16:9 vs 16:10

ah yeah I see my bad. My way would be just a line across and down lol.

That is really extreme I guess.

not sure what kind of display cables could handle that.
 
Well, that display would actually be good for production. When I flip my 30"rs into portrait and get basically 90" screen, it's pretty useful for music editing / record, video and other things. Also gaming that high is amazing.

This displays resolution is bigger than a 3x2 with 30"rs. (7680x3200 vs 7680x4320)
 
daveswantek said:
Music and video editing are two of the biggest reasons why 16:9 sux.
Click to expand...

Well again it's not the aspect ratio itself at fault, it's the way they get it in most cases. They just remove vertical resolution in most cases from a current 16:10 monitor.

Though I find when I'm editing media, I want to see as much as possible at once, so the more resolution the better. In music horizontal resolution is just as important as vertical resolution (More tracks vs seeing more of the tracks themselves). On top of that, being able to see other windows as well (equalizers, volumes of each track, etc.).
 
suiken_2mieu said:
Well, that display would actually be good for production. When I flip my 30"rs into portrait and get basically 90" screen, it's pretty useful for music editing / record, video and other things. Also gaming that high is amazing.

This displays resolution is bigger than a 3x2 with 30"rs. (7680x3200 vs 7680x4320)
Click to expand...

Three thirty inch screens don't make a ninety inch screen, regardless of aspect ratio. It wiukd take 9 30" to have 90" of display size. If you want to double the diagonal size of a screen, you need the 2 squared monitors. If you want to triple, you need 3 squared, quadruple, 4 squared, etc.
 
As an aside, I've been using this debate to illustrate the tyranny of small differences in conversations with coworkers. The more similar two Widgets, the more likely they are to be compared. Combined with the endowment effect, you see positional retrenchment that fosters intense feelings about very small differences. Non-tech people can't believe that anyone would notice a 120 pixel difference,much less care about it enough to bicker.

That said, I'm susceptible to the same psychological tendencies. I strongly prefer more usable pixels, and I believe you get that with smaller aspect ratios (16:10 is a smaller ration than 16:9, btw).

I suspect that what we're seeing is a phenomenon that's occurring everywhere in the technology -- a divergence between content creators and content consumers. Tablets, net books, even many recent laptops, are clearly designed and used for consuming content. Watching videos, reading books, browsing the web. They don't have the processor strength or memory to do much with content, other than basic text work. This is a relatively new commercial niche, and has seen the bulk of innovation.

Content creators have very different technical needs, but most of the old stuff was actually conceived with enterprise in mind, and there is enough overlap that there isn't perceived demand.

I have a big desktop,a bunch of monitors, and all sorts of other crap. My friends who work in other fields are happy with nothing but a laptop -- a mac, as often as not.

The 16:9 aspect ratio is probably better suited for people who are inline content consumers. Aside from the video and gaming "fit", the assumed manufacturing efficiencies associated with the aspect ratio are necessary to when marketing what is essentially an entertainment device.
 
cvgd said:
Three thirty inch screens don't make a ninety inch screen, regardless of aspect ratio. It wiukd take 9 30" to have 90" of display size. If you want to double the diagonal size of a screen, you need the 2 squared monitors. If you want to triple, you need 3 squared, quadruple, 4 squared, etc.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... that sounds right, lemme do this real quick...

Height - 18.49"
Width - 27.26"

Portrait

(18.49*3)^2+27.26

(55.47)^2 + (27.26)^2

3076.9209 + 743.1076

3820.0285 ^ (1/2)

~61.81"

----------------------------------------------

Landscape

(27.26*3)^2 + 18.49^2

81.78^2 + 18.49^2

6687.9684 + 341.8801

7029.8485 ^ (1/2)

~83.85"

Whoops.
 
suiken_2mieu said:
Hmmm.... that sounds right, lemme do this real quick...

Height - 18.49"
Width - 27.26"

Portrait

(18.49*3)^2+27.26

(55.47)^2 + (27.26)^2

3076.9209 + 743.1076

3820.0285 ^ (1/2)

~61.81"

----------------------------------------------

Landscape

(27.26*3)^2 + 18.49^2

81.78^2 + 18.49^2

6687.9684 + 341.8801

7029.8485 ^ (1/2)

~83.85"

Whoops.
Click to expand...

I should amend my earlier statement. This only holds true if you want to maintain the screen's original aspect ratio:

cvgd said:
Three thirty inch screens don't make a ninety inch screen, regardless of aspect ratio. It wiukd take 9 30" to have 90" of display size. If you want to double the diagonal size of a screen, you need the 2 squared monitors. If you want to triple, you need 3 squared, quadruple, 4 squared, etc.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top