DonationCoder.com Forum
Main Area and Open Discussion => Living Room => Topic started by: superboyac on January 07, 2011, 06:27 PM
-
Ok, one more rant for the week.
I am SOO tired of this diagonal screen length that has now become the standard dimension to advertise for all screens. It's not the dimension itself that irritates me, since it is partly helpful. It's more of the reason WHY it has become the standard number to give for screen sizes. It's the exact same manipulation that is used for prices...the whole $3.99 thing (the .99 part).
It's so freaking annoying. Why? Because every time I see a screen size with the diagonal, which is all of them now, I have to go through a whole mental exercise to figure out what that actually means to me as far as width x height. I don't know about you guys, but when I see rectangular objects, I do not intuitively think about the diagonal length, nor do I really give a shit. Length and width makes sense to me. You tell me length and width, and I know exactly what you are talking. I can picture the shape, I can figure out very quickly and intuitively if it fits somewhere, etc. All good stuff.
You tell me the diagonal length, and I'm like "cmon, asshole", now I have to do all this math to really understand how big it is. Furthermore, to really tell, you need the ratio also. "Oh, but they give you the screen resolution in the spec also. So you can just figure it out. It's all there!" Shut up!! As if i don't have enough work to do! So now, I'm supposed to take the freaking 12" diagonal number, and then take the 1024x768 number and do all the math to figure out the length and width?? Are you kidding me? Look at those numbers...12, 1024, 768! Cmon people!
But that's how they get you. I have no idea what a 54" TV means to me. But it allows them to use the bigger number. of course the diagonal is going to be a bigger number than the length or the width. So given the three numbers that describe screen size, of course they are going to use the biggest one. That's good marketing. Useless, but good marketing.
What happened is that one company started doing this. I remember when monitor sizes were given as LxW. The diagonal was also given as a convenience, but not the main feature. Now, it's the one sticker that is prominently featured on the product. Anyway, back in those days, what happened was one company started doing it. They were able to advertise a "bigger" number for the same size screen as their competitor. The competitors must have lost a little bit of the market because of the people who got duped by it. So they all started doing it. Now it's the thing to do.
-
Man, it must be a looong time since this change was made. I vaguely remember a possible distant past where you may be right, LxW was available, but I can't recall when, heh. The single diagonal number does annoy me, yet I also understand it. For most average consumers a single number is enough to tell them what they need to know, especially since it's generally comparable with other similar displays (aspect ratios vary, but not usually enough to make a huge, huge difference).
Anyway, I agree less info is worse than more info, in general. But I don't blame the manufacturers on it *too much*...
- Oshyan
-
In my experience, diagonal was all that was ever used for screens dating back to when the only thing they were used for was TVs. It wasn't a problem then since all screens had the same aspect ratio, so the measurement was always pretty much apples to apples.
But you're 100% right - once we started getting different screen ratios, a diagonal measurement doesn't cut it anymore (though a 54" screen is prety damn big no matter what).
-
Most screens are widescreen, near or at 16:9 (sometimes 16:10 or close variations) these days (somewhat to my dismay, but that's a later blog post). Non-widescreen displays are increasingly rare, so it's not really that much different than it used to be...
- Oshyan
-
Non-widescreen displays are increasingly rare, so it's not really that much different than it used to be...
-JavaJones
You're right. I suppose it's an old dog/new trick thing for me.
-
In my experience, diagonal was all that was ever used for screens dating back to when the only thing they were used for was TVs. It wasn't a problem then since all screens had the same aspect ratio, so the measurement was always pretty much apples to apples.-mwb1100
The only extra information you used to see for monitors was 'Viewable Area' which gave you WxH because, (IIRC), the number quoted for diagonal was the size of the tube not taking into account the bezel surrounding it.
When LCD/Plasma came along the diagonal quoted was both size of the panel and viewable area because the bezel didn't exclude anything.
-
I've never seen computer screens or TVs advertised by anything else than their diagonal widths - and that's ever since computer monitors were 14". And I find that to be a pretty fine indication of physical size, really, moreso today where ratio has been pretty much stabilized on 16:9/16:10 (there's not a lot of 4:3 monitors around anymore). Aside from physical constraints when putting a Pretty Damn Big TV in a Puny Little Room, WxHxD isn't that important to me.
