might offer more products in that format.
Another reason for continuing with the 4:3 format is that competing tablet vendors will presumably follow the same practical A4 or letter page proportion that matches electronic books, or web pages, allowing naturalistic reading without the need for scrolling. So, who says that Apple doesn't contribute good stuff to the PC industry sometimes?
Back to the technology, at Display Expo you could see larger OLED screens for the first time, as 15-inch and 17-inch models with HD-like resolution. LED-backlit LCD screens were on display at all resolutions and sizes, including the favoured 1920x1200, still traceable in the jungle of 1920x1080 offerings. Ten-bit colour is starting to appear in consumer models as well, while contrast and brightness are now finally close to the best of CRT screens. It took a long time to reach that milestone, though.
Then, both the OEM and consumer side at the Taipei show and the broadcast and content creation professional side in the larger Singapore exhibition were overwhelmed with the 3D HD craze. Absolutely every major brand had one form or another of the exposure, from 65-inch ultrafast 10-bit colour 3-D LED screens through matching plasma and standard LCD screens with 240Hz and even 480Hz refresh up to complete 3D capable twin-lens camera and 3D professional video editing and creation systems. Here's AUO 65-inch 'pattern retarder' 3-D Full HD LED TV, the world's largest at this time:
Take a look at Panasonic's lovely 3D HD broadcast editing monitor with 1920x1200 resolution, 10-bit colour capability and a gazillion input options, but oh yes, it's 10 grand in US dollars. And, even for HD movie editing, the extra vertical resolution of this 16:10 display has benefits: all status and system messages, as well as subtitles or menu buttons, can be displayed above and below the video itself, not affecting the picture:
Here is an example of a complete 3D HD production system based on a bunch of Linux 64-bit engines and GPU acceleration. There is also a Mac option, but no Windows:
Finally, there was no push yet to the QuadHD area, either in displays or on the content creation front. The same expensive 50 grand ChiMei 56 inch 3840x2160 screens and NHK 4K authoring systems are still around, without any move forward. It's quite a pity, as current new-generation GPUs from both Nvidia and ATI do need more pixels to feed, at least, to justify their own existence, especially in parallel SLI and CrossFire setups. I'd say that a 32-inch 4096x2400 size would still make sense, covering the future 4K video content well while also being able to accommodate two A4 page PDF viewing in near colour-laser printer resolution and, not to forget, bog down those powerful GPUs with quadruple the number of pixels they'd otherwise have.
But, in any case, the LED and OLED screens will finally give us near-photographic viewing enjoyment on our PCs, too. Just watch the screen aspect ratio. µ
Share this:
Share
Start with 0 and 1. Add them together, 0+1=1. The result becomes the next number in the series. Keep repeating by adding the last 2 numbers, i.e., 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, ... to infinity. This is called the Fibonacci Sequence. Now divide the numbers by their following numbers, i.e., 0/1=0, 1/1=1, 1/2=0.5, 2/3=0.66, 3/5=0.6, 5/8=0.625, 8/13=0.615384615, ... to infinity. It is getting more and more accurate as it progresses and it never converges. This is Fibonacci's golden mean. It is the Divine Ratio (at 6 digits of accuracy) of 0.618034 : 1 or 1 : 1.618034. It doesn't matter if it's smaller to larger or larger to smaller, it's the only ratio with which this is possible; [0.618034 : 1 : 1.618034]. A monitor with a 16:10 aspect ratio is aligned with Fibonacci's divine proportion.
This is the mathematics of the perception of beauty! This ratio is found far flung through all of nature. It is found in pine cones, spiders webs, mollusk shells, parrots beaks, rams horns, cauliflower, sunflowers, pineapples, the ratio of tree branch nodes growth, it's even found in the curve of the bowing of a branch. All kinds of growth show this divine ratio. All the way up to the spiral arms of the galaxies. In a beautiful person, it is found in ratios within the face, e.g., lips to eyes = 1, nose tip should be down from the eyes at 0.618034 of that 1, or chin to eyes = 1 then, nose tip up from chin = 0.618034, or the ratio between the height of the navel to total body height.
Quote from 'Golden ratio' at Wikipedia; "In mathematics and the arts, two quantities are in the golden ratio if the ratio of the sum of the quantities to the larger quantity is equal to the ratio of the larger quantity to the smaller one. The golden ratio is... approximately 1.6180339887. Other names frequently used for the golden ratio are the golden section and golden mean. Other terms encountered include extreme and mean ratio, medial section, divine proportion, divine section, golden proportion, golden cut, golden number... The golden ratio is often denoted by the Greek letter phi."
