Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What's with all the shortscreen monitors?
I was seriously looking into getting a new computer. I decided against it for now, but in the process, found a disturbing trend. It seems that the normal monitors with a 4:3 or 5:4 aspect ratio barely exist anymore, at least if you want a new one.
Instead, monitor companies are mostly pushing these awful shortscreen monitors. I realize that they officially call them "widescreen", but that's just a marketing gimmick. I can understand that it is cheaper to make smaller monitors with the same diagonal length because it's cheaper to make a monitor with less screen area. Perhaps they figured that if they made a 20" monitor 20 inches wide and 1 inch tall, people would catch on, so they didn't want to take the concept all the way to its logical conclusion.
What I can't understand is why very many people would want such a monitor. Maybe people look at it and think 19" is 19", not realizing that a 19" "widescreen" is shorter than a 15" normal monitor at 5:4 aspect ratio would be. That's not "wide". That's tiny.
I can understand that it would be nice for watching movies. A TV is nicer yet for watching movies, so it wouldn't make sense for very many people to want a computer monitor for watching movies rather than for things that you actually use a computer for.
What do people use a computer for where the width of the monitor is the relevant dimension? First person shooters, perhaps. Having two programs open next to each other rather than tabbing between them, perhaps. And then what? Neither of those are overly common computer uses, are they? If 20% of computer users should prefer a widescreen at least some of the time, how would that justify making 90%+ of the monitors inferior for everyone else?
For e-mail, you already don't use all the width on a 5:4 monitor, but need more height. The same applies with word processing; indeed, pre-computer "word processing" (typewriters or handwritten) used paper taller than it is wide. Internet browsing really needs more height, not more width. For spreadsheets, it can vary, but usually more height would help more than more width. For nearly any 2D/isometric/overhead view game, closer to square is better. For a typical 3D game where the view is above and behind your character, a little more width than height is good, but a 4:3 aspect ratio gives you plenty of width. I guess there are a handful of simple non-first person games such as some variants on solitaire where the limiting factor is the width more than the height, but who would buy a bigger monitor primarily for that?
It's not just that the shortscreen monitors give you a little less height. For the same diagonal measurement, they give you a lot less height--about 22% less. Right now, I'm using a 19" monitor with a 5:4 aspect ratio and a native resolution of 1280x1024. The height of the viewable space on the monitor is theoretically about 11.87 inches, and a measuring tape confirms that it is, indeed, that tall. The theoretical height on a 24" monitor with a 16:9 aspect ratio is only 11.77 inches--smaller than a conventional 19" monitor! If you want merely to match the height (that is, the useable space) of my existing 19" monitor with a widescreen one, you'd have to go larger yet--and pay easily double what I paid for my monitor, in spite of getting it years later, and in an industry where prices tend to fall rapidly with time.
It's not merely that I'm reacting to the different monitor shape being different. I've had to use them for several weeks in total when visiting my parents' house on various occasions, ever since my dad got one when they were pretty new. I've used one at work in my office for the past seven months. The 26" widescreen at work only looks bigger than my 19" normal monitor at home as compared to the size of the desk or chair. It sure doesn't feel much bigger when using it.
So back to the title of my thread: why so many shortscreen monitors? Are people who don't know any better getting suckered into it because they're cheaper for the same diagonal measurement? Are people who don't actually use computers much randomly buying a bunch of computer monitors? Did monitor manufacturers make some catastrophic business decision to build a bunch of monitors that no one wants to buy? Do they figure there are plenty of normal monitors on the market already, so people who want those will buy a used one? Is there some stupid government regulation driving this change? And most importantly, next time I buy a new monitor, will all of the good monitors have been discontinued?
Comments
Personally I find Widescreen (what you call shortscreen) better for games, due to better horizontal vision. More so for FPS, then MMOs, but still. The standard that screens are messured does need to change, messuring diagonal was fine when everything was 4:3... tho I suppose when everything 16:9 or 16:10 it won't matter again... because 16:9/10 will be the only thing you can find.
