 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...in other words, the entire reason for multiple resolutions existing
>> is to extract more money from people.
>
> Of course, why else would any company do anything?
I don't mind paying money when I actually get something in return.
>>> No, the cost of panel area outweighs all the things I mentioned above.
>>
>> Oh, OK. I assumed the difficulty of manufacturing a higher dot-pitch
>> was the main problem...
>
> No, that's technically easy. Besides pixels can be made orders of
> magnitudes smaller than what is needed for TV (computer monitors, cell
> phone screens, LCDs for projectors, etc.).
I often wonder why we don't have monitors with 300dpi or 600dpi yet.
Then the text on screen would be nearly print-quality.
(Except that, to this day, changing resolution makes everything come out
too small. How many managers have you seen turn down the resolution to
make the text bigger?)
>> I especially love how I have a widescreen TV, but you have to manually
>> flip between 4:3 and 16:9 aspect. Even though it's connected by a
>> digital link, so you'd think it could *detect* which kind of signal
>> it's receiving...
>
> Don't know about that, I have a widescreen TV and all the TV programs I
> watch come in widescreen format, so I never need to adjust anything and
> it always looks fine. Where are you getting 4:3 content from?
Even the adverts?
Which channels are you watching?
> With 99% certainty anything you are watching from UK TV will be
> widescreen. It is very rare anything is broadcast in 4:3, I certainly
> haven't seen anything and looking through radiotimes.com I can't find
> anything either.
Perhaps I live in a different country or something then? Most of what we
receive doesn't appear to be widescreen.
(Or are you talking about the HD channels? We only receive SD.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:19:45 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
> spake thusly:
>
>> PS. I am similarly baffled by the current fashion for "widescreen"
>> TVs. Given that 99.998% of all video content ever created is in 4:3
>> aspect, what the hell is the advantage of buying a TV with a 16:9
>> aspect?? I don't understand.
>
> To all those giving an answer of "movies" to this question may I point
> out that most aren't 16:9 but are in 21:9 cinema proportions. 16:9 was
> the compromise yet now we have the option of purchasing yet another
> television at this proportion from Philips.
Well, the monitor I'm watching right now actually has a 8:5 aspect, and
the one at home has (I think) a 11:6 ratio. No idea what that means...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> How about if it supported only SD (which is one resolution) or only HD
>> (in one resolution)?
>
> Then you would ignore the market segment that consists of people that
> want something better than SD but cannot (or do not want to) pay the
> full price of 1080p.
I'm of the opinion that "full price 1080p" shouldn't be that expensive
in the first place, and we should all be saving up for 4096p or
something. But I guess that's next year's money draw...
>> (What the hell is the advantage of a widescreen *laptop* for goodness'
>> sake?!)
>
> 1. Watching movies on the go.
OK. If you accept that there is movie content available in widescreen
then that makes sense.
> 2. A better match for the aspect ratio of the keyboard.
That works. In fact, my (widescreen) laptop is the very first laptop
I've ever seen with a numpad. Usually laptops omit it.
> 3. Cost (remember that thing about the diagonal and the surface area).
Fair enough.
> I have to ask: Is Milton Keynes like one of those little tribal villages
> sometimes found deep in some jungle, where technology has not improved
> for centuries?
Milton Keynes hasn't actually existed for a complete century yet, so...
no. (Although for some strange reason almost nobody seems to have heard
of it or know where it is. And whenever shows or events happen, they
happen in Northampton. Not Milton Keynes. No idea why!)
I did once see a film at Loughborough Cinema [there is only one]. That
was an experience; no surround sound, for a start. It's surprising how
much of a difference that makes!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Perhaps I live in a different country or something then? Most of what we
> receive doesn't appear to be widescreen.
>
> (Or are you talking about the HD channels? We only receive SD.)
Lightbulb overhead *ping*!
Are you by any chance still watching the analogue signal? Everything on freeview
that was made within the last 5-10 years will be widescreen, but I seem to
recall that PAL is only 4:3...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/04/2010 11:55 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:53:08 +0200, Fredrik Eriksson
> <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> did spake thusly:
>
>> I have to ask: Is Milton Keynes like one of those little tribal
>> villages sometimes found deep in some jungle, where technology has not
>> improved for centuries?
