hmm wrote: »
I'm not aware of any stable drivers for it on Linux, although a lot of VFX work is done on Linux. Some of the animation and compositing packages are certified under Fedora. It's favored for the ability to make performance tweaks more than anything. I have read that a couple Nvidia cards supported 10 bit paths on OSX briefly and unofficially under Leopard, but I can't confirm it. Even then you wouldn't have a full path without the software developers on board. It couldn't go Nuke --> framebuffer ---> screen 10->10->10. Windows supports it with specific card features enabled, so it is a rather small matrix of working setups.
No problem. I was about to type up a more thorough explanation complete with nerd math, but there are many parts of it that I don't understand well enough myself. 10 bit paths with suitable underlying electronics would better accommodate displays of wider overall gamut if it is assumed that all other factors remain equal. This means panels and design of comparable quality and design philosophy as well as hardware that can truly differentiate 2^10 levels per channel rather than 2^8 (1024 vs 256). It's just that contrary to the tendency to visualize device gamuts as solid state items, they are better envisioned as a topology of discrete points. Due to gamma the dots are not evenly spaced. The gamut determines the outer boundaries. The assigned bits determine the distance between points. Also the concept of an LUT is a point to point linear mapping between input (from the framebuffer) and output points. The older matrix method predominantly employed via ICC profile attempts to use key points of inflection on a (somewhat) continuous output curve/graph and interpolate between them. Personal experience would suggest that the LUT method if well implemented offers a much nicer greyscale due to less variation in color temperature from white to black.
Blah I drifted back into nerd talk anyway. Oh well. It's probably about as accurate as I can be.
solipsismx wrote: »
I don't necessarily want something as tall as the 32" but I want something wider. I really hope we see a move to a wider aspect ratio for these larger desktop monitors and HDTVs. Our eyes are designed for it.
benjamin frost wrote: »
I beg to disagree. I know that widescreen is considered good for film because it more closely replicates our field of vision, but we only focus on a relatively small field. Indeed, when it comes to reading, too wide a column makes it very hard. As such, I think the shape of any screen doesn't really matter for most things, certainly for work-related activity. Bang and Olufsen once sold a square tv—one of their high-end ones, too.
I do appreciate your point, though.
solipsismx wrote: »
If we're talking about a single column I would wholeheartedly agree. I'm not talking about Textedit as a single wide page, but a complex app with multiple sections, multiple windows of an app or multiple apps open side-by-side. This is considerably more efficient from left to right than say the same display turned 90° so it's up and down, or having dual monitors that have to essentially cut an otherwise fluid display.
I'm thinking about Xcode but I can see this being useful for FCPX and all those high-end A/V editing apps. It kind of reminds me of when I would do research for school with multiple books open side-by-side on a table so I could look from to the other. I would put material above but that's only if I ran out of space side-by-side.
Example of poor utilization of 21:9 aspect ratio:
I assume this is a good example of 21:9 aspect ratio:
For me, I want to be able to keep the Assistant Editor and Version Editor windows up more often in Xcode without having to then hide the Navigation and Utilities sidebars when I'm using that feature just to get more usable room to I'm not spending so much time turning windows on and off. Here is an example of my cramped system on a Retina MBP.
benjamin frost wrote: »
Fair enough. And with applications, the sides of the screens are disproportionally important, because all the menus get shifted there. Therefore, the top and bottom of the screens need easy access, which is an argument for a wider screen.
But I don't think your books on a table analogy quite stands up. Sitting at a desk, you're looking across, not up at a vertical screen. Once you start putting books above, you're looking at an angle of 45 degrees, far from ideal. On a vertical screen, things are much easier.
So I'm inclined to say that you probably win the argument due to the intrinsic nature of how applications are designed, rather than due to the difference between a wide or a tall screen.