Author Topic: Can we stop with the diagonal screen length thing? (Read 21731 times)

nudone · « **Reply #25 on:** January 09, 2011, 05:00 PM »

okay, i'll admit (and sorry this is going off topic) i'm not too annoyed about 720 HD. i'm just very annoyed at how the whole HD thing was introduced (in the UK, at least). it just all seemed very cynical. selling TV sets that had "HD" under one label or another - and all largely meaningless to the average customer at the beginning because they couldn't watch a HD signal. we just had the promise that one day HD would no longer be a dream.

so, we'd be told 720p was good for watching sport, because it was progressive, but you could have 1080i which was good for... I can't even remember what that was good for, it just sounded like they could mention interlace as being worse than progressive - so maybe it was better to buy 720 rather than 1080i. now 1080p is here, oh what a surprise that was to be released after everyone has bought inferior HD 1080i.

i don't even own a HD tv out of principal. i hate the b*stards that make them because i know just around the corner they'll be releasing super-duper-HD. and that 3Dtv rubbish. hate that too. hate it all.

skwire · « **Reply #26 on:** January 09, 2011, 07:45 PM »

Given an option, I'd never go back to standard definition TV. Ever.

40hz · « **Reply #27 on:** January 09, 2011, 08:36 PM »

good point. 720 is HD, and also crap. i'm just thankful we've now got something like a standard with 1080p. which should have been the standard right at the beginning - not "ready".
-nudone (January 09, 2011, 08:06 AM)
720p is Just Fine(TM), unless you've got a ridiculously large TV - but "HD Ready" is definitely a bad label.
-f0dder (January 09, 2011, 03:03 PM)

Got a friend who works for Hitachi. She says the only reason it's called Hi-Def is because whoever came up with the "definition" was completely "high" at the time.

JavaJones · « **Reply #28 on:** January 09, 2011, 11:05 PM »

I believe "HD Ready" is similar to "Vista Capable".

- Oshyan

Deozaan · « **Reply #29 on:** January 09, 2011, 11:26 PM »

with widescreen monitors, the height is very important.
Mine is 16:10, I already miss the height - if it were 16:9 I'd need another one on top...
-tomos (January 08, 2011, 12:10 PM)

16:9 should never have been allowed to make its way into the computer world.
-nudone (January 08, 2011, 01:24 PM)

I'm curious. Could you explain your complaints with 16:9? I believe my current monitor is 16:10, but I heard that is rare.

My biggest complaint with HD is how all these supposedly HD PS3 games are really "only" 720p instead of full 1080p.

I own 4 PS3 games on Blu-Ray and the only one that supports 1080p is the one that has pixelated 2D SNES-style graphics (Disgaea 3 for those that are interested). What good is HD output if you're using SD sprites?

EDIT: Added image.

superboyac · « **Reply #30 on:** January 09, 2011, 11:29 PM »

Really? The PS3 games are NOT 1080p HD? Why not? i thought that was the whole point of the kickass PS3 system, the amazing graphics.

JavaJones · « **Reply #31 on:** January 09, 2011, 11:32 PM »

1080p is a *ton* more pixels than 720p, and it's hard to push 30 frames per second with the additional resource demand. Truth be told 720p actually looks very good at most normal screen sizes, almost indistinguishable in motion from 1080p at average viewing distances. The biggest issue with 720p in 3d rendered images like console games is antialiasing. If you have 720p imagery with good antialiasing, it really won't matter. Problem is *good* antialiasing is often about as demanding as simply pushing more pixels, so you can get 720p with good AA, or 1080p with no AA. Usually 720p with good AA is actually better.

- Oshyan

Deozaan · « **Reply #32 on:** January 09, 2011, 11:46 PM »

Really? The PS3 games are NOT 1080p HD? Why not? i thought that was the whole point of the kickass PS3 system, the amazing graphics.
-superboyac (January 09, 2011, 11:29 PM)

Some are. But these tend to be the ones with simpler graphics, I think JavaJones did a good job explaining the reason why.