And well, you always have to look at detailed specs anyway, otherwise you aren't getting brightness, contrast or pixel resolution. The diagonal width is simply a coarse-grained search filter, the one that you apply first when searching for a new TV or monitor - nothing more, nothing less :)
-
Next thing you know he's gonna want them to stop advertising $100 items as: Only $99.99! ;D
-
And I find that to be a pretty fine indication of physical size, really, moreso today where ratio has been pretty much stabilized on 16:9/16:10 (there's not a lot of 4:3 monitors around anymore).
-f0dder
Still, it would be nice if they just gave you the WxH measurement instead of making you resort to plugging the screen ratio numbers along with the diagonal measurement into the Pythagorean theorem just to get an answer. :-\
Ever look at all the specs they print on those boxes? They'll tell you everything you could possibly want to know about the product - including several things any sane person could care less about. In short, they tell you everything BUT the freekin' width and height measurements of the screen.
What's up with that? Is there some gentleman's agreement in the industry that you don't talk about WxH? :huh:
-
What's up with that? Is there some gentleman's agreement in the industry that you don't talk about WxH? :huh:
-40hz
Must I share my weight and height? :P :P Somebody'd probably be embarrassed :-[
-
Instead of having to compare L and W you now only compare D so that keeps things easier ;)
-
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...
-
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
16:9 should never have been allowed to make its way into the computer world.
-
Resolution and pixel pitch is what I look, i find the physical dimension much less useful.
-
And I find that to be a pretty fine indication of physical size, really, moreso today where ratio has been pretty much stabilized on 16:9/16:10 (there's not a lot of 4:3 monitors around anymore).
-f0dder
Still, it would be nice if they just gave you the WxH measurement instead of making you resort to plugging the screen ratio numbers along with the diagonal measurement into the Pythagorean theorem just to get an answer. :-\
Ever look at all the specs they print on those boxes? They'll tell you everything you could possibly want to know about the product - including several things any sane person could care less about. In short, they tell you everything BUT the freekin' width and height measurements of the screen.
What's up with that? Is there some gentleman's agreement in the industry that you don't talk about WxH? :huh:
-40hz
That's my point, exactly! They deliberately withhold that information, because if they did list it, even in the smaller print, customers would get used to seeing it there. Soon, customers would get used to it and start talking about their tv's using those numbers instead of the diagonal number, because it just makes more sense. So, in the office, when someone asks how big your tv is, right now we say 50" or whatever....but eventually, if that information was readily available, people would start saying 40x30" even if not all the time...but that would destroy the power of that big >>54"<< sticker that is so prominent on the tv's in the store now. Anyway...
-
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
16:9 should never have been allowed to make its way into the computer world.
-nudone
Ooo, I have a blog post/rant about that waiting in the wings. I should finish it up and post already, hehe. It's actually been on the back burner for, oh, 2 years or so. Yeesh!
- Oshyan
-
They deliberately withhold that information, because if they did list it, even in the smaller print, customers would get used to seeing it there. Soon, customers would get used to it and start talking about their tv's using those numbers instead of the diagonal number, because it just makes more sense. So, in the office, when someone asks how big your tv is, right now we say 50" or whatever....but eventually, if that information was readily available, people would start saying 40x30" even if not all the time...but that would destroy the power of that big >>54"<< sticker that is so prominent on the tv's in the store now. Anyway...
-superboyac
That's a pretty hypothetical conspiracy theory, and one I don't buy. Most people aren't good with figures, trying to compare tv sizes when presented with two dimensions gives you four figures to juggle, that's too much for most people who, frankly, aren't really that bothered at the end of the day anyway. So manufactures/advertisers give one figure because that's what most people want. Those of us who need the two figures can look them up/work the out for ourselves.
It would be selfish of me to want advertisers to confuse the majority just to make the my, and the minorities, lives ever so slightly simpler.
