Do you hate widescreen? Are you male?

Fenix793 said:
male
widescreen
1680x1050

I should note that I enjoy the real estate and I will never go back to 4:3 after using a 2005fpw for a year. Still I don't have my Firefox maximized; I run it in a window since I'd rather not have to look side to side with the window maximized.
Click to expand...


im very tired of seeing the "Extra Real Estate" thing. Its all in your head. 1600X1200 has MORE pixels than 1680X1050. This means 1600X1200 has MORE real estate. Why is it so hard for so many people to do multiplication? Wide Screen has some advantages, simply having more "Real Estate" is not one of them. I like my Battlefield 2 unstretched and not cut off...
 
Budwise said:
im very tired of seeing the "Extra Real Estate" thing. Its all in your head. 1600X1200 has MORE pixels than 1680X1050. This means 1600X1200 has MORE real estate. Why is it so hard for so many people to do multiplication? Wide Screen has some advantages, simply having more "Real Estate" is not one of them. I like my Battlefield 2 unstretched and not cut off...
Click to expand...
Its not about MORE realestate, its about more horrizontal realestate. Open up two word docs in 1600x1200 and you get 800x1200 docs...on 1680x1050, you get 840x1050...which i find better...(its amazing how much 40 pixels makes a difference when you're working on docs)
For those of us that aren't whiney bitches and enjoy our widescreen gaming:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/
btw, a lot of new good games have widescreen built in...that increases your peripherial view...IMO thats way better than 4x3 when it comes to FPS games or any games for that matter. Its just up to the game makers to make the switch to widescreen...and once they do, i wouldnt be surprised if within 10 yrs 4x3 is barely supported :)
 
1920x1200 Male here, however I do sometimes flip it into portrait mode when doing heavy work. I can't stand it in that mode too long though, don't like craining my neck like that.
 
If you really want more real estate horizontally, get dual monitors. I have and it is sure a hellava lot easier pushing the maximize button on either screen than it is having to resize the windows to fit perfectly on on screen all the time.



 
Staples said:
If you really want more real estate horizontally, get dual monitors. I have and it is sure a hellava lot easier pushing the maximize button on either screen than it is having to resize the windows to fit perfectly on on screen all the time.
Click to expand...
Its called right click on task bar --> tile windows vertically. Perfectly cut in half every time.
And i had dual monitors....dual 2005FPW's...im cutting back on my digital gear tho (gonna sell this one too and my tv....upgrade tv turn this into mce box, get macbookpro)
 
Octave said:
Its called right click on task bar --> tile windows vertically. Perfectly cut in half every time.
And i had dual monitors....dual 2005FPW's...im cutting back on my digital gear tho (gonna sell this one too and my tv....upgrade tv turn this into mce box, get macbookpro)
Click to expand...
Well thanks for telling me where the hell the menu item to do that is. I have been wondering why it does not exist for so long. Apparently it was there, I just have never found it. Anyway, I stilll like dual monitors (4:3) and maybe even on rotated so you get a (3:4) more than widescreen but the 'title vertically' option does add a lot of more legitimacy to widescreen. I think most people are actually browsing one browser window so I think that 4:3 would actually be more benificial to them however for people like me who are doing development work and have to be able to switch between 2+ windows all the time, widescreen and dual monitors setups do help.


 
Staples said:
Well thanks for telling me where the hell the menu item to do that is. I have been wondering why it does not exist for so long. Apparently it was there, I just have never found it. Anyway, I stilll like dual monitors (4:3) and maybe even on rotated so you get a (3:4) more than widescreen but the 'title vertically' option does add a lot of more legitimacy to widescreen. I think most people are actually browsing one browser window so I think that 4:3 would actually be more benificial to them however for people like me who are doing development work and have to be able to switch between 2+ windows all the time, widescreen and dual monitors setups do help.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
btw, welcome to windows.
also, see http://www.brianapps.net/sizer.html
its free.
 
Yeah, I think 4:3 is a more natural dimension. Although we have periferal vision, the width our eyes actually focus on is pretty narrow. We all grew up with 4:3, I never once heard someone go "yeah this tv looks good but I wish it was wider." It came in, became fashionable at home, and I guess makes sense becuase so many films are so damn wide! (dvd revolution.)

