The truth will out. But will it be out in time? - Mike Magee
|
|
|
Gateway's 16:10 displays show common sense
FED UP WITH LETTER BOXES perhaps, Gateway has unveiled its 16:10 ratio MW19 and MW19V LCD monitors designed for professional office use.
Using an aspect ratio of 16:10 resolves the shortfalls that can be seen in the display area and screen height for the same diagonal screen size. For movie editing the extra vertical resolution of the 16:10 display has benefits because things like subtitles and menu buttons can be displayed above and below the video itself, not affecting the picture.
Gateway's 19-inch monitors come with a dynamic contrast ratio of 50,000:1, allowing buyers to view heavy data files or computer-aided design applications with precision and sharply defined lines, the firm claimed.
The displays have a 5ms response time and come with a number of ports, including VGA, DVI and HDCP, to ensure connectivity to a wide range of devices.
All Gateway displays feature a two-lamp system that consumes up to 50 per cent less power, and are PVC and BFR free, according to the vendor. The monitors will be released on 1 August. Pricing has yet to be confirmed. µ
Share this:
Share
I already have a 16:10 monitor (1920x1200) and have had it for years. This discussion seems very silly to me. 16:10 is not new.
Goodbye to letterboxes? Well, if the aspect ratio of the content is greater than 1.6 (e.g 1.85 or 2.35 widescreen movies) you'll still have to letterbox it.
www.aspectratiopolice.com
To view two A4 pages side by side, you need a screen ration of sqrt(2) = 1.414..., or approximately 7:5. 8:5 (or 16:10, if you prefer) gives you a little bit more room at the sides, which I can’t see why you need. Whereas 4:3 gives you the extra room at the top and bottom, where you can put a menubar, taskbar etc, which is much more useful.
I've got a 22" rotating HP monitor, and it's brilliant - it's 16x9 for video and games, and 9x16 for webbrowsing, letters and excel.
Job done.
I'd like a 3:2 monitor to get a better tradeoff between work and play.
You want a different ratio? How about 16:11?
Still prefer 4:3.
Until we found another better ratio, that is.
Until we found another better ratio.
Hold a finger a foot (30cm) from your face and look straight ahead then move the finger up and down until it's out of view, then left and right, and you will notice your FoV is wider than it's high (if alone because you have 2 eyes next to eachother), BUT - of course the area you see sharp and focused is circular and much smaller and straight in the center of what you look at, so for productive use where your eyes scan and focus on relevant parts it doesn't matter but for a movie having the out-of-focus stuff at the side help making it more realistic.
As for reading, I notice I don't like to have text stretched too wide, it's tiring to read the whole width then scan back to the start of a widescreen, but as another guy said you can put 2 documents next to eachother on a widescreen, but I think it would have to be a large screen to make the letters not get too small, and I agree that it is obvious documents are designed to be extended in height not width.
Perhaps manufacturers of monitors for computers should start to support rotating the display more too for that matter by making the stands play along and placing the connectors so that it's supported.
Doesn't anybody care what the resolution is. 16x10 aspect ratio won't help if the resolution is lower than a 16x9 monitor. 20" 16x10 panels are usually 1680x1050, which gives you even less vertical room than a 16x9, 1920x1080 panel. Is 16x10 really an improvement?
16:9 on a PC is completely useless. 16:10 is a good compromise, but 4:3 is sooo much better. Try using a 3D or CAD software on a 20 or 21" 1600x1200 4:3 LCD monitor, it gives you a lot of space, and to have the same vertical resolution on a 16:10 means a really LARGE screen. 4:3 is good also for reading two pages side by side...
but HP and Dell and others replacing their business!! lines of Laptops of WSXGA+ with HD or HD+, eeeh? that is nonsense!!... so we are now, for our business, buying good old Lenovos... screw them cheap I shout!
A 19 inch 16:10 widescreen is awfully small for an office computer. I have at work a regular 19-incher (5:4 ratio), and I would not switch to a much smaller 16:10 19 inch monitor.