-
OK. I just had to research this since it seemed too weird to be anything other than a marketing ploy. :tellme:
To my surprise, my cynical assumption turned out to be completely wrong as far as I can tell. :huh:
Seems the "diagonal picture measurement" goes way back to when TVs first started being made in the 1930s. Due to technical limitations in the manufacturing process, only round picture tubes could initially be built.
The picture was projected in the center of the tube. And the once massive furniture-like case (often with doors) most sets were built into put a rectangular bezel around the tube to mask the area that didn't show the picture. The diameter of the tube determined maximum size of the image. The "diagonal" is the length of the diameter line as it passes through the image area.
Like so:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
This was probably the most accurate way to let a customer know what the image size was since the diameter of the picture tube only set the maximum size of the image. It did not reflect the actual size being projected. A 25-inch set could easily have a picture diagonal that measured exactly the same as the one on a 23-inch set. And many did because the smaller the diagonal in relation to the diameter of the tube, the better the quality of the picture projected. This was because image convergence became a problem the further out you got from the center of the tube.
Rectangular tubes were first attempted as early as 1950.
From Popular Mechanics (March 1950) - click to enlarge.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
But non-round picture tubes didn't go into real production till around 1965 when Motorola introduced the first generally available rectangular tube according to a Popular Science (Dec 1964) article. Read it here (http://books.google.com/books?id=WCYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=Motorola+TS-908&source=bl&ots=uNYjVXSnDz&sig=yLIK3ZTHVqwqxW9OOmZ3NRnrCwk&hl=en&ei=ZQApTcy6JsH88AbigN2pAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Motorola%20TS-908&f=false).
Other manufacturers soon introduced their own models. In 1966, the FCC issued a ruling that TV images should be measured on the diagonal just like they were when the tubes were still round to avoid possible confusion for the consumer.
So it's definitely not a conspiracy. :-[ And it does make sense in a way. 8)
But that still doesn't explain why they couldn't just put the WxH measurements on the box too. :P
-
Bravo! Freaking 40hz! Thanks man.
OK, so as is usually the case with life's truth, it's not black or white, but a gray area. So the diagonal thing is definitely not a conspiracy as I laid out above. However, now that it has been a fair amount of years or decades since the tube limitations were an issue, why haven't the companies started using the WxH measurement? I still insist that the reason is because the number won't be as big and they will lose ground to other competitors that keep using the diagonal. So it's not a conspiracy, but there is a deliberate attempt to NOT show that information.
If I were them, I'd at least put the WxH on the smaller print of the display units in the stores or online, whatever. They can still rely on the diagonal as their MAIN sticker or standout number, but somewhere tell us what the width and length are. I mean, as someone stated, they give us all the other seemingly unimportant numbers, why not that one?
Actually, if it were really up to me, I'd make a standard sticker that showed the diagonal, length AND width all in a standard way. I've already seen somewhat standard badge-like stickers that they put on tv's in the stores, and it's basically a big black sticker with a yellow diagonal going across with the number 54" shown on it. Well, just add a vertical and horizontal arrow in a different color and smaller scale with those other numbers, and everyone's happy. Right? Nobody can say anything to that one.
-
this is kind of a side issue, but remember "HD Ready" (which still persists). what GOOD reason is there for creating such a label and then sticking it on a TV that won't actually display images in HD; other than to fool potential customers into thinking they are buying a "HD" TV when they aren't.
that is one of the most cynical acts i've seen by the major brands against us. if they are happy to do that i'm prepared to believe they'll do anything to increase sales with little regard to the customer.
so, yeah, i buy into the theory of displaying the biggest number they can get away with to make the screen sound bigger.
-
Sidenote:
That "HD Ready" moniker on a TV actually means you can feed it some of the recognized HD formats (sometimes as low as 1280x720 resolution, and there are lower HD resolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television#High-definition_display_resolutions)), not necessarily meaning "Full HD". It's sort of the same as "High-Speed USB" that came with USB 2.0, and that says nothing about the actual highest USB speed available (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus#Transfer_rates) :(
-
Any HD-ready TVs I ever saw in shops were 1280x720 resolution. That is still a fair bit higher than regular definition, and as Ath points out, it is a HD resolution.
