NEC takes high resolution LCD crown
Posted on Oct 19, 06 09:41 PM PDT
Your Comments
Comments will be published immediately if you use a Disqus, Facebook or Twitter account. Anonymous comments will be moderated.
Legacy Comments
By Jz , 30/01/08 2:48 PM (CommentID #454583)
Part of what I said got erased... Wide screen is pointless because 4:3 was already wider than square displays. It's not about how wide you make it. Super wide is good for movie theaters so they can sell more tickets, but that's not the best display. As the other guy said, you are not trying to fit a big audience in with a 22 inch display. That also goes for a 65 inch television. It would require a huge theater in order to be worth it. The idiotic thing I hear is that 4:3 screens cut off the sides. Well wide screen cuts off the top and bottom! It's not about how wide you can make it. What is important is the shape of the window you look through. Would it be better to have it even wider? Then we'd have a slit to look through. The best shape is just slightly wider than a square because our eyes appreciate looking to the side a little. That's 4:3 instead of 4:4. 4 is the wide part. When you make it even wider than that you get an irregular shape like a slit which is stupid. But some of the dummies out there would be pleased if you found them an even wider screen. All you need to tell them is that it shows you even more of the sides for even wider movies like 2001 for example. Again, those movies were designed to pack in huge audiences. So it's a sacrifice to see through that shape. Do we really want to mimic these shapes in our homes and offices? NO, it's idiotic. Unless you just want to watch movies on it. But then everything else you do suffers. Then I say get a real job and buy a big TV rather than watch it on your computer.
By Jz , 30/01/08 2:36 PM (CommentID #454566)
I agree. There was little reason to have wide screen monitors other than to please the movie buffs out there. And the way they buy is to look at how bright the monitor is for watching their favorite Rambo flick.
By Guillermo Sureda-Burgos , 19/01/08 9:22 PM (CommentID #437938)
Am I the only "real" high-ress user left in the world? Is there anybody else in the CGI-CADD comunity that values a 3Mpixel (2048X1536) desktop on an old fashion heavy CRT, over a slim and sexy LCD with a puny 2Mpixel (1600X1200) display? By tha way I HATE panoramic (greater than 1.33 W/Hratios)displays too, what serious proffesional (other than film & video pros) value this proportions? Does the new standards mean we have to re-design or webpages to fit a format created by the movi industry to cram more people on theaters? Or do I have to buy a medical display LCD for 5-10 grand to do the same I did on my 22 inch LaCie?
By John Cox , 15/01/07 3:25 AM (CommentID #084919)
Still beaten by the five year old 22" IBM T221 with a resolution of 3840x2400.
Featured Posts
Top Stories
Palm Pixi Review
Holiday shopping: our Uber10 suggestions and vote!
Wooden Induction Charger
iPhone Ocarina
Snaefell hybrid bike car
Google OSes might merge
Flare wind-sensitive electronic dress
Pogoplug 2 announced, looks great
Free In-flight Wi-fi on Virgin America by Google
Advertisement
