Cathode Ray Tubes lend themselves to circles (or, indeed, hemispheres). Televisions standardized on 4:3 aspect ratio as kind of a circle with four sides kind of dented in.
Then there was all the hell of different aspect ratios in the late 2000s or so that...kinda hasn't stopped?
Televisions have mostly crystalized on 16:9. Computer monitors are all the fuck over the place; 16:10 is common on laptops but surprisingly difficult to find in standalone monitors, gaming monitors start at 16:9 and only go wider, I believe mine is a 21:9? And then there's smart phones, which A. are often ultrawide, and B. are usually held in portrait mode.
Then there's media itself. Television recorded before ~2006 is often 4:3, with the exception of some shows like Babylon 5 which saw HDTV coming and filmed in widescreen that was cropped for 4:3. Modern television is made for 16:9. Movies? Most of them are made wider than 16:9, with some directors going even wider/vertically narrower to be more "cinematic" because their pay scales with how far up their own asses they are. Same thing happens on Youtube. Linus "Sebastian" Tech Tips was often in the habit of bitching about camera notches/holes in phone screens being in the way of content...while simultaneously mastering his own videos at an ultrawide aspect ratio, so that they're letterboxed on standard televisions and most computer monitors, and they extend to the edge of a phone screen where all the rounded corners and camera holes are. It's like he's bad at decisions or something.
Linus "Sebastian" Tech Tips was often in the habit of bitching about camera notches/holes in phone screens being in the way of content...while simultaneously mastering his own videos at an ultrawide aspect ratio, so that they're letterboxed on standard televisions and most computer monitors, and they extend to the edge of a phone screen where all the rounded corners and camera holes are. It's like he's bad at decisions or something.
🤣
I totally disagree with your stance on wider screen movies and TV shows though. Generally speaking, if it’s an aesthetic choice.
I’ve started to suspect that the minor deviation from 16:9 is a bandwidth saver that streaming services have imposed, though. Because the total pixels go down. And as far as I’m aware, there are no anamorphic video files served on YouTube, Netflix or other services. That seems to have stopped being practiced after we moved on from DVDs.
They were called "roundies". Usually the top and bottom were purposefully obscured by the casing. Just look up TVs from the 50s to see what I'm talking about.
Widescreen format has a width/height ratio of 1.78, human vision has a width/height ratio of 1.8.
Why would you want a screen that isn't somewhat close to the same ratio as your vision? Your one pixel tall screen is quite far off from the ratio of human vision.
I guess depends on you? Mine is ~21:9 ratio, so I can have 2 ~square windows next to eachother. BUT I can resize them however I want without being limited like on 2 monitor setup.
why is a resolution primarily measured in vertical pixels, but a screen size is measured in diagonal? shouldn't it be vertical, so that it's easily comparable across resolutions and sizes?
Are resolutions predominantly measured in vertical pixels? I thought it was horizontal? Like, 1080p is 1080 wide? I don't know anything about resolutions though so I'm likely wrong!
46 Comments
ryathal@sh.itjust.works · 99 pts · 338d
The way we sell screens by diagonal does seem like marketing got away with one.
shalafi@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 338d
I'm reading we started with the method because with circular, and later nearly circular screens, this was the most consistent measurements.
Plus, measuring diagonally gives us a clue to both width and height.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 13 pts · 338d
I can't help but imagine a world in which displays were circles instead of rectangles or squares.
I don't like it. 😬
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 338d
Cathode Ray Tubes lend themselves to circles (or, indeed, hemispheres). Televisions standardized on 4:3 aspect ratio as kind of a circle with four sides kind of dented in.
Then there was all the hell of different aspect ratios in the late 2000s or so that...kinda hasn't stopped?
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 13 pts · 338d
I'd rather have a triangular interocitor.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 338d
You collective head of knuckle.
SolOrion@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 338d
Has it not? I feel like 16:9 has basically won, with a consolation prize for 16:10
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 338d
Televisions have mostly crystalized on 16:9. Computer monitors are all the fuck over the place; 16:10 is common on laptops but surprisingly difficult to find in standalone monitors, gaming monitors start at 16:9 and only go wider, I believe mine is a 21:9? And then there's smart phones, which A. are often ultrawide, and B. are usually held in portrait mode.
Then there's media itself. Television recorded before ~2006 is often 4:3, with the exception of some shows like Babylon 5 which saw HDTV coming and filmed in widescreen that was cropped for 4:3. Modern television is made for 16:9. Movies? Most of them are made wider than 16:9, with some directors going even wider/vertically narrower to be more "cinematic" because their pay scales with how far up their own asses they are. Same thing happens on Youtube. Linus "Sebastian" Tech Tips was often in the habit of bitching about camera notches/holes in phone screens being in the way of content...while simultaneously mastering his own videos at an ultrawide aspect ratio, so that they're letterboxed on standard televisions and most computer monitors, and they extend to the edge of a phone screen where all the rounded corners and camera holes are. It's like he's bad at decisions or something.
paraphrand@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 338d
🤣
I totally disagree with your stance on wider screen movies and TV shows though. Generally speaking, if it’s an aesthetic choice.