My 22" 16x10 monitor is the same height as my 19" 5:4 Monitor. Instead of height you get width... the screen area is still there, you not really losing anything.
widescreen is quickly becoming the standard for both TVs and monitors is all. It is a view that fits the human eyes better since we essentially see a widescreen rectangle area with our eyes, not a more squared shape.
Go get a piece of 8 1/2" x 11" notebook paper and set it down as though you're going to write on it. Done? Which way did you orient it? Did you not put the long direction in the vertical direction? Is it not more efficient to read it that way? Humans have known that for centuries. If you put the piece of paper on a computer screen, that doesn't change which way it is more efficient to orient it for reading. And you do use a computer screen for reading things: that's what you're doing right now.
As for gaming, there are only a few games that I've played on both a shortscreen monitor and a normal one. In Wizard101, the extra width while keeping the same height adds absolutely nothing, so I resized the window to leave a bunch of space on the side empty. In Civilization 4, if you have the same number of pixels on the screen either way, the shorter distance that you can see in the north-south direction means that you have to scroll more. In Guild Wars, the main effect of the extra width if you keep the same height is to bog down the video card with having to render more things that have absolutely no impact whatsoever on gameplay and don't even make the game look better. The next biggest effect was having to move the mouse further to click on anything that is placed on the side of the display. In no case was I impressed with the shortscreen monitor.
This thread made me cry. I've never heard anyone refer to a widescreen monitor as a "shortscreen." Comparing a piece of paper with a monitor? Go buy a "shortcreen" monitor that can rotate and set it vertical. Let me know how that works for you.
Go get a piece of 8 1/2" x 11" notebook paper and set it down as though you're going to write on it. Done? Which way did you orient it? Did you not put the long direction in the vertical direction? Is it not more efficient to read it that way? Humans have known that for centuries. If you put the piece of paper on a computer screen, that doesn't change which way it is more efficient to orient it for reading. And you do use a computer screen for reading things: that's what you're doing right now.
As for gaming, there are only a few games that I've played on both a shortscreen monitor and a normal one. In Wizard101, the extra width while keeping the same height adds absolutely nothing, so I resized the window to leave a bunch of space on the side empty. In Civilization 4, if you have the same number of pixels on the screen either way, the shorter distance that you can see in the north-south direction means that you have to scroll more. In Guild Wars, the main effect of the extra width if you keep the same height is to bog down the video card with having to render more things that have absolutely no impact whatsoever on gameplay and don't even make the game look better. The next biggest effect was having to move the mouse further to click on anything that is placed on the side of the display. In no case was I impressed with the shortscreen monitor.
Wrong analogy. Notebook paper is typically made of that dimension because of machine tooling and production limitations that existed in the past.
All in all, it comes down to personal preference. I feel more engaged when the screen is wider, simply because I can no longer see the wall behind the monitor - it covers the width of my vision pretty damn well. My 22" widescreen also gives me a lot more options as far as multitasking with internet browsers, email and other desktop functions.
However, your argument against widescreen monitors is pretty nonsensical. You claim that the extra width provides more pixels for the GPU to calculate - while this is true, it hardly supports the use of a standard sized monitor. Who goes and buys a 10" standard monitor so they can play at 800x600 and reduce the stress on their graphics card? And as far as moving the mouse is concerned, I find it slightly absurd to bash a product because you have more space to move the cursor. Isn't that a good thing?
To each his own, I suppose.
If for many purposes, the ideal shape is nearly square or a little wider than it is tall (say, about 4:3), that is even worse. That would probably work just fine for reading things, but that's about it.
Shortscreen monitors...thats funny, best way to describe a widescreen I've heard yet!
We as in humans see and view everything in panoramic-widescreen, so why not make PCs and TVs which is now the norm widescreen also, instead of looking at a box! You know at first I was also against it and loathed it; specially when movies were all coming out in letterbox only and 1/2 my TV screen were black bars top/bottom.