The biggest issue with 720p in 3d rendered images like console games is antialiasing. If you have 720p imagery with good antialiasing, it really won't matter. Problem is *good* antialiasing is often about as demanding as simply pushing more pixels, so you can get 720p with good AA, or 1080p with no AA. Usually 720p with good AA is actually better.
-JavaJones (January 09, 2011, 11:32 PM)

Sadly, anti-aliasing has never been one of the strengths of the Playstation platform.

superboyac · « **Reply #33 on:** January 09, 2011, 11:51 PM »

1080p is a *ton* more pixels than 720p, and it's hard to push 30 frames per second with the additional resource demand. Truth be told 720p actually looks very good at most normal screen sizes, almost indistinguishable in motion from 1080p at average viewing distances. The biggest issue with 720p in 3d rendered images like console games is antialiasing. If you have 720p imagery with good antialiasing, it really won't matter. Problem is *good* antialiasing is often about as demanding as simply pushing more pixels, so you can get 720p with good AA, or 1080p with no AA. Usually 720p with good AA is actually better.

- Oshyan
-JavaJones (January 09, 2011, 11:32 PM)

Are you saying that even modern computer equipment still has trouble with 1080p? After all this time? I mean, I don't really doubt it...with my own 1080p video files, I can sense my computer (which has great specs) working pretty hard to do it. Still, I find it hard to believe that even basic equipment can't handle 1080p. I don't get that.

JavaJones · « **Reply #34 on:** January 09, 2011, 11:54 PM »

No, that's not exactly what I'm saying, though yes even just pushing *pre-rendered*/filmed 1080p video *is* somewhat demanding. But any modern CPU from Intel or AMD can do 1080p just fine in most cases (depending on codec and bitrate).

What I was talking about however with the PS3 is *realtime rendering* of imagery at 1080p resolution (1920x1080 pixels). Essentially everything has to be calculated in realtime, because it's an interactive game and nothing can be pre-rendered (as opposed to video that is just a stream of pre-recorded frames). So you've got a game world, the computer has to figure out essentially the color of each pixel. The more pixels it has to figure out through calculating the game world at higher resolution, the more demanding it is on the CPU to do it at "interactive" frame rates (i.e. 30fps minimum).

- Oshyan

nudone · « **Reply #35 on:** January 10, 2011, 02:40 AM »

I'm curious. Could you explain your complaints with 16:9? I believe my current monitor is 16:10, but I heard that is rare.
-Deozaan (January 09, 2011, 11:26 PM)

It does appear to be that 16:10 is becoming increasingly rare, which is another real annoyance.

I hate 16:9 as a computer screen size as it's just dumb, there's no good reason for it other than to make "widescreen" movies and tv shows look "right" when they are played back. I mean "right" as in you don't see the black borders (top and bottom) you get on a 16:10 screen when you watch a 16:9 video.

If your computer is used primarily for watching video then I can see you might have a reason for favouring 16:9 over 16:10 screens. If you use your computer primarily for web browsing and/or "work" (looking at text or images) then you really ought to want plenty of screen height. Even an inch of extra screen height is noticeably better to work with.

So, nothing unusual. I just think that we are being sold 16:9 monitors because misguided consumers think that's the best ratio - because their vids will look "right". But anyone working, reading text or working with images will soon realise that a taller screen size would have been a better choice, i.e. 16:10. Or, at least, they'll realise that when they have the opportunity to work on a 16:10 screen, until then they'll be deluded in thinking 16:9 is fine.

4:3 still seems the best ratio to me for working on a pc, assuming that would be a very large 4:3. More screen area makes sense, there's no good reason for 16:9 unless you are a video junkie.