One of the best film directors of all time (kuprick) shot in 4:3 and saw widescreen for the gimmick it is. In his representation of the future in "2001" the astronauts used TVs that had an aspect ratio taller than wide (like a cellphone screen.) This makes sense since the human body, human face, and anything we used to go out and hunt in the forest had a portrait aspect ratio. Don't discount Kupricks opinion, he was a master of composition.

Widescreen originated on the big screen as one of hollywoods countermeasures to people watching TV at home. Just like 3d, it was a gimmick. But an incredibly easy to implement gimmick. Why was it successful? Probably because most big buildings that these big screens were in, are wider than they are tall. You can fill the wall a bit better for an overall “bigger” image.

Just cause the latest and greatest monitors coming out now are widescreen, and just because widescreen is fashionable, I think a lot of people *think* they prefer widescreen, but they are really going with the technology. Imaging that widescreen monitor you have, the same width, only taller, sound better? I find with two 4:3 monitors side by side, I always “focus” on one and ignore the other (saves straining the neck!)

How many widescreen posters do you see advertising things? It's rare. They are almost always portrait.

How many wide-format books do you see? Maybe the occassional kids book. Text is much easier and more pleasant to read on many short lines, than fewer wider lines.

At *least* 4:3 (3:4 maybe?) is more natural for general viewing purposes.

Also, with HDTV, and 720p/1080i being widescreen standards, obviously it's "industry standard" now, and to stick to 4:3 for ever would make you a luddite :)

That doesn't change the fact that most of the shit you will see on your monitor/tv will either be moving pictures of people, faces or text that you scroll down to read. Widescreen does not make sense for these things, even if it does make sense for epic vistas, or perhaps multitasking in some way. But my point is, for focusing on something, *you* do not (or at least *I* do not (male) ) focus in widescreen.
 
blazingrig said:
Male,

My 19inch crt looks like crap compared to my WS at 1440x990. WS looks great!
Click to expand...

And my 19inch crt looks like crap compared to my (4:3) 1600x1200 20" NON-widescren TFT monitor.

Too many people are using this thread to say "i have a new widescreen TFT, it's great!" without really thinking about the issue.
 
AWWWWW... Cadav,

you touched my heart with your bold and original perspective!!!

Hey, people love small widescreen screenies like their 20" widescreen TFT's or 15" widescreen laptop screens!

Ya know, printed pictures usually come in 3" x 5" or 4" x 6" formats, which are .....



widescreen!


Nah, I'm not trying to be against your side. I agree that vertical portraits like movie posters are great!

I like both!

There's a balance, and there's an angle that our eyes can tolerate. It all depends on the broadness of our vision. It can either be widescreen or longscreen (long vertical screen).

Yep, you got a good point with the theater buildings doing widescreen because of limited ceiling height....

It can also be 4:3!

Better yet, why not make it 1:1?????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????

That way, the preferences will be reduced!!! The extremes will be minimized, with less of the extremities!

It is the true square, tunnel vision! It is the number of 4, the 4 sides and 4 corners. It is the number of the square, the perfect proportions of the grid, of the 4. It allows for greater concentration, of the techniques of the geometry, mathematics, and the logical analysis of all things. It can easily excel in things technical and scientific, due to the methodically scientific, patient nature of the 4, the cycle of this age!

We are in a great 4 cycle!

It is in the progress of all things right now, in a positive side.

_________________________________________________________________________


Consciousness
 
male

1600x1200 20.1"

I like it alot better than 1680x1050. I find it is really useful to have that 150 pixels vertical than 80 horiztonally. On a webpage or document, I like to view the whole document. (less scrolling). More game support 4:3 too.
 
Pretty interesting .. did you also check for the age gap?? i bet alot more males (18-25) like the widescreen aspect in general over (45-55) ??? if so probably has something do with the younger males growing up with games requiring more acute eye and hand response then the older males which didn't have that kind of media during there younger years?? just an idea.
 
Hmmm, I am 21. I like 1600x1200. I only watch video on TV. That's what home entertainment is for. Maybe widescreen is prefered by ppl w/o home entertainment center.
 