-
well, yeah, i know what HD Ready means - because i went out my way to find out when i first saw it. but as "HD Ready" has been around for several years, way before you could even view any HD material (here in the UK) it just seems like a blatant marketing/sales ploy.
if i'd asked anyone back then what HD Ready means they'd have replied "it means it's a HD TV, OBVIOIUSLY". and that is exactly the response i did get - and still get to this day. back then, i'd even get it from "helpful" sales staff.
i've seen people now selling their old CRT TVs that are about 10 years old stating they are HD Ready and DVB Ready - because you can still view HD and DVB on the tv set - IF you plug a device in that can first handle HD and DVB. it's total nonsense.
i'm obviously Olympic 2012 "Ready" for the Men's 100 Meter Sprint.
this new "technical" definition of "ready" really ought to be changed to "rubbish". it would be a lot more honest, i think.
-
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".
-
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
720p is Just Fine(TM), unless you've got a ridiculously large TV - but "HD Ready" is definitely a bad label.
-
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.
-
Given an option, I'd never go back to standard definition TV. Ever. :)
-
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
720p is Just Fine(TM), unless you've got a ridiculously large TV - but "HD Ready" is definitely a bad label.
-f0dder
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. ;D
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
:Thmbsup:
-
I believe "HD Ready" is similar to "Vista Capable". :D
- Oshyan
-
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
16:9 should never have been allowed to make its way into the computer world.
-nudone
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.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
-
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.
-
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
-
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
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
Sadly, anti-aliasing has never been one of the strengths of the Playstation platform.
-
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
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.
-
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
-
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
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.
-
It does appear to be that 16:10 is becoming increasingly rare, which is another real annoyance.
-nudone
Is this the same as saying that finding a 1920 x 1200 monitor is becoming increasingly rare?
-
It does appear to be that 16:10 is becoming increasingly rare, which is another real annoyance.
-nudone
Is this the same as saying that finding a 1920 x 1200 monitor is becoming increasingly rare?
-AndyM
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.
-
it looks like 1920 x 1200 is dying fast.
I don't understand this at all!
-
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.
-
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. :D
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
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).
-
Shades, those are some of my theories too. I really should finish that blog post of mine, hehe.
- Oshyan
-
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
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
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.
-
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.
-
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
...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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units) :)
-
The diagonal length isn't helpful if you want to know important stuff like aspect ratio and supported pixel resolution (or physical dimensions).-Deozaan
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.
-
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
...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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units) :)
-f0dder
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.
-
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
-
I am still using using two 1280x1024 screens for my computing, but I have to say that those 1920x1080 screens look very interesting.
-Shades
And you would find a 1920 x 1200 11% more interesting ;D
-
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
It does appear to be that 16:10 is becoming increasingly rare, which is another real annoyance.
-nudone
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?
-
> save around 10% on production costs
That makes sense. I guess the part I don't understand is the market not insisting on the vertical height. The 1920 x 1200 display is absolutely the best for me, but if I couldn't use it, my old 1600 x 1200 would be my next choice, not 1920 x 1080.
But my Control key is still to the left of the "a" key, my Alt key is at the lower left, and almost every tv show I like get's canceled quickly. So it shouldn't surprise me that what works for me probably won't be indicative of market preferences.
-
While I do appreciate monitors have become wider, since IDEs these days are very screen real-estate hungry, I do believe it's a shame it means limiting the vertical resolution. I can live with 1080 pixels, but more definitely wouldn't hurt!
Production costs is probably the main factor, but the form factor is probably also important in and by itself - 16:9 is the standard for HD content, and the manufacturers are probably afraid of going with something else, especially as we see TVs and computer monitors converge.
-
I can't argue with any of this, but I don't have to like it!
-
I don't know that the manufacturer's are "afraid" of going with other than 16:9, I think they have good reason to stick to it (several of the reasons already posited in this thread). I think the vast majority of the display market consists of people not well informed (or even particularly concerned) enough to demand something other than 16:9, and in fact many consumers may like that aspect ratio because it's familiar from TVs. While there is a vocal minority like us who wants more height, the overall market doesn't care, and may even prefer widescreen (even if the reason for that preference is not well founded). So there is little or no incentive for manufacturers do to other than 16:9 displays.
- Oshyan