Then there are Fibonacci spirals...
I don't know how anyone can claim that 1080 horizontal lines are enough for a PC display. If the res was doubled then maybe 16:9 would be OK, but with 1080p it is not enough room for the Windows bar plus big aps. 16:10 gives you a nice 11% more vertical room and is wide enough for most media applications. You don't gain anything by going 16:9 so if the industry does go that route only we all loose.
i can see a use for 16:9 monitors, it's ideal for non-professionals and TV/movie watchers. But for any professional it's just not good enough, the limited height often makes it unusable. 16:10 is ideal for anyone editing timeline material or viewing 2 A4 documents side by side, and 4:3 is often favoured by 3D editors and by BD and SS users.
Which leaves 16:9 for the kids bedroom, the kitchen pc, or the main media display for the computer illiterate.
I recently wanted a pair of 27" monitors but they don't come in 16:10 so i had to go for two 26" instead.
Ultimately i can't see the point of 16:9 monitors, it's just unnecessary manufacturing expense and serves no real gain.
my twopence worth
The trend to push glossy screens irks. Working in an office environment with bright lighting and background movement hurts the eyes.
Worst yet, the matte version of a monitor, notebook or TV seems to be delivered only when customers complain.
Picture sharpness may be 10% better, and without the matte screen layer cheaper, but I will pay the extra for matte if I have to.
Screens should NOT be mirrors!
16:10 & 4:3 for me. I like having the extra vertical screen space provided by 1200 pixel vertical resolution.
Just as bad is the mad rush to glossy screens. It's bloody annoying to have reflected objects interfering with screen content. Adding insult to injury is the diminishing availability of matte screens in any ratio. It seems we get the worst of both worlds foisted upon us - glossy 16:9.
to find out why 16:9 was chosen as a standard. Turns out it is the geometric mean aspect ratio of all the popular formats. That means math was the reason and you really can't argue with that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)#Why_16:9_was_chosen_by_the_SMPTE
What all of you are complaining about with 16:9 (and 16:10) is vertical resolution, not the aspect ratio! If you need 1200 vertical pixels, then it makes no difference what the aspect ratio is. A 1600x1200 display, a 1920x1200 display, and a 2133x1200 display all allow the same amount of stuff to be displayed vertically.
What's missing is availability of the 2133x1200 panel size (you can get bigger ones though). Associated with that is the fact that screen resolution has failed to improve for years. Screens have got bigger, but the resolution has (with a few honourable and expensive exceptions) stayed the same. At this rate, sooner or later we won't have "pixels" on our screens, we'll just have large blobs!
The other point being lost is that it isn't just the panel manufacturers driving the change in aspect ratio - it is consumers (that's you and me) always wanting more for less - of course manufacturers are going to make panels which cost the least to make! If you really do want a good 16:10 monitor they are still available - but you will have to pay the price for it.
It's 8:5, Thordamnit! If you're going to yap and gripe about ratios, at least say them right! The industry is also to blame for refusing to simplify to the proper whole numbers.
16:9 is utter crap when your trying to get work done. Ok 16:10 is better, but sheesh give us proper 4:3 panels!
The only reason we're stuck with the crap 16:9 is the cheapass display makers cutting costs and off loading TV dimensions onto us...and frankly TV resolutions is not what I need to work with and why I cling to my now ancient good ol' 1600x1200 20" panel until anything better can come along...which these days is very unlikely :(
I vote for 16:10 too. After you have tried it, you will love it.
The next alternative is the large 22" or above 4:3. My office use 15" 4:3, which is fuxked up, as is just too small for anything.
The large State Government department I work for changed vendors for the supply of PCs in large part due to the inability of the existing vendors inability to supply monitors and notebooks in a 16:10 or 4:3 format.
With 16:10 you can view two full pages side by side in a readable size and it is also excellent for spreadsheets.
With 16:9 pages are truncated leading to the need to scroll excessively. I dread the day if all monitors are made in 16:9 which is great for movies but hopeless for data.
- which they don't have to be -
then a perfect square monitor has the most pixels for a given diagonal size.
I suspect this doesn't matter. If a 14" 16:9 is not as good pixel-number-wise as a 14" 4:3, well, I don't see why you would expect it to be.
