Who allowed wide-screen aspect ratio to have different aspect ratios?

vbimport

#1

We have a host of 24" HP monitors and a minority of other 24" brands scattered around. I’d never sat an HP and an ASUS next to one another before, but I noticed the ASUS had flatter O’s.

So, I measured the screen-edge to screen-edge. Who allowed 24-inch panels to have different measurements?!!

The HPs have a ‘truly round’ Circle, and they measure 52h x 32.6w cm.

The Asus measure 53.3 x 30 cm. Wider, but shorter.

They’re both 24.0" diagonal, true, but I could also achieve this with a 62 x 1cm measurement too!!

I can’t find any vendors willing to share their HxW measurements on webpage “specifications” - just that diagonal measurement

Has anyone come up with a commonly-displayed spec that would alert buyers about models that are Taller vs. Wider?

I’m wondering if the Max Resolution is an honest and always-correct clue?


#2

The original flatscreens were the same 4:3 aspect ratio as traditional CRT’s

When the widescreen format came out there was something of a push
for 16:10 before 16:9 was finally adopted (over some bitter objections
of the people who wanted 16:10)

16:9 is the standard because this makes the screen size match the media to be displayed on it.

as far as “Circles” being displayed correctly that is a matter of the screen
resolution being set correctly on the computer, which is also often an “issue” with what resolutions the Video card can be set to…

AD


#3

Screen aspect ratios are decided by Hollywood movie makers and standard committees and broadcasting corporations of the US and the EU. Though South Korean, Taiwanese, and Japanese electronics manufacturers produce monitors and TV sets with those aspect ratios, they have to market them to consumers watching TV programs and movies made in the US and Europe.

Another important factor is the yield rate. Out of a single LCD panel glass measuring certain horizontal and vertical lengths, there are several ways to cut it into panels of different dimensions and ratios. It is often more profitable to make 19201080 24-inch panels than 19201200 parts. It is vastly more profitable to make 25601440 27-inch panels than 16001200 20-inch ones. It costs a lot to make those 2880*1800 panels in an Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display, but whoever makes the panels must be making more profits than all other panel makers because the length is only 15 inches and one can make four sheets instead of one 30-inch sheet and you can imagine how many more 15-inch panels can be cut from a glass of 2 meters by 3 meters.


#4

Yes, are the different screen models reported to have the same aspect ratios (discerned either directly from product marketing or from reported max resolution)? Some still use 16:10 regardless of the adoption of 16:9 for general multimedia purposes, as reasoned above; it just depends on what task the manufacturer designs the screen to accomplish.

Also, due to the different ways of interpreting incoming video signals, manufacturers may not always allow pixel-perfect reproduction. As stated above, it can depend on what the video card puts out, too. Scaling width or height may be required to get a perfect circle; I know my monitor has vertical and horizontal adjustments to squish or stretch the picture as appropriate. Maybe if the pixels aren’t perfectly square, this could be required.


#5

[QUOTE=AllanDeGroot;2645933]

When the widescreen format came out there was something of a push
for 16:10 before 16:9 was finally adopted (over some bitter objections
of the people who wanted 16:10)
…[/QUOTE]

The term ‘widescreen’ was never good enough as it was only getting wider and wider. The move was to make computer screens as close to the ones for movies. 2.35:1 anamorphic aspect ratio is one of the popular movie ratios, but even that’s not all and there are variations of it and much wider ratios.

3:4 or 4:3 was also the aspect ratio of Video CD, or VCD. 16:9 was the one adopted for DVD and also most things HD like HDTV and Blu-ray. 16:10 was closer to the 16:12 of 4:3 than 16:9, so 16:10 was easier for the computer industry and monitor manufacturers to switch to from 4:3, but it was an awkward standard for both the entertainment industry or the contents providers in general and the computer industry.


#6

I’ll reject the “movie studios have something to do with it” instead of the YIELD issue.

Not unless H&Bollywood truly own the FoxConns of the world. (“Reality Diving Shows - who can make the bigger splat?!! Watch for it! This week, on Reality Diving!!” Hmmm, maybe Ken’s right!! ha ha)

The HPs (the taller widescreens) at the 52x32.6cm measurement come out with a 1.595 aspect ratio - close to the 16:10, in other words.