Bo_Fox said:
AWWWWW... Cadav,

you touched my heart with your bold and original perspective!!!


Consciousness
Click to expand...

And you touched me, reminding me that ranting for more than a paragraph about a meaningless topic was.....dull!!!!!!!!!! :)
 
Not sure if someone already mentioned this as I did not want to read all 7 pages of posts but:
...This probably is not a scientific study as normally, one would not state the hypothesis to the subjects of the study as one would lose the positive and negative control of the study. For example, by stating what you think males will prefer, chances are, you have skewed your male responses already. Also, hardforum is less of a place to go to as it is an "enthusiast" site where people here likes to be considered on the cutting edge, and widescreen is considered cutting edge tech right now (look at the majority of the modern lcd tv and monitor screens).
So, without looking at your final results that will come out of this site, I can venture to say that you will have a 3:1 ratio of males liking widescreen for the various reasons above.
Good luck with your study though. You may want to discuss with your PI again concerning your study's methodology.
 
male... dual 20" 1600x1200 LCDs here.

I wish I could sell one of them for not too much of a loss and purchase a 24" Widescreen...
Then I could have the best of both worlds.
1920x1200 + 1600x1200
 
Pixel space is king, I'll take 1920x1200 over 1600x1200 any day for the extra pixels. I am not, however, sheep enough to take a 1680x1050 panel over a 1600x1200 panel of equivalent diagonal measure.

We have a distinct advantage in having a flexible source, we don't have to match fixed ratio source material. Preferring widescreen just because it's wide is for the gullible and those who are bad at math.

Viper GTS
 
I just traded in a 1600x1200 CRT for a 1650x1050 widescreen LCD and couldn't possibly be any happier.

I'm a guy.
 
I have a 24" WS 1920x1200. I prefer my widescreen for one main reason. I have gadgets attached to the side of my window and trillian on top of that. I really only use about 20" for what I'm doing and the rest is just displaying stuff that I would like to see all the time. So I would say I prefer to work with 4:3 but like having my horizontal real estate for the fact that I have things sitting on the right hand side of my screen. I think there can be a benefit for both!
 
Our eyes are naturally 1:1, .. the best thing would be a perfect circle with the same diameter, vertically and horizontally.

The thing is that we grew up to perceive things more horizontally than vertically. We look left and right far more often than up and down, naturally. It's because we're living on the horizontal plane where there is little need to look up at the sky or down at our shoes. There is a much greater need to see what is going on around us horizontally than vertically.

So, I think that 16:10 is great. Widescreen sucks on my 32" TV in the living room because it's a 4:3 CRT monitor. If it's a comedy or drama movie, I would much rather watch it in 4:3 mode than in widescreen mode due to the larger size.

16:10 or 16:9 is great as long as the screen is big enough. 4:3 is great if it's considerably bigger than the squinted widescreen version on smaller screens when viewing from a distance.

I do not like 2:35:1 because it's TOO widescreen. I'd have to sit up very close to my 32" TV in order to see all the tiny faces and details.
 
Oh yeah, I'm male.

But, I have seen males do way better than girls at that touch-screen TV game that we play at bars and nightclubs. Do you know what I'm talking about?

It can be considered slightly "widescreen" since it's 4:3... but I guess it's not significant enough to rule out females' apparent advantage at widescreen perception.
 
Bo_Fox said:
I do not like 2:35:1 because it's TOO widescreen. I'd have to sit up very close to my 32" TV in order to see all the tiny faces and details.
Click to expand...
That's a problem with your screen, not the format ;)
 
kumquat said:
That's a problem with your screen, not the format ;)
Click to expand...

Only if you have a movie theater screen at your home.

It's a problem for most of us who do not have a big 50"+ screen in our small living rooms.

:p
 
Bo_Fox said:
Only if you have a movie theater screen at your home.

It's a problem for most of us who do not have a big 50"+ screen in our small living rooms.

:p
Click to expand...
I'm just pointing out that it's not fair to say you hate widescreen because widescreen movies do not look good on your small 4:3 TV set.

With the proper surface, such as a movie theater, big-screen TV, etc, then 2.35:1 is fantastic. Most major motion pictures are shot in it for a reason.
 
