OT: Anybody miss 4:3 Format?

Red Prince wrote on 9/16/2011, 6:46 PM

Depends on the information. This looks pretty cool.

That’s a step in the right direction, but they need more than 900 lines of resolution to be useful! Especially for video editing.

Personally, I’d like to see a 7680x3240 pixel resolution (64:27 ratio) with 10 bits per RGB channel and 3D with passive glasses as a new standard.

john_dennis wrote on 9/16/2011, 6:56 PM

"they need more than 900 lines of resolution to be useful! Especially for video editing."

If the timeline, the media pool and the preview windows etc. were undocked and moved horizontally it might work. I would volunteer to do a very scientific study for about six months if they would like to ship me one.

Red Prince wrote on 9/17/2011, 12:42 AM

You cannot preview a 1080p edit on a 900-line monitor properly, no matter how you move it around.

john_dennis wrote on 9/17/2011, 1:11 AM

"You cannot preview a 1080p edit on a 900-line monitor properly, no matter how you move it around."

Noted.

Kevin R wrote on 9/17/2011, 6:07 AM

"Depends on the information. This looks pretty cool.
http://www.crvd.com/"

Only if you turn it VERTICAL!! Haha!!

By "information" I'm talking about documents, web pages, email and program code. Almost NEVER are any of those compatible with a horizontal aspect ratio.

As far as I'm concerned, the entertainment/media industry has taken over computer displays and made them all uselessly wide. The optimum aspect for documents is almost always vertical. Very frequently I open two windows side by side to create dual 8:10 windows.

God forbid media/computers ever migrates to something even wider like 27:64! At least if it does, I hope they start selling "business" oriented computers with narrow screens.

PeterDuke wrote on 9/17/2011, 6:16 AM

So what do you look at your panorama projections on? :)

DataMeister wrote on 9/17/2011, 10:21 AM

Personally I use a 24" 16:9 monitor that shows 1920x1200 pixels. I think 16:9 is the optimal format. However I also think you need at least 1024 of vertical pixels to be comfortable, and the more the merrier.

When I had a 4:3 CRT I ran it at 1600x1200. So changing to 16:9 is gaining extra space for me. Now (with windows 7 snap) it is easy to place two documents or web pages side by side and have enough pixels to view them. That wasn't possible on a 4:3 screen. Alternatively a big spreadsheet will often take up the full width of just about any screen.

Has anyone used one of those 16:9 30" monitors that run 2560x1600 pixels? You can usually fit a lot of anything on those.

By the way, I sent an email to that company about the CRVD monitor saying we needed a 3840x1200 version of that curved display. And preferably a multi-touch version for use with the upcoming Windows 8. I should have mentioned that it should be 3D capable. Imagine a 3D display that fills at least one aspect of your peripheral vision.

One thing that really bugs me is the recent laptop trend of using low resolution on the larger 15"+ screens. It used to be that you could bank on a 15" or greater laptop having at least 900+ pixels. Now you have to pay close attention because most likely that 15" or 17" laptop will have a 1200x800 screen instead.

Chienworks wrote on 9/17/2011, 3:16 PM

It's bugged me for two decades that screen manufacturers don't label their packages more clearly with the native resolution of the display. Doing a quick look in the local electronics department lately every single LCD panel and laptop was rated *ONLY* in inches. Not one single one mentioned resolution.

PeterDuke wrote on 9/18/2011, 3:17 AM

"every single LCD panel and laptop was rated *ONLY* in inches. Not one single one mentioned resolution."

Same story with digital photo frames.

Rob Franks wrote on 9/18/2011, 7:03 AM

Don't miss 4:3 at all.

What I can't stand however is STILL living on the edge of 4:3. Tv's are 16:9 and have been for quite some time and still you're living with either stretch or bars on most of the non HD channels.

Geoff_Wood wrote on 9/18/2011, 3:57 PM

My provider (even on SD) has no problem on some channels getting the aspectg ratio right for 4:3 16:9, and on others not - transmitting already stretched out !

I beat my head against the wall trying to explain it to their helpdesk, who apparently have absolutely no comprehension of the issue !

geoff

Red Prince wrote on 9/18/2011, 6:06 PM

Hey, Geoff, could you call WFJW, our local TV station, and explain it to them? They drive me crazy by airing many programs reduced to 4:3 over 1080i, and when they have some breaking news, they use a 16:9 ticker tape.

I tried to convince them to use the full 16:9 and they claim that many people still use 4:3 TV sets. Sheesh! Those TV sets can show the 4:3 portion of the screen just fine. Why punish everybody else?