>
> No that'd be Scotland... ooooo channeling Frankie Boyle there.
>
Oi! Do ye like hospital food? ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I don't mind paying money when I actually get something in return.
Most people feel the same way, and obviously people selling stuff realise
this too.
> I often wonder why we don't have monitors with 300dpi or 600dpi yet. Then
> the text on screen would be nearly print-quality.
Because you view a computer monitor from further distance than a book, an
arbitrarily increasing the ppi is a waste of money and electricity.
On the other hand cell-phones, which you often do use much closer, have much
higher resolution displays. 200-300 dpi on high-end phones is normal, for a
computer monitor at normal viewing distances I doubt there would be much
improvement going from 100 -> 300 dpi, and going to 600 dpi would be pretty
much invisible at normal viewing distances.
> (Except that, to this day, changing resolution makes everything come out
> too small.
You can change the ppi setting somewhere in windows, but IME some badly
behaved programs don't like it.
> Even the adverts?
Yeh I think so, I would have probably noticed if they weren't.
> Which channels are you watching?
Just the usual, BBC1-3 and red button, ITV1&4, C4 etc.
> Perhaps I live in a different country or something then? Most of what we
> receive doesn't appear to be widescreen.
>
> (Or are you talking about the HD channels? We only receive SD.)
No I only get SD too, everything I've seen is widescreen, again check your
favourite listings magazine or website if you don't believe me.
"Most digital broadcasts from the BBC and the other main broadcasters are
now in widescreen format"
From:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/digitaltv/widescreen.shtml
Oh wait, you're not still receiving analogue signal are you? That might be
different.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, the monitor I'm watching right now actually has a 8:5 aspect, and
> the one at home has (I think) a 11:6 ratio. No idea what that means...
IIRC they made computer monitors 16:10 rather than 16:9 so that you could
watch a 16:9 movie and have a little space for the GUI whilst still seeing
the film at full size.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Question: Why aren't there any widescreen cinemas yet?
> >
> > At risk of entirely misunderstanding the question, all cinemas have shown all
> > films in 16:9 or wider for almost a hundred years.
> Really?
> Huh, well, you learn something every day. The picture always looked
> fairly square to me...
I'm beginning to suspect that this is not Andrew, and instead some troll
is posting using his nickname.
If even TV is not square (it's 4:3), how in the world could you ever
think that movies are square? I don't get it.
The narrowest aspect ratio used in movies for the past 20+ years has
usually been 1.85:1. The most common aspect ratios for big movies today
is 2.25:1 and even 2.35:1 (that's well over twice as wide as tall).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Don't know about that, I have a widescreen TV and all the TV programs I
> watch come in widescreen format, so I never need to adjust anything and it
> always looks fine. Where are you getting 4:3 content from?
"Looks fine" is not saying much...
Well, I'm not saying you are one of those people (and I'm in fact
assuming you aren't), but I have seen *way* too many people who vehemently
deny seeing *anything* wrong *at all* in a 4:3 picture which has been
stretched horizontally to cover the entire 16:9 screen area.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I often wonder why we don't have monitors with 300dpi or 600dpi yet.
>> Then the text on screen would be nearly print-quality.
>
> Because you view a computer monitor from further distance than a book,
> an arbitrarily increasing the ppi is a waste of money and electricity.
I can see the pixels on my monitor. But yeah, maybe 600dpi would be
overkill. Perhaps just 150 or something?
>> (Except that, to this day, changing resolution makes everything come
>> out too small.
>
> You can change the ppi setting somewhere in windows, but IME some badly
> behaved programs don't like it.
Hell, there are programs that ignore you if you change the default
window colours. Or programs that don't like it if Windows is installed
on D: rather than C:. ;-)
>> Perhaps I live in a different country or something then? Most of what
>> we receive doesn't appear to be widescreen.
>>
>> (Or are you talking about the HD channels? We only receive SD.)
>
> No I only get SD too, everything I've seen is widescreen.
Mmm, OK. I shall investigate further...
> Oh wait, you're not still receiving analogue signal are you? That might
> be different.
I don't *think* we are... I thought we were using Freeview.
(Then again, my grandparents use FreeSat. Their TV physically has a 4:3
aspect [it's an old CRT], and the picture seems to fit natively, so...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
