What's your favorite screen shape?

[newpball]

What's your favorite screen shape?

[Baldrick]

Round.

But I prefer Ultrawide at the cinemas.

[Skiller]

Depends. For computer and laptop screens I prefer anything over 16:9. I think 16:10, 4:3 and even the whacky 5:4 are all better for computer usage than 16:9 because of it's limited vertical space and the (to me) useless excess horizontal space. That being said all new computer screens and laptops are 16:9 for some reason I do not understand, I mean 16:10 was clearly superior?! Who would not prefer to have 1920x1200 over 1920x1080?

[hello_hello]

Apparently the 16:9 thing simply came down to cost, which is why nobody (as far as I know) makes 16:10 monitors any more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10#Industry_moves_towards_16:9_from_2008

I'm still using a 4:3 CRT monitor, and I've a couple of spares in the shed to keep me going for a few years yet.
16:9 is just not a fun aspect ratio for a PC monitor, although wouldn't most of them have the ability to do this these days, or is it not that common?

[Skiller]

It's nice to know there are still a few other people in the world who like 4:3 CRT screens just like me. While I'm typing this, I'm sitting in front of a 19" Trinitron CRT at 1024x768 @ 100 Hz.
A 22" LCD at 1080p would have way too small font size for my liking (my eyesight is fine) and I don't want a screen larger than that. With CRTs you can throw any res at them and they display it natively without scaling. Very good for FPS games also (I play a lot of FPS) – great advantage over 60 Hz LCDs.

[drjtech]

Round.

Something like this?

[jagabo]

nobody (as far as I know) makes 16:10 monitors any more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10#Industry_moves_towards_16:9_from_2008

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007617%20600...86%20600012663

[hello_hello]

It's nice to know there are still a few other people in the world who like 4:3 CRT screens just like me. While I'm typing this, I'm sitting in front of a 19" Trinitron CRT at 1024x768 @ 100 Hz.
A 22" LCD at 1080p would have way too small font size for my liking (my eyesight is fine) and I don't want a screen larger than that. With CRTs you can throw any res at them and they display it natively without scaling. Very good for FPS games also (I play a lot of FPS) – great advantage over 60 Hz LCDs.

Yep, they have to be Trinitrons. Although weren't there similar tubes at one stage? Diamondtron sounds familiar. I also have a few Samsung 21" monitors but they're not as nice as the Trinitrons. I seemed to accumulate them years ago when everyone was replacing perfectly good CRTs with crappy looking LCDs. The Trinitrons still cost a bit at the time, but the Samsung monitors cost me virtually nothing.

22" inch at 1024x768 @ 85Hz for me. I can't remember why I settled on 85Hz. I'm sure it supports higher refresh rates. Maybe not at that particular resolution, or maybe I didn't like it as much. I can't remember.
I bought a 19" Trinitron for my other half years ago but she barely used it. I think it was a Compaq. And if memory serves me correctly it looked a little sharper than my 22". I'll have to steal it back at some stage.

The number one advantage of CRTs for me is the lack of a need for Cleartype. I hate it.

I'm in a smaller place now but a couple of years ago I was living in a house with plenty of room, so I had some fun. I had friends tell me it looked like a NASA control room from the 60's, but the LCD lovers still had to admit the Trinitrons have a very nice picture.

[hello_hello]

nobody (as far as I know) makes 16:10 monitors any more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10#Industry_moves_towards_16:9_from_2008

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007617%20600...86%20600012663

Well I guess I have no idea what I'm talking about.

[Cornucopia]

Man, that's a lot of real estate & heat generation going on there!

Scott

[newpball]

This I think this is currently the best shaped QHD monitor screen for video and image editing, it is also great for watching movies, it is just waiting till a wide gamut version comes along to make it perfect:



Ultrawide is better because obviously your vision is much wider horizontally than vertically.

Same with 4k with an ultra wide screen you can view much closer because of that.

[jagabo]

your vision is much wider horizontally than vertically.

Not not by a factor of 2.4:1.

[Cornucopia]

I bet the pillarboxing of 4:3 material on that would drive some folks crazy!

Human vision is wider than tall (each eye sees ~180degrees H x ~135degrees V, both see ~230-265degrees H, binocular vision is only ~120degrees), but that includes peripheral vision & eye rotation, so a good accommodation for most people works out to 170degrees x 120degrees (or if you want to just use the "core" central 2/3 FOV = 114 x 80), which is a ~1.42:1 AR. Not even standard widescreen.

An ultrawide screen might make more sense if it were curved (and expected only ultrawide titles on it, and wanted to make use of your peripheral vision), but then you have issues with sweet spot seating.

For those reasons, I expect it will only ever have niche value. Far from "perfect".

BTW, do you OWN one of those, or are you just posturing hypotheticals?

Scott

[newpball]

BTW, do you OWN one of those, or are you just posturing hypotheticals?

Not yet as this monitor is not wide gamut.

I have a wide gamut 27 QHD and next to it a wide 22 HD.

An ultrawide 32 QHD wide gamut would be perfect to me.

A 32 wide simply becomes too high for me to be useful.

[hanshotfirst1138]

Whatever the director has chosen to compose a particular film, basically. Any visual stylist worth his salt should be able to choose what's necessary for the story. Though I have a soft spot for scope, it feels super-cinematic to me.

[DB83]

Whatever the director has chosen to compose a particular film, basically. Any visual stylist worth his salt should be able to choose what's necessary for the story. Though I have a soft spot for scope, it feels super-cinematic to me.

Methinks you found the wrong topic

[El Heggunte]

Round.

Something like this?

Or maybe something like this

[Cornucopia]

I kinda like this better...



Scott

[lordsmurf]

My 16:10 just died, so I'm using a 5:4 for testing.

The bigger issue is IPS (excellent) vs, non-IPS (crap).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0053YKE72/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=39...7DUOO7MNTZVIKF

[newpball]

Philips just announced an ultrawide:



http://www.eteknix.com/philips-announced-new-34-inch-219-ultrawide-monitor/

Samsung, LG and now Philips as well.

[budwzr]

You left the bezier selection on. Dead giveaway that's not a real TV. I almost fell for it.

[newpball]

The ultimate ultrawide (for the time being):

10K of delight!



Be honest, who would not want to edit or watch Hamlet or Baraka on this one?

[cornemuse]

Around Christmas I bought an EIZO 21" 4-3 monitor when my (12 yr old) Microtek 19" died. I recently bought a 27" Samsung ws & have 'em side-by-side.

I'm using the EIZO right now.

-c-

(the Samsung screen is only about a 1/2" taller than the EIZO)