And yes, I prefer 16:10 too.
A 19 inch 16:10 widescreen is awfully small for an office computer. I have at work a regular 19-incher (5:4 ratio), and I would not switch to a much smaller 16:10 19 inch monitor.
And yes, I prefer 16:10 too.
I don't. I see normally, like most people. All around, in front, behind etc. I prefer 4:3 because it's closer to the 1:1 of real life.
Weather - already we have the long UK map being zoomed and panned as broadcasters struggle to fit it on a widescreen tv proportion.
People standing up - how is that widescreen friendly unless the camera zooms right out?
1:1 is normal vision, it's how the world is, and 4:3 is closer to that.
Widescreen is messing up sports too. Race tracks shots have to be lower to the ground, which reduces the sensation of speed. The crane/helicopter angle, what happened to that? Widescreen borked it. Now it's a few seconds per hour, if it's shown at all.
Low down camera set on the side of the track with a car/bike travelling at 150mph-200mph (240km/h-300km/h) makes it look like the car is doing 70mph-100mph. The amount of ground being covered is not seen so it's not experienced.
Widescreen will reduce Formula 1 viewing figures more than anything else I can think of.
33 inch 4:3 was a large TV, 42 inch widescreen is smaller. You now need 50in widescreen to have similar size effect as 33in 4:3.
I want my LCD wallpaper screen now please Mr Future, since those lameass projectors don't work unless I close the curtains.
When are the touchscreen-entire-wall TV's coming out? The ones with "feel-around"?
My tuppence.
I can't wait when they come out with their new ultra wide displays that are like 3" tall. We'll just about be able to get the task bar, titlebar and maybe 0.5" of content on the screen at once. OK, obviously I'm being sarcastic. Each of my four 24" monitors at work are rotated in portrait mode. Email, web sites, source code, etc are much better viewed with more VERTICAL context. 16:9 is just so manufacturers can cut glass to the same aspect ratio as TVs - which are terrible for computing. 4:3 was best.. in portrait mode!
I want a large 4:3 lcd monitor but I can't find one larger than 19". Vertical resolution is important.
Please pay no attention to H7O... He is apparently malfunctioning. Testing is underway to determine if he's spouting this banter because he works for an LCD maker and is required to, or if its because he's retarded...
... just like EVERY ONE of their beautiful 30" monitors did. Then their world-famous Customer Support will laugh at you when you ask them to help you get it fixed or replaced.
"Live Fast. Die Young. Leave a beautiful worthless monitor corpse."
As far as I'm concerned, 16:10 is the best overall screen size ratio.
why have 16:10 or 4:3 when you can enjoy wide screen aspect ratio better designed for the human vision?
you want 4:3 or 16:10 for better reading long articles? just simply use the scroll wheel on your mouse.
And who knows, maybe websites (the real culprit to blame) in the future will start designing their articles into two or more columns to cater for wide screen reading.
the bottom line, let's not go backward, wide screen is better, just give it time & the industry will hopefully figure out how to adjust itself for wide screen UI design.
Hope they make bigger 4K screens with 16:10 resolution as well with Display port, HDMI and 3D touch screen options.
Any word on what kind of panel they'll be using in their monitor?
Usually the monitors marketed towards professionals use one of the IPS variants. However with a response time of 5ms it sounds more like a cheapy TN panel. I guess we'll see when it comes out.
16x9 is STUPID on a computer. Add to that the super glossy screens on laptops too! Computer monitors need to be 16x10 and non-reflective. Period. End of discussion.
Yes indeed 16:10 is the only acceptable widescreen ratio for computer monitors. That 16:9 heresy comes from catering to people who primarily use computers as DVD players.
It's bad enough that OS GUIs and websites like the BBC are increasingly bloating their interfaces, but to have your computer monitor fundamentally crippled by such inferior aspect ratios is beyond sense.