Literally everyone will have a widescreen TV purely because it's broadcast in widescreen format! And it's much nicer to watch films on widescreen as it makes the border smaller.
Originally Posted by Bibin A 25" 4:3 "Regular" TV tends to look larger than a 32" 16:9 "Widescreen" TV. Why is this? Those devilish numbers are the diagonal measurement. They use this to confuse you. A 25" 4:3 TV is much taller than a 32" 16:9 TV, and in the end, it looks larger. To have a TV that feels at least as large, you'll need to get at least a 40", probably setting you back way more money than you'd like.
A 25" 4:3 TV has the same height as a 32" 16:9 TV.
Originally Posted by Nick! Bare in mind in non-HD TV, both 16:9 and 4:3 are BOTH 720x576 resolution. Widescreen pixels are not square, they are rectangular. 16:9 does not have a higher resolution, and therefor has the same amount of data as a 4:3 image.
Actually, 16:9 does have a higher vertical resolution compared to the same image letterboxed in a 4:3 frame.
It's not like you have any choice anyway LCD and Plasma Widescreen TVs are pretty much the only ones sold nowadays.
It's a trade-off, with widescreen you get a larger picture for movies and newer video games, while with narrowscreen you get a larger picture for TV shows and older video games. I'd argue that the former is preferrable. Older video games typically don't look too good blown up to larger sizes, and typically the video from a DVD looks better than video from a digibox or analog. Unless you're lucky enough to have HDTV channels, but those are 16:9 anyway.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I deliberately go out of my way to ensure that I get a square monitor or TV. I hate widescreen. I have 2 1280x1024 19" monitors, and it's the BEST highly recommended.
Widescreen FTL. And also, trying to find decent wallpapers is so hard for widescreen monitors - especially when you're very picky -_-
Wallpapers come into the decision? Widescreen is much better for audio and video, well any design or production that is timeline based. Most widescreen monitors also have motion detectors (at least Dell monitors) so if you rotate it then the display will rotate too, many of the pro writers I know do this so they can view a full A4 sheet without needing a very high resolution monitor.
Plus widescreen gaming means you can see more to the sides. Very evident in HL2/source games.
I really can't see how widescreen isn't the preferred format unless you play old games, watch old TV more than newer stuff (which is a legit reason since a lot of new stuff is cack).
Originally Posted by Dr. James Wallpapers come into the decision? Widescreen is much better for audio and video, well any design or production that is timeline based. Most widescreen monitors also have motion detectors (at least Dell monitors) so if you rotate it then the display will rotate too, many of the pro writers I know do this so they can view a full A4 sheet without needing a very high resolution monitor.
Plus widescreen gaming means you can see more to the sides. Very evident in HL2/source games.
I really can't see how widescreen isn't the preferred format unless you play old games, watch old TV more than newer stuff (which is a legit reason since a lot of new stuff is cack).
Some of us can't afford Dell ;_; and dont tend to write essays etc. I rarely play games - even then, I think I'd still choose 4:3 because you can use if effectively with new games, AND with the classics... I generally tend to design websites and faff around on my computer in general.. pretending to make games here and there so that's my reasoning as to why I don't particularly have a use for widescreen.
Also, I'd prefer to have a 32" 4:3 TV/Monitor than a 32" Widescreen, wouldn't you?
And yeah... they don't make TV like they used to ;_; ... I'ma make a topic.
No I wouldn't! Because my 2 big uses of a computer include Logic and Final Cut which work much better in wider displays! Plus with MMF a wider display means you can have the layers panel up without shrinking down the level editor view.
I don't like dual monitors much. I think they're great for OSX where I can be on FCP on my big monitor and have Photoshop or Finder in the other. In XP I disable my smaller monitor since I use it for games.
Originally Posted by Kirby Smith "Devilish measurements meant to confuse you"? -- come on, any idiot with an 8th grade education can tell you how televisions are measured. Lower slope = small y-side, larger x-side, and the same hypotenuse.
I don't mean that to say that a simple schoolchild couldn't figure it out, but that's just the thing; the average consumer will look and see 25" for a TV. They think of how large their old 25" 4:3 TV looked, and then buy it, not realising that for your screen to really feel as large as a 25" 4:3 TV, you'll need at least a 40" TV.