Then I got a 22" widescreen LCD for my PC, and I don't know how I ever played games before. I'm now saving up for a 37" Widescreen 1080p HDTV which will be my main TV upgrade but I think I'll also play my PC Games on it too! Again as I always say graphics and even HD aren't everything and I've been content with my analog TV, but the world is moving forward and its being forced on us soon so might as well join the crowd and enjoy the wonders of HD!
I've got a number of books on my shelf here. Every single one of them is taller than it is wide, and they're books that aren't intended to be written in. I've seen books that don't do that, but they're pretty rare.
Or how about a newspaper? The surface area on a newspaper when you unfold it is huge, but is broken up into many columns because reading too far across is awkward. Any particular block of text is taller than it is wide unless it is very short.
I've got a number of books on my shelf here. Every single one of them is taller than it is wide, and they're books that aren't intended to be written in. I've seen books that don't do that, but they're pretty rare.
Or how about a newspaper? The surface area on a newspaper when you unfold it is huge, but is broken up into many columns because reading too far across is awkward. Any particular block of text is taller than it is wide unless it is very short.
Reread my post, I changed it to reflect a more objective, scientific answer.
Your analogies aren't doing you any good. A newspaper and a monitor are entirely different mediums, my friend. A newspaper is printed on tall vertical blocks because it reduces the costs of machinery tooling and production. I would also imagine that a horizontally shortened piece of paper is easier to physically manipulate. There is no physical manipulation of a monitor.
On the issue of ease of reading - you would be fairly surprised at how good the human peripheral vision is. I know someone has already stated it fairly clearly: human vision extends to the sides (panoramic), not up and down.
Why do you keep relating a monitor to printed press? Such printed press is designed differently than a monitor. Paper takes into account transporting it, holding it, etc. A monitor does not deal with these things.
If you're going to argue preference in shape, that's one thing. But to call a widescreen monitor a gimmick is something different. By no means is widescreen a gimmick.
Wait, now you're telling me that machine restrictions make it so that traditionally it has been possible to make paper 8 1/2" wide and 11" tall, but not 8 1/2" tall and 11" wide? The piece of paper doesn't know how to orient itself until someone draws lines on and punches holes.
If adding extra unused space on the sides doesn't matter, why not take that to its logical conclusion and make a monitor 10" tall and 10 feet wide, thus bringing your frame rate to a near halt? The problem is that the extra space doesn't add anything to gameplay for a lot of games, but only draws extra stuff that doesn't matter in the slightest because it's out of the action entirely. Even if the extra space on the sides does help some, in most games adding extra space on the top and bottom would help more. The main exception is first person shooters, which I don't play, and even there, a monitor 10 feet wide wouldn't give you near the peripheral vision you have in real life.
What I find most humorous is that the OP is just out and telling me what works for me and what doesn't.
Best that you just adapt to the times Quizz cause your arguments will get ya no where....most of the world loves this new style and technology and its coming upon faster than ever each year.
Do you even read books often...how comfortable do think it would be to hold a widescreen style book and actually keep your place on the page. With as large as most books are becoming these days, it can be stressful on your arms holding them up after awhile. The taller than it is wide style not only fits better everywhere so you don't have to make shelves and bookcases really deep, but it just looks and feels natural.
Just like the widescreen monitors and HDTVs; its like they've set our eyes free from being trapped in the box!
So you're saying monitor and TV manufacturers are cutting corners by only producing "wide-screen"/"shortscreen" products? I suppose it's possible.
At my college, though, we have got huge widescreen monitors that are used in the audio/video recording studios, as well as in the graphics design departments.
You ask why would anyone need a widescreen monitor? a couple examples above. also, editing movies in widescreen format. computers are used for more than office and gaming tasks.
