UniversalTruth
Veteran
The same with me but my phone has a little lower ~350 dpi.
That's why the manufacturers push for 500-600 dpi phone screens.
Our vision adapts and after some time, we need something better.
4K Resolution Here Like Mainstream
- Thread starter UniversalTruth
- Start date
The same with me but my phone has a little lower ~350 dpi.
That's why the manufacturers push for 500-600 dpi phone screens.
Our vision adapts and after some time, we need something better.
I find the curved 21:9 form factor appealing, but am waiting for a no-compromises product (high-res, high refresh, variable refresh) before I buy in. Hopefully the panels that would make this possible are in development.
I don't understand why 16:9 or 21:9 monitors are better than 5:4 monitors with the same width.
If both monitors have same width, the 5:4 monitor will occupy the same desk space as the widescreen monitors, and it can display unscaled images from the widescreen monitors, while the widescrren monitors have to shrink or crop 5:4 or 4:3 images. And 5:4 monitors are more versatile since they are better for text, web browsing, programming and everything that is more vertical.
"Widescreen" should be called "shortscreen" instead.
I guess widescreen rules because it's cheaper to make?
If both monitors have same width, the 5:4 monitor will occupy the same desk space as the widescreen monitors, and it can display unscaled images from the widescreen monitors, while the widescrren monitors have to shrink or crop 5:4 or 4:3 images. And 5:4 monitors are more versatile since they are better for text, web browsing, programming and everything that is more vertical.
"Widescreen" should be called "shortscreen" instead.
I guess widescreen rules because it's cheaper to make?
UniversalTruth
Veteran
The standard from the film industry doesn't mean much when there are 16:9, 16:10 and 21:9 monitors available.Nope, this is the standard from the film industry plus the fact that our vision is wide vision, not square as you wanna.
Film industry standards should be applied to TVs and movie screens, not necessarily to computer monitors that are routinely used for much more diverse stuff and that can benefit from different aspect ratios.
I don't buy the "widescreen because wide vision" argument, as it will only make a real difference if you're too close to the screen.
Sorry but do you guys have bionic eyes? Or are you holding the screens 1 inch from your nose? My Macbook Pro has 220dpi and I certainly can't see pixels a decent distance (arms length). I need to move closer to see pixels, and at that distance it would be ridiculous to use the bloody thing anyway.
My iPhone is around 320dpi (from memory) and at 'normal usage' distances I definitely cannot see pixel structures, until I move to about 4 inches from the screen, which is pretty much the distance my grandma uses to look at her phone. I have 20/20 vision.
Pretty much that, yeah, but with some sort of scanning/strobing backlight tech, too.
There is almost nothing I do with either the dual monitor setup I have at work or the displays I use at home that would be significantly better with a non-widescreen display. There are many things I do, though, that are significantly better on those widescreen displays than they would be on a "square" display. It all depends on what you use them for.
Suppose you get a dual monitor setup using "square" monitors that have the exact same width as your current widescreen monitors. Wouldn't you still be able to do exactly what you do on your current setup (but better since you would have more screen area)?
Strange comparison to make. I think most people would prefer a single monitor over two of them pushing a similar number of pixels.
Surely in this scenario two widescreen monitors in portrait mode side by side would be even better than two square ones, and would be a fairer comparison. I've seen plenty more people use this kind of set up than two 5:4 monitors, unless you go back a good few years when widescreen wasn't really a thing.
Surely in this scenario two widescreen monitors in portrait mode side by side would be even better than two square ones, and would be a fairer comparison. I've seen plenty more people use this kind of set up than two 5:4 monitors, unless you go back a good few years when widescreen wasn't really a thing.
Last edited:
But I was actually comparing two widescreen monitors against two "square" monitors, not two vs one or vice-versa.
If 5:4 and 4:3 screens don't exist anymore (except for the iPad) then people have no choice other than using other aspect ratios.
And 4:3 screens are actually better than widescreen in portrait mode, since widescreen becomes too "thin" when in portrait mode. That's why Apple has chosen 4:3 screens for the iPad, as widescreen tablets have less screen area and are worse when in portrait orientation (for reading).
Oh I'm sorry, I misread your post.
Choice is great, but I do think that at the time when we had both square and wide monitors widely available, more people (that I know) wanted wide. The applications where a squarer window is preferable can be achieved by resizing it, often meaning that you can have two running side by side. Two widescreen monitors in landscape is functionally equivalent to a row of four square monitors. Sure the aspect ratio of each frame is different, but not by much. Not enough to alter the experience meaningfully.
I agree on tablets. I have a 16:9 tablet and it's really not great in either orientation for reading books.
If all you do is work in a single window on one monitor with mainly text, then I agree that a squarer display could be a better use of the pixels. I don't think that's how most people use their PCs though.
Choice is great, but I do think that at the time when we had both square and wide monitors widely available, more people (that I know) wanted wide. The applications where a squarer window is preferable can be achieved by resizing it, often meaning that you can have two running side by side. Two widescreen monitors in landscape is functionally equivalent to a row of four square monitors. Sure the aspect ratio of each frame is different, but not by much. Not enough to alter the experience meaningfully.
I agree on tablets. I have a 16:9 tablet and it's really not great in either orientation for reading books.
If all you do is work in a single window on one monitor with mainly text, then I agree that a squarer display could be a better use of the pixels. I don't think that's how most people use their PCs though.
I'm talking about monitors with same width, like a widescreen monitor with 20" from the bottom-left to bottom-right against a square monitor with also 20" from bottom-left to bottom-right. Both will take the same space on your desk but the square monitor will offer more pixels and area. In such situation, all content and windows from the widescreen can be perfectly displayed on the square screen (with room to spare), but the opposite isn't true.
You say that different aspect ratios don't alter the experience meaningfully, but then you say that your 16:9 tablet is bad for reading books. So a 4:3 monitor in portrait mode will also be better for text related stuff (reading, browsing, programming, etc) than a 16:9 monitor. But even in case of video a square monitor is better since there's still a lot of 4:3 content out there, and a square monitor can play unscaled 16:9 videos and still have space at the bottom for subtitles that don't overlap the picture, for example.
You say that different aspect ratios don't alter the experience meaningfully, but then you say that your 16:9 tablet is bad for reading books. So a 4:3 monitor in portrait mode will also be better for text related stuff (reading, browsing, programming, etc) than a 16:9 monitor. But even in case of video a square monitor is better since there's still a lot of 4:3 content out there, and a square monitor can play unscaled 16:9 videos and still have space at the bottom for subtitles that don't overlap the picture, for example.
Davros makes a good point. The average monitor used by the masses has gotten wider, not shorter.
I think this conversation is kind of off topic and a bit fruitless at this point. Square or wide is a personal preference and that is something that cannot be argued with. There are use-cases where either is more suitable.
I think this conversation is kind of off topic and a bit fruitless at this point. Square or wide is a personal preference and that is something that cannot be argued with. There are use-cases where either is more suitable.
Sure, but people are usually much more limited by available desk space (width) than available space between the desk and the ceiling (height). So we can say that a widescreen monitor and square monitor of the same width will occupy the same space in practice (and the square monitor will give you more pixels and viewable area). But if we choose a widescreen monitor and square monitor with the same height, then the widescreen will in practice occupy more space than the square monitor.