Dual monitors drives me nuts because there is always this stupid line in the middle of whatever I'm doing fullscreen. Now, I used to have a great dual monitor setup in which I removed the LCD bezels entirely; looked pretty good. Still wasn't as good as having my nice 4:5 monitor though.
Originally Posted by Dr. James No I wouldn't! Because my 2 big uses of a computer include Logic and Final Cut which work much better in wider displays! Plus with MMF a wider display means you can have the layers panel up without shrinking down the level editor view.
I don't like dual monitors much. I think they're great for OSX where I can be on FCP on my big monitor and have Photoshop or Finder in the other. In XP I disable my smaller monitor since I use it for games.
Try using 'UltraMon'. Everyone has their purpose for buying things to suit their needs etc, at the end of the day. So.. I bought my brother a widescreen monitor. If I need one - it's there Otherwise I'm very happy with my dual 19" setup
Originally Posted by Bibin Originally Posted by Kirby SmithI don't mean that to say that a simple schoolchild couldn't figure it out, but that's just the thing; the average consumer will look and see 25" for a TV. They think of how large their old 25" 4:3 TV looked, and then buy it, not realising that for your screen to really feel as large as a 25" 4:3 TV, you'll need at least a 40" TV.
A 32" Widescreen TV has the 4:3 viewing area equivelent of a 26" 4:3 tv. A 40" Widescreen TV has the 4:3 viewing area equivelent of a 33" 4:3 tv. YOU DO NOT NEED TO BUY A 40" WS TV TO GET THE SAME SIZE AS A 25" 4:3 TV. Sorry for writing all caps, but you apparantly ignored me explaining it in the last post
Also, play the DVD of a 2.35:1 movie and suddenly the 4:3 tv will feel VERY small compared to the WS TV (which will still have black bars but a much bigger picture)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
There's a 1.5" gap between the displays in my Dell and iMac setup. Considering that's 2x20" it's not a bad gap. But I don't want it completely seamless, the gap visually separates different applications I'm working with and keeps it a little less cluttered looking.
Yeah I have to say that widescreen is just better for just about everything, I hate using MMF or Photoshop on a 4:3 monitor... It just feels cramped.
Oh and Tim I have over 80 wallpapers that fit my monitor or a higher resolution perfectly and they're all pretty awesome. I'm also planning on getting a second 24" (Dell) at some point, still saving up .
Originally Posted by Tim, the cat.
Also, I'd prefer to have a 32" 4:3 TV/Monitor than a 32" Widescreen, wouldn't you?
Originally Posted by Bibin I've found 1280x1024 to be easier to use for me than 1280x800.
Thats because you're 224 pixels. Who the hell would switch to wide screen just so they can go from 1280x1024 to 1280x800. Anyone can look at that obviously and see that the only reason it's wide screen is because it's subtracting from the height. At least 1440 x 900 subtracts from the height, but adds to the width. It's not a dramatic improvement, but the outcome of total pixels is increased at least. Wow.
Widescreen was not invented because humans "see in widescreen". It's mainly because composing a picture is easier than on a 4:3. It gives the image proportions closely matching the "golden rectangle", which is generally considered aesthetically pleasing and is used by many famous artists. Once you start filming in widescreen you will notice how easy it is to compose a good image and you never want to go back. On computers widescreen is pretty much useless unless you play alot of games and watch movies. Btw, my 15 inch notebook kicks ass @ 1600x1200.
Its hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Originally Posted by Nioreh Widescreen was not invented because humans "see in widescreen". It's mainly because composing a picture is easier than on a 4:3. It gives the image proportions closely matching the "golden rectangle", which is generally considered aesthetically pleasing and is used by many famous artists. Once you start filming in widescreen you will notice how easy it is to compose a good image and you never want to go back.
In the 50s, cinema faced competition from the growing popularity of television. Widescreen, multi-channel sound and 3D projection were all used to lure people back to the cinemas.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Advertisement
Post Reply
LCD and Plasma Widescreen TVs are pretty much the only ones sold nowadays.
highly recommended.
so that's my reasoning as to why I don't particularly have a use for widescreen.
Edited by the Author.
I bought my brother a widescreen monitor. If I need one - it's there 