AndyM · « **Reply #36 on:** January 10, 2011, 07:49 AM »

It does appear to be that 16:10 is becoming increasingly rare, which is another real annoyance.
-nudone (January 10, 2011, 02:40 AM)

Is this the same as saying that finding a 1920 x 1200 monitor is becoming increasingly rare?

nudone · « **Reply #37 on:** January 10, 2011, 08:05 AM »

It does appear to be that 16:10 is becoming increasingly rare, which is another real annoyance.
-nudone (January 10, 2011, 02:40 AM)
Is this the same as saying that finding a 1920 x 1200 monitor is becoming increasingly rare?
-AndyM (January 10, 2011, 07:49 AM)

I'd say yes.

What MAY also be a bit misleading when looking for a new large monitor, is that it the specificaitons can say 24" and so you might, reasonably, expect that to be a monitor of 1920 x 1200 dimensions BUT you'd be wrong.

1920 x 1080 is also stated as 24". There is obviously a bit of diagonal length difference but no one bothers to state it, which is another reason to hate the diagonal screen number to determine (monitor) screen size.

I've just had a look on overclockers.co.uk and there appears to be one 1920 x 1200 monitor out of a choice of about fifteen. all others are 1920 x 1080. so it looks like 1920 x 1200 is dying fast.

AndyM · « **Reply #38 on:** January 10, 2011, 08:12 AM »

it looks like 1920 x 1200 is dying fast.

I don't understand this at all!

Shades · « **Reply #39 on:** January 10, 2011, 05:24 PM »

Less production lines for the manufacturer, perhaps? Bulk ordering of similar type screens (widescreen, but with different resolutions) is cheaper? And that is something the consumer is noticing as well?

Now I do understand why there are people who like their screens to have height. I am still using using two 1280x1024 screens for my computing, but I have to say that those 1920x1080 screens look very interesting.

To me the screen real estate is more important than the amount of monitors in front of me. The 1920x1080 ones do give me what I need. Almost all the width and a little bit more height from my current setup.

Deozaan · « **Reply #40 on:** January 10, 2011, 05:43 PM »

I guess I got lucky. I just got a nice big 25" 16:10 (1920x1200) monitor for Christmas. It appears as though when my 32" 4:3 TV is in "widescreen" mode then my monitor actually has a larger display than my TV. I love this thing.

And yeah, I think I would miss the extra height if this was only 16:9.

What MAY also be a bit misleading when looking for a new large monitor, is that it the specificaitons can say 24" and so you might, reasonably, expect that to be a monitor of 1920 x 1200 dimensions BUT you'd be wrong.
-nudone (February 07, 1974, 06:00 AM)

I don't see how that's misleading at all. As I understand it, the measurement is just the diagonal length. Any rectangle of any ratio has a diagonal length. I think that's the main point of this thread. The diagonal length isn't helpful if you want to know important stuff like aspect ratio and supported pixel resolution (or physical dimensions).

JavaJones · « **Reply #41 on:** January 10, 2011, 05:44 PM »

Shades, those are some of my theories too. I really should finish that blog post of mine, hehe.

- Oshyan

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #42 on:** January 10, 2011, 05:49 PM »

Now I do understand why there are people who like their screens to have height. I am still using using two 1280x1024 screens for my computing, but I have to say that those 1920x1080 screens look very interesting.
-Shades (January 10, 2011, 05:24 PM)

Me to, I got 2 17" running @1280x1024 here at home.

To me the screen real estate is more important than the amount of monitors in front of me. The 1920x1080 ones do give me what I need. Almost all the width and a little bit more height from my current setup.
-Shades (January 10, 2011, 05:24 PM)

Now the new monitors I just got for the office are 21" 1920x1080. I was using a 19" @ 1280x1024 (or slightly higher I don't recall), and the new wide-screen is much nicer space wise than the old 4:3 19 ... I can finally spread-out a bit at the office instead of feeling like I'm trying to watch a movie through a keyhole.