The Asus (the short wide one) has the 53.5x30cm measurement - that’s the 1.776 aspect ratio. Close to the 16:9’s 1.777, therefore.

We can see where this is going.

As for video-card handling, yes, I would think so but with all ATI 6450s in several machines with the different monitors, and no monitor-specific driver apparently available for Asus, we end up with Asus having the short, squat O’s. Curious. I’d think a combination would have solved it, but Asus monitors apparently don’t have specific drivers although the HPs offer them. Maybe that’s because they’ve opted for bit more of vertical space, and Asus is following The Claimed Standard?

Was it Confucius that said, “So the screen adds 10 lbs, eh?”

Or Shelley Winters? I forget…

Anyway… I suppose if we see “16:9” then we can assume “short fat widescreen” instead of hoping for more vertical space. Darn… I love those big ol’ square 4:3s… I still spend far more time reading Top to Bottom than oogling over the sand dune photog’s in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA…


#7

[QUOTE=ChristineBCW;2645937]

Anyway… I suppose if we see “16:9” then we can assume “short fat widescreen” instead of hoping for more vertical space. Darn… I love those big ol’ square 4:3s… I still spend far more time reading Top to Bottom than oogling over the sand dune photog’s in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA…[/QUOTE]

That ‘short fat’ phrase was indeed funny. My ratio is quite slim since I never weighed over 60kg.

The things that first attracted me to computers were Encyclopedia Britannica and The Complete Works of Shakespeare on CD-ROM around 1990. Since those on printed books were hard to find from Seoul to Gwangju, it was a natural progress to look into computers. 4:3 ratio’s better for eBook readers than 16:9 so I bought 4:3 monitors instead of 16:10 or 16:9 ones unless the latter were much cheaper. As times went by, the panel manufacturers - first Sharp and LG.Philips LCD and then Samsung, Chimei… - had to change to meet the requirements of HP and Dell as they themselves had to do what Hollywood wanted. Soon, it was cheaper to buy a 16:9 16801050 22-inh monitors than 4:3 16001200 20-inch monitors. 1050 vertical pixels mean 150 less pixels. My Dell laptop I’m using right now has 19201080 resolution. The Dell - which I still own but stopped using since around 2004 - of 2003 has 19201200. It wasn’t progress. Apple’s iPhone and iPad have 1.5:1 and 1.33:1 ratio, respectively. Most Android phones and tablets are trying to adopt 16:9. Apple itself sells a lot of eBooks on its iBooks store. Samsung executives are little interested in contents, especially when it comes to books. That’s also why it’ll be difficult to find anything serious on Samsung’s Smart TV. Apple TV will be better for those more interested in eBooks though I have never heard of anyone reading books on 50-inch screens.

So after all these years, I’m still buying printed books and spent more than US$100 on printer toners within one year period while hoping to find a used MacBook Pro with 2880*1800 resolution for under KRW2,000,000 (or about US$1,800.)


#8

Ah yes, that’s it - 1900x1200 vs 1900x1080.

Your comment sounds almost “appeasement-like” between flat-screen makers and Hollywood, and I just don’t believe that’s the connection.

I think it’s more likely a “wants to” connection, but not “have to” observe some aspect-ratio ‘commitment’.

You bring up eBooks-etc and this is an interesting factor because, considering Revenue Future Of Books vs. Revenue Future Of Video, and your argument (“have to do Hollywood’s bidding for aspect ratios”) appears more favorable.

However, there really isn’t a “Hollywood” per se. No one or ten ‘studios’ exist that would cut off a horse’s head and stuff it in Steve Job’s bed in order to gain one aspect-ratio.

All of my whining aside, I SHOULD be happy to see that we might be achieving One True Standard. :bow:

For now.


#9

It goes back to the days of DVD Forum and DVD+RW Alliance, and later, the Blu-ray Disc Foundation. In some earlier years, Sony and Philips did the CD and DVD works. The two were and still are the primary licensors.

There have been a lot of influences from NHK, Disney, Time Warner, BBC, KBS on finalizing standards. NHK was one of the most powerful parties developing HDTV. That was 1960s, long before LG Electronics bought Zenith. It is no coincidence you can find NHK is the first corporate name to encounter on this article.

The Hollywood movie and other entertainment companies were the decisive forces behind the ultimate victory of Blu-ray over HD DVD and other competing standards. Otherwise, China with its own standard could have won.