I’ve started to suspect that the minor deviation from 16:9 is a bandwidth saver that streaming services have imposed, though. Because the total pixels go down. And as far as I’m aware, there are no anamorphic video files served on YouTube, Netflix or other services. That seems to have stopped being practiced after we moved on from DVDs.
lime@feddit.nu · 3 pts · 338d
3:2 my beloved. best monitor ratio.
defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 338d
They were called "roundies". Usually the top and bottom were purposefully obscured by the casing. Just look up TVs from the 50s to see what I'm talking about.
hakunawazo@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 337d
Screen doesn't always need to be rectangular. Look at this nice screen:
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 338d
Further complicating this is that the screen is curved.
So... they'd have to take a tailors tape, from one diagonal to another, also pressing it into the screen, being careful not to damage it.
Either that or take a width heght and depth measurent and do a bit of trig.
frank@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 338d
Yeah, measuring the arc of the curved width using the width and sagitta is a little tricky, too, but totally doable with trig.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagitta_%28geometry%29?wprov=sfla1
The wiki main image suggests to me, a mere math casual, that you might even need one more piece of information than just s and l?
marcos@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 338d
It's reasonable. What they got away with was labeling wide screens as a good thing.
BombOmOm@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 338d
Human vision is wider than it is tall. It makes sense for screens to reflect this fact. 180° horizontally and 100° verticaly.
marcos@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 338d
So, way closer to 4/3 like old standard screens than to 16/9 like the screens nobody even calls "wide" anymore?
TeNppa@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 338d
Can you show the math behind?
Hackworth@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 338d
marcos@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 338d
Now that the numbers on the original post changed, no, it's not closer anymore.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 338d
Now imagine a display 24" wide and one pixel high.
BombOmOm@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 338d
Widescreen format has a width/height ratio of 1.78, human vision has a width/height ratio of 1.8.
Why would you want a screen that isn't somewhat close to the same ratio as your vision? Your one pixel tall screen is quite far off from the ratio of human vision.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 338d
"wide screens" != "widescreen". I'm merely demonstrating that distinction with an extreme example.
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 338d
Wide screens are great when you treat them as 2 screens combined as one. It just doesn't make sense for a single window for most usecases
marcos@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 338d
As long as you get a much larger diagonal than the screens they are replacing...
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 336d
I guess depends on you? Mine is ~21:9 ratio, so I can have 2 ~square windows next to eachother. BUT I can resize them however I want without being limited like on 2 monitor setup.
Speiser0@feddit.org · 1 pts · 338d
Well, it's also in inches, so nobody has a mental image of what the number means anyways.
mycodesucks@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 338d
I love that Amazon's approval process for reviews doesn't filter out ANY of this stupidity.
I read a livid one-star review once from a customer who angrily returned a wireless router because the box had wires in it.
PugJesus@lemmy.world MOD · 14 pts · 338d
Just a reminder that the comm has moved to !historymemes@piefed.social
nutbutter@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 338d
Why?
PugJesus@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 338d
There's a pinned post explaining
smeg@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 337d
PugJesus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 337d
Yeah, prefer not to use that option yet.
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 338d
What if words? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.
NichEherVielleicht@feddit.org · 3 pts · 338d
Thanks.
Corrected if into of in the title.
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 338d
no, no, they have a point
why is a resolution primarily measured in vertical pixels, but a screen size is measured in diagonal? shouldn't it be vertical, so that it's easily comparable across resolutions and sizes?
rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 338d
Are resolutions predominantly measured in vertical pixels? I thought it was horizontal? Like, 1080p is 1080 wide? I don't know anything about resolutions though so I'm likely wrong!
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 338d
1080p is 1920x1080 (WxH)
1440p is 2560x1440
edgemaster72@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 338d
Then you get to 4K and whoops, we broke the naming convention
rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 338d
Oh my god. Duh 😂 I literally did the 1920x1080 thing but somehow still thought 1080 was the width 😂 Thank you!
Lauchmelder@feddit.org · 7 pts · 338d
how is this a history meme
JandroDelSol@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 338d
Pythagorus was a guy in the past
horn_e4_beaver@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 338d
No, he was a sentient triangle.
Lauchmelder@feddit.org · 1 pts · 338d
oh mb I thought he was a scientist
bobo@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 337d
Mathematicians are scientists that don't wear lab coats?
ayyy@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 338d
Oof yea I did the thing where I upvotes without checking the community. Shame on me.
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 338d
If you give Pythagoras the width and the aspect ratio, he’ll be just fine.
Blackout@fedia.io · 2 pts · 338d
Why is my Samsung 49-in curved monitor only 14 in high? It should be 49x49 duh.