It does not however give me the same comfort as the dual screen setup (at home) - Close-ish - But just not the same.

superboyac · « **Reply #43 on:** January 10, 2011, 05:51 PM »

The diagonal measurement isn't helpful at all, as far as I'm concerned. The ONLY thing it does is offer a single number with which to compare other similar numbers to. It's like if someone were working with height (in the US) and giving the millimeter measurement. So, instead of saying I'm 6' tall, I'd say I'm 1829 mm tall. So I'm going to do that now...it's such an asshole thing to do. Because now it's up to the other person to figure out what that exactly means. Nobody knows what 1829 mm looks like, unless they are weird. Nobody has any idea what shape a 48" TV is unless they just rock at doing Pythagorean in their head.

f0dder · « **Reply #44 on:** January 10, 2011, 05:55 PM »

So, instead of saying I'm 6' tall, I'd say I'm 1829 mm tall. So I'm going to do that now...it's such an asshole thing to do. Because now it's up to the other person to figure out what that exactly means. Nobody knows what 1829 mm looks like,
-superboyac (January 10, 2011, 05:51 PM)

...except for the assholes living in the rest of the world, who have no concept whatsoever of the ass-backwards weird non-standardized thing means, but have a good grokking of SI units

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #45 on:** January 10, 2011, 05:57 PM »

The diagonal length isn't helpful if you want to know important stuff like aspect ratio and supported pixel resolution (or physical dimensions).
-Deozaan (January 10, 2011, 05:43 PM)

There-in lying the rub (i think), physical dimension (HxW) is (basically) irrelevant given that we're all fairly used to the diagonal for TVs. But the pixel resolution (height specifically) is critical if you want to have space to work. Yet the (rather critical) pixel resolution never seems to be readily available. I've gotten aggravated more than a few times about that one myself.

superboyac · « **Reply #46 on:** January 10, 2011, 06:02 PM »

So, instead of saying I'm 6' tall, I'd say I'm 1829 mm tall. So I'm going to do that now...it's such an asshole thing to do. Because now it's up to the other person to figure out what that exactly means. Nobody knows what 1829 mm looks like,
-superboyac (January 10, 2011, 05:51 PM)
...except for the assholes living in the rest of the world, who have no concept whatsoever of the ass-backwards weird non-standardized thing means, but have a good grokking of SI units
-f0dder (January 10, 2011, 05:55 PM)

Haha...i remember learning SI units in high school. I got all passionate about it, and wondered why the hell everyone doesn't just use the SI units? They play so nicely together! No...we have to go and convert this and that.

JavaJones · « **Reply #47 on:** January 10, 2011, 06:14 PM »

Sorry, I really don't think this is that relevant to TVs. It's pretty darn hard to find a TV these days without a standard 16:9 aspect ratio, so the diagonal measurement is pretty darn relevant and useful. However I do agree for computer monitors, most definitely. And for me in fact I would prefer to have the diagonal and pixel resolution rather than diagonal and LxW (although having all of them would be even better).

- Oshyan

AndyM · « **Reply #48 on:** January 10, 2011, 07:07 PM »

I am still using using two 1280x1024 screens for my computing, but I have to say that those 1920x1080 screens look very interesting.
-Shades (January 10, 2011, 05:24 PM)

And you would find a 1920 x 1200 11% more interesting

tomos · « **Reply #49 on:** January 11, 2011, 03:08 AM »

I'm curious. Could you explain your complaints with 16:9? I believe my current monitor is 16:10, but I heard that is rare.
-Deozaan (January 09, 2011, 11:26 PM)

It does appear to be that 16:10 is becoming increasingly rare, which is another real annoyance.
-nudone (January 10, 2011, 02:40 AM)

Fact is with a 16:9 you get (what was it Andy..) roughly 10% less monitor. That's why 16:10 is getting harder to get - what the manufacturers offer with 16:9 has the same diagonal length, but they save around 10% on production costs ... ideal for them, innit?