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
I brought up a number of things, and argue the points that people want to argue with. If someone wanted to go off about spreadsheets, I'd talk about those instead.
It's not just that a shortscreen monitor is inferior for some purposes. It's that it's inferior for nearly all purposes that I use a computer monitor for. The only exception is having two windows on the screen next to each other at once, instead of alt+tabbing between them. I don't do that much, and for someone who does do that constantly, it would both be cheaper and get you more space to use two normal monitors. I suppose it's plausible that people who do that a lot (and have used multiple monitors for years) might find the jump from one monitor to the other annoying, but I don't do so enough for it to be a consideration.
Responding to another post, I'm not arguing about what shape a TV ought to be. There the wider screens make more sense, as the space gets used. But I don't see why the appropriate dimensions of a TV should be any more relevant than the appropriate dimensions of a glass window if the question is what shape a computer monitor ought to be.
Wait, now you're telling me that machine restrictions make it so that traditionally it has been possible to make paper 8 1/2" wide and 11" tall, but not 8 1/2" tall and 11" wide? The piece of paper doesn't know how to orient itself until someone draws lines on and punches holes.
If adding extra unused space on the sides doesn't matter, why not take that to its logical conclusion and make a monitor 10" tall and 10 feet wide, thus bringing your frame rate to a near halt? The problem is that the extra space doesn't add anything to gameplay for a lot of games, but only draws extra stuff that doesn't matter in the slightest because it's out of the action entirely. Even if the extra space on the sides does help some, in most games adding extra space on the top and bottom would help more. The main exception is first person shooters, which I don't play, and even there, a monitor 10 feet wide wouldn't give you near the peripheral vision you have in real life.
Pay attention. I said in the past. Machinery encountered many mundane problems with orientation on paper. It was cheaper to implement smaller rollers with upright print patterns, which could have other uses beside special presses. Standards develop in very strange ways - why aren't you arguing against the length of a meter? It's virtually the same argument that you're making now.
Your analogies are terrible. That's putting it simply. Stop trying to tell people what is "superior" or "logically better," both types of monitors have their pros and cons.
That's another example I hadn't considered. But it's also an example that would apply to few people, like the other examples I listed, and as such, doesn't explain why hardly anything else gets made anymore.
It's that it's inferior for nearly all purposes that I use a computer monitor for.
There lies the problem. Stop trying to shun an entire medium because it doesn't fit the bill for your two games. As a matter of fact, stop trying to spread around your opinions, based on your own needs, as facts that everyone else should abide by.
I love my 22" widescreen. You can keep your dinky 19" standard monitor.
Well there are still tons of used PC stores out there and with the rampant upgrading that everyone is doing there will be millions of 4:3 monitors and TVs collecting dust you can still use if this upgrade is that much of an issue too ya! The world isn't going to just stop advancing because Quizz thinks it has inferior practices for him alone!
If you think its inferior too you then don't use a widescreen monitor or TV, but keep in mind that there are billions of people in this world that think very differently than you and love widescreen! ...and I am also one of those people that has multiple windows open all the time and its much better having space for all of them with little overlapping!
I like widescreen better since the human eye does see more horizontal compared to vertical.
About the books and newpaper print, I thought it would be better the way it is, but actually I would like it more if the lines were longer and fewer of them. When I read I tend to loose my place a lot cuz I see a brick wall of text and I hate that. Even if it is paragraphed correctly, I still tend to lose my place. If they were longer I woulnd't have to go to the next line as often thus I wouln't get which line I was on all screwed up.
So to me Widescreen is perfect, I would love to get books in widescreen format, if they even make them like that.
Oh no, how awful that I could have an opinion.
It's not just two games. Looking through about 60 or so console games that I've got sitting here, in how many would the wider and shorter view be better if the screen area is kept constant? In a majority of the sports or racing games, it would. In some of the side-scrolling platform games, it would be about equivalent either way. In most of the rest (that is, in the bulk of the games), a less square screen would be worse for the game. And those necessarily have to use the same dimensions as a TV.
