Just wondering if anyone noticed that the 17 inch studio displays have a native resolution of 1280 x 1024? This makes the aspect ratio 1.25 instead of the conventional 1.33? Apple narrowscreen displays!
That's actually a typical screen resolution, a 4:5 proportion, though it is weird compared to the standard 3:4 proportion, or the 16:10 or 16:9 aspect ratio of the widescreens. That's the resolution that's on my Dell's Trinitron monitor right now.
Speaking of narrow, wouldn't it be cool if they make new displays that could rotate so it is a real narrowscreen display? I think I read that new graphics chips will be able to handle this, but I distinctly remember an old Apple display that could rotate. Our high school has one IIRC.
IIRC, the Studio 17 LCD is more expensive to produce than the imac 17 WS LCD
diagonal area measurement in both cases, but the surface area of the 4:3 aspect ratio is larger and significantly harder to manufacture as a contiguous area "free of bad pixels" below a (recently changed) reject rate.
Widescreen 16:9(iMac17, ACD) or 16:10(Tibook) format LCDs are actually cheaper to make than 4:3 of equal diagonal size due to smaller surface area, which allows for higher yields free of bad pixels.
extra pixel density and manufacturing evolutions since the era when 1280x1024 was max LCD res bring us an iMac 17 screen that rate the same diagonally but deliver 1440x900 native
there are threads on the various PPI density of different monitors and LCDs and people's preferences
somebody, ?Pscates? linked in a "Monitor for G5" thread some images of screens that seemed to float on bezels and/or rotate
Chicken related, actually... Old story dating 10 years ago...
Another thought just occured to me. Since we are more tall than wide, wouldn't it make sense to be able to rotate iSight so that it is narrower to better suit our own physical dimensions? More person and less background!
I remember this done in the Judge Dredd movie (also from almost 10 years ago, I think...), where their videophones were tall and narrow
thought just occured to me. Since we are more tall than wide, wouldn't it make sense to be able to rotate iSight so that it is narrower to better suit our own physical dimensions?
Our field of view is wider than tall, so the widescreens make a lot of sense.
I do, however own a Apple Portrait Monitor with a resolution of 640x864 - almost 10 years back it was all the rage to see one whole page on screen
Chicken related, actually... Old story dating 10 years ago...
Another thought just occured to me. Since we are more tall than wide, wouldn't it make sense to be able to rotate iSight so that it is narrower to better suit our own physical dimensions? More person and less background!
I remember this done in the Judge Dredd movie (also from almost 10 years ago, I think...), where their videophones were tall and narrow
However radius also had a similar display once and I believe it could be rotated. I believe the Apple Display was only portrait and could not be rotated.
diagonal area measurement in both cases, but the surface area of the 4:3 aspect ratio is larger and significantly harder to manufacture as a contiguous area "free of bad pixels" below a (recently changed) reject rate.
Widescreen 16:9(iMac17, ACD) or 16:10(Tibook) format LCDs are actually cheaper to make than 4:3 of equal diagonal size due to smaller surface area, which allows for higher yields free of bad pixels.
*wanders off to search for links*
just a few errors then:
5:4 in the case of studio 17
16:10 in the case of iMac 17 (and PB17", ACD 20, 22, 23)
Does anybody know how these "magic numbers" are chosen for the aspect ratios?
16:10 because it is close to 16:9 for video editing.
The PB screen is 3:2 because it is as close to 16:9 you can get without having a 15" screen that is not high enough to display a decent amout of a page. Even the 3:2 form factor cause problems at first because most computer bags weren't designed for such a wide laptop.
16:10 is better proportion, anyway IMO, but you can also rationalize it that the menubar is the little bit of extra height, leaving the rest of the screen regular 16:9. 16:9 is an common film aspect ratio, and the adopted HDTV standard proportion. Why they went with 16:9 for movies in the first place is basically arbitrary. Some old movies are much wider, but this was settled on. 35mm photographic film is a 3:2 proportion because Mr. Eastman liked it's shape best. (A 5:3/golden mean that was pitched to him for his film format but he liked his proportion better). Old fashioned TV is 3:4 proportion, and seems pretty logical/comfortable.
I have no real idea why 1280 x 1024 are typical screen dimensions. Probably some sort of weird computer nerd thing related to typical 768 x 1024 dimensions.
Check this great link out for understanding aspect ratios all one one page with popular movie images clipped for different aspect ratios!
A lot of this comes from the film industry and with the move to HDTV, the 16x9 or 1.85 aspect ratio (named Anamorphic) was chosen for this new technology, much to the disgust of directors who like the true Widescreen ration of 2.35:1
Check this great link out for understanding aspect ratios all one one page with popular movie images clipped for different aspect ratios!
