 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-4-2010 14:49, Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> 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).
>
a few days ago I heard a talk that might provide an explanation. Someone
set up an experiment with 180 degrees view and figured out how wide they
perceived it. You get a camel distribution with one hump at 180 and
another, larger! one at 90. Experiment was reproducable per person.
Hard to believe but apparently true. Something fishy in our brain. Jan
Koenderink, who was giving the talk, is trying to figure out why.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.04.2010 21:33, schrieb Warp:
> Le_Forgeron<jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> Then came out LCD... from laptop to desktop and TV, they killed the CRT.
>> The colours drop to less numbers, but this is now an hidden information.
>
> Not to talk about contrast...
>
> Also, CRTs could be looked at from about any direction and it would
> always look exactly as good. Only in the last few years LCDs are
> *approaching* that (many still have problems when viewed from above
> or below).
>
> Then there are the dead pixels, which plagued LCDs for many, many years
> (only relatively recently LCD vendors have started guaranteeing no dead
> pixels).
Stick to CRTs if you like - I do prefer to have room enough on my desk
for /two/ displays with 24" @16:9 and 19" @4:3 size (effective image
diagonal, not nominal tube size), both presenting their image perfectly
flat and undistorted, with perfectly sharp pixels, no analog signal
distortion or beam focus problems, no "pumping" effect with brightness
changes, no moiree effects with the X11 login screen, less dust
accumulating on the display, less eye strain from flicker - and no risk
of my desk collapsing under the displays' sheer weight.
It's all a question of priorities. Yours may vary.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> You're telling me it's possible to tell the difference betwee 600dpi
>> and 1200dpi?
>
> Yeah. You have to look close. (And, honestly, this was before I hit 40
> and my eyes started to get old.) But yes, it was pretty clear. I could
> pick up a paper in my brother's advertising office and tell you if it
> came off the Apple laser printer or the "real" laser printer, for
> example, just by looking at the jaggies on an X or something.
Apparently I'm just weird. I can't really tell the difference between
the old 300dpi LaserJet 6P, the 600dpi LaserJet 4100, and the 1200dpi
Xerox Phaser.
Oh, unless you mean in greyscale or something. There it makes a
difference...
> The same way that in the same timeframe you could look at a TeX paper
> and tell by the crappy spacing between letters and the poor typography
> that it was using Computer Modern fonts instead of fonts designed by a
> typographer.
Now, see, to my eyes the Computer Modern fonts look much, much better
than anything any other system ever produces. (Certainly TeX beats the
**** out of anything Word produces!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Then there are the dead pixels, which plagued LCDs for many, many
>>> years
>>> (only relatively recently LCD vendors have started guaranteeing no dead
>>> pixels).
>>
>> Screen burn, anyone?
>>
>> (Not that modern "screen savers" actually save your screen...)
>
> They prevent screen burn. :-) Either that, or you've never actually seen
> screen burn.
Go to any arcade. Observe how every CRT in the place has "Insert £1
Now!" faintly displayed in the center of the screen, regardless of the
image from the video card...
The idea of a screen saver is that it displays different images so that
no one particular area of the screen gets unduely stimulated. But lots
of modern screen savers display static or nearly static images...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Apparently I'm just weird. I can't really tell the difference between
> the old 300dpi LaserJet 6P, the 600dpi LaserJet 4100, and the 1200dpi
> Xerox Phaser.
Plain old black-and-white text. It was pretty easy to see. Enough that I was
impressed with the quality of the 1200dpi laser printer.
> Now, see, to my eyes the Computer Modern fonts look much, much better
> than anything any other system ever produces. (Certainly TeX beats the
> **** out of anything Word produces!)
Sure, but that's because Word is doing it on the fly, as you type. Any
decent typesetting system is going to give you nicer-looking output.
You can go to journals written in the 90s or so, and see who had their
papers typeset and who wrote it themselves with TeX just by looking at the
poor spacing and the fonts with bad balances of black and white and such.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> But lots of modern screen savers display static or nearly static images...
Huh. I never saw a nearly-static screen saver, I guess.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> It's all a question of priorities. Yours may vary.
You know, I'm realizing I've been getting back aches lately. I think part of
it is my new LCDs are so much flatter than my old CRT they're another foot
away, and I start leaning forward to see them clearly. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> But lots of modern screen savers display static or nearly static
>> images...
>
> Huh. I never saw a nearly-static screen saver, I guess.
For example, there's that popular one that shows your desktop, but with
a distorting lense rolling over it. So 80% of the screen isn't changing,
just the 20% of it under the lense...
Just one small example. I've seen lots of Linux screen savers which
gradually draw stuff over the period of a minute or so. I guess that's
not so bad, because *what* they draw is random, so it'll only ever be on
the screen for a minute or two.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> For example, there's that popular one that shows your desktop, but with
> a distorting lense rolling over it. So 80% of the screen isn't changing,
> just the 20% of it under the lense...
Yeah, OK.
Come to think of it, I've seen a number of screen savers that when they
started I thought "now why in the world if I'm locking my screen would I
want to show everyone what it says like that?" :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Come to think of it, I've seen a number of screen savers that when they
> started I thought "now why in the world if I'm locking my screen would I
> want to show everyone what it says like that?" :-)
Hmm, yes...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
