Comments on: Widescreen http://www.sirena.org.uk/log/2006/07/23/widescreen/ Just another random blog Tue, 03 Jan 2012 12:55:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: broonie http://www.sirena.org.uk/log/2006/07/23/widescreen/comment-page-1/#comment-118 broonie Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:25:03 +0000 http://www.sirena.org.uk/log/?p=28#comment-118 Yes, my glasses give me a roughly cinemascope field of vision too. I've had some in the past that were narrower and closer to 16:9 but the current set are similar to yours. Yes, my glasses give me a roughly cinemascope field of vision too. I’ve had some in the past that were narrower and closer to 16:9 but the current set are similar to yours.

]]> By: Nico http://www.sirena.org.uk/log/2006/07/23/widescreen/comment-page-1/#comment-117 Nico Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:32:33 +0000 http://www.sirena.org.uk/log/?p=28#comment-117 Oh, and my glasses, when I am not wearing my contacts, are surely wide aspect, closer to 2.35:1 cinemascope than 16:9, even! :) Nico Oh, and my glasses, when I am not wearing my contacts, are surely wide aspect, closer to 2.35:1 cinemascope than 16:9, even! :)

Nico

]]> By: Nico http://www.sirena.org.uk/log/2006/07/23/widescreen/comment-page-1/#comment-116 Nico Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:30:01 +0000 http://www.sirena.org.uk/log/?p=28#comment-116 I cannot leave a comment on Erich's blog, and do not want to blog tech stuff on my familly site. So I'll polute here ;) Feel free to deal with my comment according to your policy... At work, I have only 16:10 screens: 15" 1920x1200 on my laptop, 24" 1920x1200 external (as secont monitor, TwinView, sweeeet!) and I am lucky enough to have one of those massive 30" panels, with 2560x1600 pixels. The only thing I can say is that my next screen for my personnal PC is going to be at least the same 24", replacing a massive 4:3 Sony Trinitron 21" CRT. I love wide screens on computer for 2 reasons: extra space, and better aspect ratio for my photography work (I am quite the amateur, and this work is the only thing making me keep a Windows partition on a few machines: Gimp needs to be 16bits and X need color management). First, extra space: 4:3 ratio screens in LCD ar 1600x1200 at best. the 16:10 ratio screens are 1920x1200. That's 320 columns of pixels more. I call this extra space. I use those for a permanent Gaim window, next to my email client, for example. Or I love it in order to place various icons toolboxes or extra menus when in Gimp or other software of this kind. It *is* real extra space. Second, better aspect ration: the compact digital photography world may be using 4:3 rations, but digital SLRs use the 3:2 ratio. It is a bit wider. I do not want to sound pedantic with a "my camera is better than yours", but that change of ratio makes me edit more pictures at work, on on my notebook (I love the pixel density aspect on this screen). The mismatch of aspect rations brings me back to my previous point, I love the bit of extra space for the toolboxes. I used to be a dual monitor freak of nature. The wider aspect ratios tend to be the medecine I needed in order to get (partially) cured. Not having a black bar void in-between the screens is a good feature. As for TV, I see more and more programs made for TV directly in 16:9, mostly because of the HD push. All things digital tend to go in that direction, and I do not think it is too bad. I still own a 4:3 CRT TV, have no plan on changing it now, especially not because og its aspect ratio, but if it braks, then I would go for a big wide LCD model. Nico I cannot leave a comment on Erich’s blog, and do not want to blog tech stuff on my familly site. So I’ll polute here ;) Feel free to deal with my comment according to your policy…

At work, I have only 16:10 screens: 15″ 1920×1200 on my laptop, 24″ 1920×1200 external (as secont monitor, TwinView, sweeeet!) and I am lucky enough to have one of those massive 30″ panels, with 2560×1600 pixels.

The only thing I can say is that my next screen for my personnal PC is going to be at least the same 24″, replacing a massive 4:3 Sony Trinitron 21″ CRT.

I love wide screens on computer for 2 reasons: extra space, and better aspect ratio for my photography work (I am quite the amateur, and this work is the only thing making me keep a Windows partition on a few machines: Gimp needs to be 16bits and X need color management).

First, extra space: 4:3 ratio screens in LCD ar 1600×1200 at best. the 16:10 ratio screens are 1920×1200. That’s 320 columns of pixels more. I call this extra space. I use those for a permanent Gaim window, next to my email client, for example. Or I love it in order to place various icons toolboxes or extra menus when in Gimp or other software of this kind. It *is* real extra space.

Second, better aspect ration: the compact digital photography world may be using 4:3 rations, but digital SLRs use the 3:2 ratio. It is a bit wider. I do not want to sound pedantic with a “my camera is better than yours”, but that change of ratio makes me edit more pictures at work, on on my notebook (I love the pixel density aspect on this screen). The mismatch of aspect rations brings me back to my previous point, I love the bit of extra space for the toolboxes.

I used to be a dual monitor freak of nature. The wider aspect ratios tend to be the medecine I needed in order to get (partially) cured. Not having a black bar void in-between the screens is a good feature.

As for TV, I see more and more programs made for TV directly in 16:9, mostly because of the HD push. All things digital tend to go in that direction, and I do not think it is too bad. I still own a 4:3 CRT TV, have no plan on changing it now, especially not because og its aspect ratio, but if it braks, then I would go for a big wide LCD model.

Nico

]]>