Hooray for those black bars. Letterboxes and pillarboxes. Wait, they're the same thing...
Well, compared to 16:10 and 4:3, 16:9 just plain sucks.
For any given diagonal screen length, the common screen measurement, if a 16:9 screen has 100% area, then a 16:10 has 105% area and a 4:3 has 112%. At their comparitive resolutions (e.g. 1920X1080, 1920X1200, 1920X1440), 16:10 has 111% and 4:3 has 133% the number of pixels of 16:9.
This means that for a given diagonal screen size, at a comparitive resolution, 16:9 will always have the worst PPI, and 4:3 the best, with 16:10 falling between the two.
I'm pretty sure my math is right, besides having rounded off somewhat, but if anyone can do better then please do.
Another vote in favour of 16:10.
16:9 just doesn't offer enough vertical room and means you're constantly having to scroll. 16:10 offers the width, but also gives you that extra inch or two of vertical space to make the screen soooo much more comfortable to use.
Down with 16:9 monitors!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)
Why 16:9 was chosen by the SMPTE
Equal area comparison of the aspect ratios used by Dr. Powers to derive the SMPTE 16:9 standard. TV 4:3/1.33 in red, 1.66 in orange, 16:9/1.78 in blue, 1.85 in yellow, Panavision/2.2 in mauve and CinemaScope/2.35 in purple.When the 16:9 aspect ratio was proposed by Dr. Kerns H. Powers, a member of the SMPTE Working Group On High-Definition Electronic Production, nobody was creating 16:9 videos. The popular choices in 1980 were: 4:3 (based on television standard's ratio at the time), 1.66:1 (the European "flat" ratio), 1.85:1 (the American "flat" ratio), 2.20:1 (the ratio of 70 mm films and Panavision) and 2.35:1 (the CinemaScope ratio for anamorphic widescreen films). Dr. Powers cut out rectangles with equal areas, shaped to match each of the popular aspect ratios. When overlapped with their center points aligned, he found that all of those aspect ratio rectangles fit within an outer rectangle with an aspect ratio of 1.77:1 and all of them also covered a smaller common inner rectangle with the same aspect ratio 1.77:1. The value found by Powers is exactly the geometric mean of the extreme aspect ratios, 4:3 (1.33:1) and 2.35:1, which is coincidentally close to 16:9 (1.78:1). Note that applying the same geometric mean technique to 16:9 and 4:3 approximately yields the 14:9 aspect ratio, which is likewise used as a compromise between these ratios.
@ Kiwi: 3:2 aspect ratios are used in 35mm and DSLR *photography*. I re-read my post and saw that it's evident I was discussing cinematic 35mm.
But as an interesting side note, photography has the same aspect ratio hurdles. For example, prints may be 2x3, 4x6, 3x5, 5x8, 8x10, etc. In that short (and incomplete) list, only 2x3 and 4x6 prints have the 'proper' 3:2 aspect ratio. The general rule of thumb is to simply crop the photo to match the media; I'm sure most parents would not be pleased if their kids brought home school pictures with black bars down the sides. If that were to happen, how long before picture frame manufacturers transitioned to the 'new' 6.66x10 inch frames that would replace the old 8x10 inch frames, thus preserving the 3:2 aspect ratio?
I suppose we would then have 8x12 frames (3:2 aspect ratio), and we would put 8x10 prints in them with a black bar at the top and bottom - because 3:2 picture frames would be in style, after all.
"35mm film uses the 4:3 aspect ratio." Huh?
35mm film is 3:2 16:9 is too wide to display 35mm images full screen (it would need to be 13.5:9), while 16:10 is too, but is a better fit (15:10 would be perfect)
The funny thing is p&s digital cameras have defaulted to 4:3 for ages to match CRT screens, but now screens have moved to 16:9.
Sure, many cameras can take 16:9 images now, but often it's a compromise on resolution because of the aspect ratio of the sensor.
DSLRs of course are still 3:2
The nice old A4 page is fairly close to 3:2 as well, so I'm not sure where 16:9 came from, as it doesn't seem to have much precedent?
The short wide monitors make poor use of my available space. They use up a lot of horizontal space yet give relatively little screen real estate. I wind up scrolling around to cope with the limited vertical resolution yet not using the width. I still like 4:3. I learned to tolerate the 16:10 of a 1920x1200 monitor. I was very frustrated to have it let the white smoke out and find nothing but 1920x1080 to replace it with.
Widescreen in the theater came as a means of making movies look worse on TVs.