A lot of this comes from the film industry and with the move to HDTV, the 16x9 or 1.85 aspect ratio (named Anamorphic) was chosen for this new technology, much to the disgust of directors who like the true Widescreen ration of 2.35:1
Speaking of narrow, wouldn't it be cool if they mae new displays that could rotate so it is a real narrowscreen display? I think I read that new graphics chips will be able to handle this, but I distinctly remember an old Apple display that could rotate. Our high school has one IIRC.
The LaCie monitors support this (only in OS 9, though).
Comments
PS: welcome!
Welcome, drumsticks. <musical or chicken ref?>
diagonal area measurement in both cases, but the surface area of the 4:3 aspect ratio is larger and significantly harder to manufacture as a contiguous area "free of bad pixels" below a (recently changed) reject rate.
Widescreen 16:9(iMac17, ACD) or 16:10(Tibook) format LCDs are actually cheaper to make than 4:3 of equal diagonal size due to smaller surface area, which allows for higher yields free of bad pixels.
extra pixel density and manufacturing evolutions since the era when 1280x1024 was max LCD res bring us an iMac 17 screen that rate the same diagonally but deliver 1440x900 native
there are threads on the various PPI density of different monitors and LCDs and people's preferences
somebody, ?Pscates? linked in a "Monitor for G5" thread some images of screens that seemed to float on bezels and/or rotate
*wanders off to search for links*
Another thought just occured to me. Since we are more tall than wide, wouldn't it make sense to be able to rotate iSight so that it is narrower to better suit our own physical dimensions? More person and less background!
I remember this done in the Judge Dredd movie (also from almost 10 years ago, I think...), where their videophones were tall and narrow
Originally posted by drumsticks
thought just occured to me. Since we are more tall than wide, wouldn't it make sense to be able to rotate iSight so that it is narrower to better suit our own physical dimensions?
Our field of view is wider than tall, so the widescreens make a lot of sense.
I do, however own a Apple Portrait Monitor with a resolution of 640x864 - almost 10 years back it was all the rage to see one whole page on screen
Originally posted by drumsticks
Chicken related, actually... Old story dating 10 years ago...
Another thought just occured to me. Since we are more tall than wide, wouldn't it make sense to be able to rotate iSight so that it is narrower to better suit our own physical dimensions? More person and less background!
I remember this done in the Judge Dredd movie (also from almost 10 years ago, I think...), where their videophones were tall and narrow
You're thinking of Demolition Man... 8)
Yes you are right. It was Demolition Man. Good memory!
Welcome drumsticks.
No it was an Apple monitor it was called a Page Display or something.
Apple Portrait Display Manual
Link
However radius also had a similar display once and I believe it could be rotated. I believe the Apple Display was only portrait and could not be rotated.
-Snowster
Originally posted by curiousuburb
diagonal area measurement in both cases, but the surface area of the 4:3 aspect ratio is larger and significantly harder to manufacture as a contiguous area "free of bad pixels" below a (recently changed) reject rate.
Widescreen 16:9(iMac17, ACD) or 16:10(Tibook) format LCDs are actually cheaper to make than 4:3 of equal diagonal size due to smaller surface area, which allows for higher yields free of bad pixels.
*wanders off to search for links*
just a few errors then:
5:4 in the case of studio 17
16:10 in the case of iMac 17 (and PB17", ACD 20, 22, 23)
3:2 in the case of Ti.
Originally posted by drumsticks
Does anybody know how these "magic numbers" are chosen for the aspect ratios?
16:10 because it is close to 16:9 for video editing.
The PB screen is 3:2 because it is as close to 16:9 you can get without having a 15" screen that is not high enough to display a decent amout of a page. Even the 3:2 form factor cause problems at first because most computer bags weren't designed for such a wide laptop.
4:3 is the same as a TV.
Video/monitor experts: Am I right?
I have no real idea why 1280 x 1024 are typical screen dimensions. Probably some sort of weird computer nerd thing related to typical 768 x 1024 dimensions.
A lot of this comes from the film industry and with the move to HDTV, the 16x9 or 1.85 aspect ratio (named Anamorphic) was chosen for this new technology, much to the disgust of directors who like the true Widescreen ration of 2.35:1
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconVall...pectratio.html
Check this great link out for understanding aspect ratios all one one page with popular movie images clipped for different aspect ratios!
A lot of this comes from the film industry and with the move to HDTV, the 16x9 or 1.85 aspect ratio (named Anamorphic) was chosen for this new technology, much to the disgust of directors who like the true Widescreen ration of 2.35:1
Originally posted by Aquatic
Speaking of narrow, wouldn't it be cool if they mae new displays that could rotate so it is a real narrowscreen display? I think I read that new graphics chips will be able to handle this, but I distinctly remember an old Apple display that could rotate. Our high school has one IIRC.
The LaCie monitors support this (only in OS 9, though).