Male

I don't care if it's 4:3, 5:4, 16:9, 16:10, 2.35:1, etc as long as the source material is being displayed in its Original Aspect Ratio. I can't stand stretchy-people-vision or pan n' scan.

For computer use I like WS 1920x1200 mainly because I can run two IE windows at the same time. For gaming I don't care much, to be honest, but stick with WS ratios to maximize the image size on my 16:10 FW900 monitor.
 
I'll be glad when full screen finally phases out for good. I show people all the time at work (Blockbuster) what a huge difference it makes and most people are shocked. Some people just want the "black bars" gone, but hey, won't be seeing them go away anytime soon.

BTW, I'm male, I have a 27" Samsung plain jane TV and I LOVE widescreen. Can't watch it no other way (unless it's a TV show on DVD). I'm also getting ready to buy a 32" LCD!!!
 
I want "Spherical 360-degrees" vision!

It's like when we enter a virtual globe, and then we are able to see the interior of the globe screen.

Also, we could slap on 3-D stereostopic glasses so that we would be experiencing true 360 degrees, 6-axis 3-D virtual perspective!!!!

It can be done today. Yes, it can. We just need to push for it. Let's do it!




EDIT: I do not know exactly how it could be done, but it could be done like in a planetarium. I hate the virtual glasses like Nintendo's infamous Virtual Boy.. it's too bulky and heavy! Anwyays, there should be some kind of a CRT or plasma spherical enclosure about 4 or 5 feet in diameter. I could enter the spherical globe through a small door at one side, and then close it. My head would be facing the center of the globe, but of couse, I will not be able to see all of the 360 degrees on the XY, YZ and XZ planes unless I turn my head around. My body will naturally block the view of the bottom, so that space on the bottom does not have to be projected after all. Also, the small door through which I enter the "globe" does not have to be projected either (but it would be nice if it could). Yep, the price could be insanely high if it's done today, but... worth it! Say, $100,000? And then reduced to $10,000 within 5 years and to $2,000 within 10 years???
 
Male, indifferent.

I use all three ratios on a daily bases and would say I enjoy 5:4 most for hunting around in windows explorer and reading PDF's and web. More vertical is benefical in those situations mainly less scrolling and less dead space on the sides... Prefer wide gaming. Best all around I guess would be 4:3. But I don't hate any of them.

I hate wide women though.
 
Male

Desktop
19"
4:3
1280x1024

Laptop
12"
4:3
1024x768

I prefer a standard screen for my lappy for space and linux video support (older live CDs). However I am indifferent on my desktop so long as the resolution is good enough :D
 
I don't think this is for research paper, I think somebody just want to know who the chix0rs are, and again where are the chicks? this is really sad : (

oh, male, wide screen, why? 1 reason, because I'm using Wiindows Vista and I want to see my Wiindows side bar unblocked by any windows.
 
male

widescreen 1680x1050 at home, 4:3 1280x1024 at work (19").

I prefer widescreen for gaming/movies and standard for work (best would be 2 standard monitors).
 
Okay, I'll play...

Male

Desktop PC: 24" Widescreen LCD 1920x1200
HDTV: 50" Widescreen DLP 1080p

I absolutely LOVE widescreens!! :D

My laptop is 4:3, but it's an Asus V6Va with a 15" IPS 1400x1050 screen so I'm keeping it.
 
male

22" widescreen- 1680x1050

I prefer the wide screen for sure. I have always went for the wide screen DVDs, and of course, my girlfriend always complained about the black bars, and the picture being "smaller". As far as gaming goes, I love the "look" of wide screen, but I am undecided as of yet on the "feel" of wide screen, if you know what I mean. I just recently upgraded from a 17" CRT @ 1024x768, to a 22" LCD @ 1680x1050. I was blown away by the extra screen real estate, but found that my accuracy suffered terribly in FPS. I couldn't figure it out at first, suddenly I had no game. But then I realized that I was having trouble adjusting to the wide screen ratio. Interesting stuff, here. Especially the idea of males being the hunter/gatherer and having the "wolf-vision". Would love to see how this turns out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top