With sufficiently high DPI (300+), the aspect ratio becomes less critical. So the main thing I want is a higher DPI.
I prefer 16:10 also. I particularly dislike 16:9 laptops.
In an ideal world we'd have a choice, right? That way the guy above can have his 14:9 while others enjoy their oldschool 4:3 goodness.
is what I want them the pick up from Apple. Not dressing up old technology like it is new. 22" 1920x1200 16:10 monitor and you are raving about it because they start building them again? If it was 22" 3840x2400 16:10 3D 10bits 2ms then that would be interesting!
I don't get why 16:9 should be "nowhere near suitable", and 16:10 is such an improvement. Doesn't make a lot of sense... This seems very subjective, like your first 16:9 was of bad quality, and now you hate them out of principle.
I'm a programmer, 16:9 is perfect, to see source code/debugger and running program next to each other is just perfect. 10% more lines wouldn't really add. I'd rather add a second 16:9 next to the existing one.
In the evening, I can use the same screen for watching movies, perfect.
Hey, I have an idea especially for you: how about a 14:9?
The 1.333:1 (4:3) aspect ratio has nothing to do with how easy it is to use a computer, nor viewing an A4 page on your monitor. 35mm film uses the 4:3 aspect ratio. Edison Developed that aspect ratio because he bunged some gear together and that's how it worked out, a tradeoff between optics and cost and available parts and materials. 4:3 was later adopted as a standard.
Early televisions used round screens because they were easier to make than rectangular tubes but eventually TVs transitioned to the 4:3 ratio because the images were based on 35mm film used in TV/movie production.
Early computers used TVs as monitors so they ended up displaying on a 4:3 device for no other reason than because 4:3 devices were readily available.
So why did we transition to widescreen? Some nutter masked of the image and people liked it, and the movie studios saw a way to differentiate the cinema from the telly. Here's a wiki quote:
"The unexpected success of the Cinerama widescreen process in 1952 led to a boom in film format innovations to compete with the growing audiences of television and the dwindling audiences in movie theaters. These processes could give theatergoers an experience that television couldn't—color, stereophonic sound and **panoramic vision**."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film
In other words: people liked widescreen so much that the entire movie industry transitioned away from 4:3, and it has finally made it's way into people's homes.
The tv and film industry is transitioning to a widescreen format and has (for now) settled on a 16:9 aspect ratio. Computer monitors are following suit, as they always have.
The thing is, why furrow your brow and gnash your teeth because you like one TV-based aspect ratio over another? Both 4:3 and 16:9 are based on TV aspect ratio of the day.
Another vote for 16:10. For me it offers the best combination for video and other uses. I've also used some software that can move a 16:9 video to the top of the screen, leaving a bottom band that is perfect for subtitles.
for 16 : 10.
Down with 16 : 9 for the PC!
"but surely nowhere near suitable for real computer work"
I can only think the journalist who wrote this has had exposure to only a limited range of activities under the category "real computer work". On a decent size screen, 16:9 is a great format for complex spreadsheets, looking at database in row format, network diagrams in landscape format and so on. It also works very well for two side-by-side A4 portrait mode pages for word processing and DTP (assuming you have a 23" or bigger screen). It's also a great format for manipulating photographs as the majority are taken in lansdcape mode. With video editing landscape is pretty well essential.
The 16:9 format is also good for two side-by-side terminal windows.
There are a few things where the height can be a bit more of an issue, but for my purposes, that's generally just horizontal splits, although the real problem there is that a screen can never be big enough.
If anything, 16:9 is not wide enough - I have colleagues who put two wide-screen format screen side-by-side.
About 16:9 screen size. I think it's FINE, you disagree, but getting obsessed with the negative view is interfering with appropriate reporting. If the screen is too wide for you, just run a toolbar up one side, or something.
Due to disability, my workday screen is a 38cm wide x 30cm high touchscreen, but the right-hand 13cm contain the Windows XP taskbar and a stylus keyboard program called Fitaly. That leaves a 25cm wide x 30cm high workspace. I'm a programmer using Microsoft SQL, and it works.
Total size matters. Resolution matters. Quality matters. Multitouch matters. Portability matters. Energy use matters: on a hot day, my big TV at home makes the lounge uncomfortably warm. 3-D may matter, I haven't decided. I wouldn't want important developments in a display to be underrated because you want it to be taller by an amount that most people would have to use a straight-edge measure to verify.