http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/ Engadget Comments for Widescreen LCDs going widescreen by 2010 http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/I thought I read Widescreen LCDs going WIRELESS by 2010


]]>Jul 2nd 2008 4:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
Fools... didn't they realise it's much nicer to have them fade into view when you need them, then fade back out giving you the movie fullscreen?

At least the software developers did :)

]]>Jul 2nd 2008 4:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 4:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 8:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 4:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
You say that as if 2.35:1 is a new thing! Seen many old movies lately?]]>Jul 3rd 2008 4:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 4:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 4:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
Yes, that's real. It's 3840 x 2400 or Wide Quad Ultra Extended Graphics Array :)]]>Jul 2nd 2008 4:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
Try saying that after a few pints :) ]]>Jul 2nd 2008 4:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 3rd 2008 12:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/A 15" 4:3 panel has a bigger surface than a 15" widescreen :)
The marketing will always say here get the very big n-inch display but in fact widescreen only saves pixels.
Do you think the display or panel vendors knew that and therefore pushed widescreen to the notebooks as well?]]>Jul 2nd 2008 7:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Its been happening slowly the last few years.

One point with this move to 'digital' and 'high def'
from a lot of people that have used CRTS
for TV and Monitors over the years is that we have
watched media on TV/Monitors using the ENTIRE
screen's space.

Widescreen seems like a good idea in theory but
its a hard sell for a lot of Die hard 4:3 CRT fans
(Myself inculded)

One thing that disapoints is that
High Def actually DOES support 4:3
but you never see a program transmitted
in High Def 4:3 , High Def to the general public
seems to be forced to be these WS resulutions
that leave HUGE amounts of black on the screen.

Myself and a lot of people have found WS and 16:9 to
be a joke , why get a 16:9 TV or Screen when your
still going to get the video with black on the screen .
A lot of media Ive seen almost takes up half the screen
in black or at least one third , you might aswell chop
off the screen to avoid the black .

Here is same resulutions that you may not be aware of:

1080p 16:9 = 1920 x 1080 , 1080p 4:3 = 1460 x 1080
1080i 16:9 = 1920 x 540 , 1080i 4:3 = 1460 x 540
720p 16:9 = 1280 x 720 , 720p 4:3 = 960 x 720
480p 16:9 = 860 x 480 , 480p 4:3 = 640 x 480
480i 16:9 = 860 x 240 , 480i 4:3 = 640 x 240

]]>Jul 3rd 2008 12:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 4:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
It's not that it's obsolete. They just want to standardise future widescreen displays so they don't have to make a 16:9 and 16:10 panel the same size.

It's all about reducing costs. It makes no real difference to the consumer.
]]>Jul 2nd 2008 4:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 4:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
Of course it does. It's 120 pixels less of vertical resolution, or -10%.

"It's all about reducing costs. It makes no real difference to the consumer."

Yep, it means that while they reduce costs, we are going to pay [at least] the same amount of money for less resolution.

Are you happy with that?
]]>Jul 2nd 2008 6:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
Of course, this is coming from a motion graphic artist. I currently run three screens at 1920x1200 and still find myself filling the screens. I have my main work canvas (middle), communications on my left (VoIP, email, web, etc...) along with any documents for referencing.

Adobe Bridge on my right so that I can quickly view my assets and pull them into whatever app I am using. Or I might be coding so I keep reference material there too. The right screen also gets used as a movie display as some animation work can be painfully dull to execute so a show in the background can make the grind go faster.

Sign me up for more pixels! I want to start upgrading to 30 inchers but they are still so pricey, plus I would probably need to consider an even more powerful graphics card array. Sheesh.
]]>Jul 2nd 2008 4:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
Not only will everything (especially text) look beautifully crisp similar to printed text, you'd be able to set the size of all the on screen controls without distorting it all, so how much screen space you get on a display is entirely up to you - within reasonable limits anyway :)
]]>Jul 2nd 2008 4:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 3rd 2008 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 5:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/I do plan to go lcd eventually, to a nice 5:4 1280x1024]]>Jul 2nd 2008 5:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 11:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
Since most web pages, Word documents, email clients, and spreadsheets are taller than they are wide, those of us who actually have to get work done (versus just watching pr0n and playing video games all day) need as much vertical resolution as we can get.

Heck, in my office, I turned both my 22" LCDs 90 degrees (portrait) so I could have enough vertical pixels to actually get something done without scrolling every 2 seconds.]]>Jul 3rd 2008 12:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 5:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
And what about the people who don't have $3000 to buy one?

Muppet.]]>Jul 2nd 2008 6:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 8:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 5:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 7:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/The producers are basicly stealing from us - 4:3 and similar monitors provide user with biggest viewing space - they're the closest ones to the square. With the same diagonal, the more thing is similar to line (which is obviously the case with widescreens), the less viewing space you have.

Too bad that for regular luser the most important factor when buying is marketing and they stand no chance against sellers.]]>Jul 2nd 2008 5:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 6:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 3:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
Also, why did we diverge in the first place? There must be a some sort of reasoning to why Personal Computer displays were put in 16:10 as opposed to TV's 16:9.

I also find it a little odd that this would be a cost saving measure considering the very small amount of convergence between TV panels and PC panels. (For example, its not like making 20" LCD panels 16:9 will be a cost saving measure when there are no 20" LCD TVs that would also use such a panel. Unless I'm missing something here?

Honestly, I have no idea how this is going to be a good thing for the consumer.
]]>Jul 2nd 2008 7:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio ) and 16:10 is nearly 1,618. so I think it just loods good to us. So that´s the main reason for 16:10]]>Jul 2nd 2008 9:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 7:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/so you get black lines on movies and tv, was it to be fair? does anyone offer a 2.35:1 2538x1080p tv?]]>Jul 2nd 2008 8:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Second, with a 2:35 aspect ratio screen you would still get black lines with old TV material and with all the movies with a smaller ratio, so it would be no real solution to the problem.
This is why I still consider 4:3 to be best: yes, you get letterbox with widescreen movies (but that also happens now, as you noted), but you get full resolution with 4:3 material (and there's a lot).]]>Jul 2nd 2008 10:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 12:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/

]]>Jul 2nd 2008 8:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 9:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/1.85:1 is "Widescreen", in cinema terms.
1.66:1 is the European wide aspect ratio.
The TV "widescreen" format of 16:9 is actually 1.77:1 an awkward half way point between US and Euro ratios.
]]>Jul 2nd 2008 10:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 11:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/so, i want a cinemascape t.v.]]>Jul 2nd 2008 11:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 10:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
It terribly difficult to find a decent work machine that doesnt have either the horrendous SHINY screens or the Wide Screen format screen. The shiny screens are horrible to work on in the airport or anywhere with windows or lights. They turn into mirrors and reflect EVERY light source back in your face.

And the smaller vertically screen show less rows in excel and other programs where you need to see a large document.

Best ones are still the ThinkPads period. ]]>Jul 2nd 2008 10:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
Anyway, Bill, I'd much rather watch a movie on my widescreen MBP than on my XP Desktop...mainly for the monitor. Additionally, I can plug my MBP into my Plasma, which is MUCH nicer than either of the computers. As far as laptops being soley for work...well, you've obviously never taken a plane trip for more than 2 hours.]]>Jul 2nd 2008 4:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 2nd 2008 12:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
how about, "you're" ???]]>Jul 2nd 2008 4:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/Jul 3rd 2008 1:05AM