This is another side issue, but LG and Samsung faced a far more serious enemy than Sony in developing and selling HDTV sets. That was anti-Americanism in their domestic market. Since all the three broadcasting companies were by then totally controlled by pro-North and anti-American producers and engineers, it was the KBS, the MBC, and the SBS that opposed the government to settle on any US-made or US-sponsored standard. How can LG and Samsung sell HDTV sets without observing standard and ensuring compatibility? That’s why it took so many years for the two to catch up with Sony, Pioneer, Panasonic of Matsushita, and other Japanese electronics makers.

Standards are the results of money and politics, but they also determine the future of the industries and consumer habits.


#10

If the display resolution is set correctly, (1920x1200 vs 1920x1080), it shouldn’t matter whether your monitor is 16:10 or 16:9, objects should still have the correct geometry.

I recently shopped for 24" widescreen monitors and didn’t find a single current model with 16:10 aspect. I actually prefer the extra real estate.


#11

I apologize for MISnaming this subject line - I wish I’d have named it WIDE-SCREEN ASPECT RATIO instead of “Flat Screen”. Du-uh.

Ken, this is why I love this forum. Yes, I remember the pre-HD-BD rages that were whispered about, the Chinese offering up an XVD format - some super 90Gb disk or something, something that was anti-Sony/Japanese, anti-American, a very “WE have the biggest potential for a consumer market so WE are going to issue standards!”

I rather liked that attitude, although I’m not so keen on Biggest Bullies getting their way.

Nor the Other Bullies, either, for that matter.

I was shocked that Toshiba, Pioneer, Panasonic all gave in and moved to BluRay, cowtowing to Sony-Phillips like they did with CD formats. And not just joining, but agreeing to pay this license fee, too. All of this JUST to combat the Red Hordes of Commie China? Sheesh, folks - if China wants to shut down the world’s electronics (and economy), they can already!

But I still think my favorite dishes have come from Taiwan.


#12

CDan, over on EggHead, occasionally I’ll see “HP Debranded” 2411 series and these have been 1920x1200 max-res, which seems to be the ‘code’ for 16:10.

I just checked and they’re out of stock on the 23" Debranded and I never recommend anything smaller than a true 24" - 23.6 is still a considerable loss of screen-viewing area. We brought in several of the debranded 2511s and they were the 16x10 ratio too, but that was last month.

I see the HP 2711 series is only claiming 1920x1080. Oh well… that appears to be the way o’ the world…

I’d blame Ken for this, but Stormy hasn’t chimed in for a while and I’ve been getting away with blaming him for many woes. I might just try that again! :):slight_smile:


#13

[QUOTE=ChristineBCW;2645960]I apologize for MISnaming this subject line - [B]I wish I’d have named it WIDE-SCREEN ASPECT RATIO[/B] instead of “Flat Screen”. Du-uh.

Ken, this is why I love this forum. Yes, I remember the pre-HD-BD rages that were whispered about, the Chinese offering up an XVD format - some super 90Gb disk or something, something that was anti-Sony/Japanese, anti-American, a very “WE have the biggest potential for a consumer market so WE are going to issue standards!”

I rather liked that attitude, although I’m not so keen on Biggest Bullies getting their way.

Nor the Other Bullies, either, for that matter.

I was shocked that Toshiba, Pioneer, Panasonic all gave in and moved to BluRay, cowtowing to Sony-Phillips like they did with CD formats. And not just joining, but agreeing to pay this license fee, too. All of this JUST to combat the Red Hordes of Commie China? Sheesh, folks - if China wants to shut down the world’s electronics (and economy), they can already!

But I still think my favorite dishes have come from Taiwan.[/QUOTE]

Hey Christine

Maybe eric will be nice and rename it for you, I would if I could. :iagree:

[B]SJ[/B]


#14

Thread title changed :slight_smile:

The only thing I can think of if the Interpolation issue that can come about with LCD screens when the video software in your PC doesn’t know the true pixel count for the screen. Interpolation at Wikipedia

So you can try two things, one is to do a clean install (nvidia option) and update your video drivers. And if that doesn’t do the trick you can search for a driver for your specific monitor that will tell the PC exactly how to handle your monitor.