Moving to computer games--that is, ones that use a computer monitor, which is the issue at hand--how many of dozens of games I've played would benefit from a wider but shorter screen? Lemmings probably would, but that's going way, way back. I can't think of a computer game I've played in the last decade (of the eighteen I can think of off hand, though I'm probably forgetting some that I didn't play much) for which the 4:3 aspect ratio wouldn't be better than a wider but shorter screen.
Now understand, I am no scientist, just a guy who makes pretty pictures on the pc.
The reason for the wider format, is indeed human perception. It was studied in the movie theatures for years, what aspect ratio was more preferable for longer viewing periods, to the patrons. They resulted in the widescreen formats that we have all become accustomed to, because it gives the better illusion of periphrial vision. Later, in an effort by tv manufacturers to bring the theature experience home, realized that having a wider aspect ratio in the monitor, seemed to be more preferable. Maybe it is because the 2/3rds rule developed in movie production, I don't know. It seemed that having nearly the top and bottom thirds of the screen as black bands were quite distracting, forcing the viewer's eye to nearer the center of the screen, which is hardly where it naturally goes (key points in image composition will usually fall within the top third, bottom third, right or left thirds of the screen. Perhaps that is why most ads on websites are included in these areas? I digress...)
With Microsoft joining in the race to create a true home entertainment hub, they have pushed for pc mfgrs, to develop monitors that share almost identical technologies to the new widescreen tvs coming out. You don't just find this in monitors however, but also in the iphone, DS, PSP, etc. Basically anything with a new LCD screen technology is getting it. And the reason for this is the typical use of the PC is becoming less about reading email and typing book reports, as it is about playing games, watching movies, or making other types of images. This is also why there was the sudden push for graphics upgrades on all price points of pcs in the past few years, the world is becoming less text based, and more image based. Microsoft, Apple, and a host of other multimedia companies have known this for years, and thus their push for more image interactivity.
Personally, I blame the genius of comic books...
-----------------------
Tried- L2, Ryzom, WAR, DDO, PWI, Tab Rasa, Requiem, Champs, AA, JD, PWI, SUN, Dawntide
Played- SWG (pre-cu), AoC, VG, WoW, LoTRO,CoX, EQ2, DAOC, GW, PotBS, Aion, MO,APB, NASA, Fallen Earth, DCUO, Rift
Playing- EVE, Black Prophecy, TOR
Waiting for- Tera, Jumpgate Evo, WH40K, WWE, WOD, TSW
--
--
"Hey, if Activision liked it, then they should have put a ring on it," Double Fine President Tim Schafer said. "Oh great, now Beyonce is going to sue me too."
That's another example I hadn't considered. But it's also an example that would apply to few people, like the other examples I listed, and as such, doesn't explain why hardly anything else gets made anymore.
/sarcasm enabled
lol... tell me about it... there's only, like, 2 or 3 people that actually edit all of the movies in the world. ... they should just give it up already.... not to mention that one guy that edits all of the television stuff. why does he need a widescreen monitor anyway? it's not like anyone uses those "shortscreen" TVs
/sarcasm disabled
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
I can see more real estate in game at 16:10 or 16:9. I can also fit two windows side by side at this ratios doubling productivity for work.
The whole purpose of widescreen is so that the user sees more of everything. Have you seen a side by side comparison of a movie or anything? For 4:3 they cut the right and left edges off to make it fit. 16:9 is the ratio it is filmed in.
The same concept applies to both games and video. More things happen on the horizontal plane than vertically. Having more vertical space is only good for reading and/or web browsing. If you need that, simply rotate your widescreen monitor and you have a better layout than a 4:3 monitor for that purpose as well.
Crying over something that has been coming for a long time now is ridiculous. 4:3 should have been phased out years ago. Hanging onto that is like asking for them to bring vhs back.