#15

[QUOTE=ChristineBCW;2645960]

I was shocked that Toshiba, Pioneer, Panasonic all gave in and moved to BluRay, cowtowing to Sony-Phillips like they did with CD formats. And not just joining, but agreeing to pay this license fee, too. All of this JUST to combat the Red Hordes of Commie China? Sheesh, folks - if China wants to shut down the world’s electronics (and economy), they can already!

But I still think my favorite dishes have come from Taiwan.[/QUOTE]

The way you type must somehow reflect the way you speak. How fast do you speak?

Perhaps I didn’t read or understand fully at first thinking it was about resolution and aspect ratios.

It’s sometimes helpful to check the model name of the panels and AD boards. There are fewer manufacturers of those components and fewer model names. Drivers, OSD’s, remote controls, etc. can vary on the same panels and AD boards. I especially liked LG’s Q3 and Q5 panels. I had two Q3’s. The full name is 'LG LM300WQ3 (ST)(A2). Here’s a screenshot of a web page here in Korean. Those Q3 have 25601600 native resolution. Newer 27-inch panels shipped to Apple, Dell, HP, and thousands of others as well support 25601440 instead. One can suffer from the lost vertical pixels by that much. It’s relatively easy to assemble 30-inch or 27-inch monitors, but AD boards with HDMI, DP, remote control support, and so on are expensive, sometimes more expensive than the panels.

One more thing: the shop mentioned above as an example was just one of the hundreds and thousands of LCD manufacturers in South Korea. They sold 30-inch monitors, fully assembled, delivered to home, based on LG’s Q3 panels, directly from LG’s Paju or Gumi factories, for about US$400 five years ago. Apple sold their monitors based on the same panels at over US$2,000 in South Korea. Many 27-inch 2560*1440 monitors are sold at US$200 unit prices, sometimes even lower than that. Apple’s selling similar types at something like US$1,000. Of course, the Apple versions have things like Thunderbolt.



#16

Eric, thanks… I wish I’d typed the correct phrase to begin with!

Of course, this means I owe Stormy even MORE now… jiminy… I was going looking forward to building a voodoo in HIS likeness, and now I just can’t! Darn! Once again, men aren’t letting me have any fun! Poke poke, jab jab.


#17

Ken, I noticed that the 16:10 ratio was available on one of those panels, and the rest were 16:9.

I especially liked the photos of rooms of panels stacked together. And the idea of hard-wiring a panel vertically - wheee…

I’ve reset monitors to be ‘vertical’ before only to run across things like BIOS Setups that end up making me car-sick trying to work sideways and backwards… “Maybe I go stretch out on the floor and do BIOS updates next time?”

Ken, as for Resolutions and Aspect Ratios… on some of the HP Monitors, they will state “16:9” but also state “1920x1200” - which is 16:10. Of course, they hopefully realize “I can achieve 16:9 perfectly, but even better - I can also be 16:10!” Wise users may realize this.

This is the only time that I’ve used Max Resolution to PERHAPS discover the monitor’s best possible Aspect Ratio. And still, there’s nothing like going to stores and measuring. Then quickly calculating. “Hubby, did you bring the slide rule?” I love slide rules. They can also be used to slap Hubby’s hand quite smartly.


#18

[QUOTE=ChristineBCW;2646122]Eric, thanks… I wish I’d typed the correct phrase to begin with!

Of course, this means I owe Stormy even MORE now… jiminy… I was going looking forward to building a voodoo in HIS likeness, and now I just can’t! Darn! Once again, men aren’t letting me have any fun! Poke poke, jab jab.[/QUOTE]

You owe nothing Christine :flower: :kiss:

We are not just here to moderate but also to lend a hand when and where we can to our fellow members and newly found friends. :wink:

As for the voodoo doll goes, be careful spirits work very mysteriously especially mine when it comes to small toes which you have. :iagree: :bigsmile:


#19

[QUOTE=StormJumper;2646129]…be careful, spirits work very mysteriously especially mine when it comes to small toes…[/QUOTE]

Teeheehee - ! Wink wink, nudge nudge… Say n’more, say n’more…


#20

[QUOTE=ChristineBCW;2646170]Teeheehee - ! Wink wink, nudge nudge… Say n’more, say n’more…[/QUOTE]
ssshhhh[B]!!![/B] not here :wink: