Cool Stuff for D that we keep Secret

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Mon Jul 14 12:40:46 PDT 2014


On 7/11/2014 10:38 AM, Wyatt wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 July 2014 at 23:15:41 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> I'm fairly certain they don't. Heck, I can't even find a 5:4 anymore
>> which at least isn't *as* bad as 16:9. Tolerable, at least.
>>
> If you're willing to pay a bit more, you can get 16:10 which
> is...actually not that bad.  I think it strikes a good balance. Better
> still, Google has some laptops with 3:2 screens that I'd love to have
> elsewhere.
>

Aspect ratios need to start being expressed in decimal form. The "4:3 vs 
16:9" is easy to keep track of which is which. But it gets completely 
out of hand once you also figure in 3:2, 5:4, 16:10, and...this is the 
one that *really* gets me... 2.1:1 (Seriously?! WhyTF use ratio notation 
if you're still going to use decimals anyway?!?).

Quick! Sort these narrowest to widest!:

5:4, 2.1:1, 3:2, 16:9, 16:10, 4:3

It's ridiculous. We need to standardize on decimal-notation aspect 
ratios. Or at least a standardized denominator.

>> But as for *actual* 4:3, or even 5:4, I really do doubt they're still
>> manufactured.
>
> I think there's still a few 5:4? But for the most part, no.  A big part
> of the push comes back to marketing BS:  Display sizes are measured by
> their diagonal, so you can advertise a 20" widescreen for more money,
> even though it cost less to make than a 19" at 4:3 or 5:4.  And it's
> "cinematic"! orz
>

That's another thing. Screen sizes should be measured in viewable 2D 
units, like square inches. None of this BS about measuring 2D space with 
a linear diagonal unit, or including part of the frame, or any other 
such garbage.

And yea, as a gamer, pretty much any argument involving "it's 
cinematic!" irritates me. And contrary to the manufacturer beliefs, *my* 
computer is far, far more than just an overpriced DVD player.

>> I think the best bet for 4:3 is to just look for a used CRT. (Heck, at
>> least they can display more than one resolution without looking bad.)
>> I'm kinda jealous of those pro gamedevs with a dual-monitor, one of
>> them being vertical, setup. I should do that. With one of those desks
>> that can adjust to/from standing position. That'd be sweet :)
>>
> If you want a seriously good CRT, you pretty much want a Trinitron.  For
> PCs, my personal recommendation is the G-series. I had a G200 (17" flat
> tube) for about ten years and it could push 1600x1200 at 85Hz and even
> do 2560x1600 at 60Hz.  If you're using old consoles, you can't go wrong
> with a PVM (it works pretty well with a supergun too, though it still
> can't do some of the wacky modes like what Gun Frontier and Metal Black
> use).
>

Yea, Trinitrons were always well-regarded. Too bad they're not made anymore.

Not sure if it was an actual Trinitron or some other brand, but shortly 
before HD sets, a friend of mine got a flatscreen[1] CRT with 
progressive scan, component input, and some sort of special improved 
black levels. It looked absolutely amazing. I suspect that may have 
subconsciously been part of why I was underwhelmed by HDTVs (that, and 
my ancient $25 used VGA CRT had *already* been doing HD for years).

As far as I'm concerned, the #1 selling point for 4k[2] is the 
(theoretical) capability of displaying SD *without* making it look like 
complete shit compared to a real SD set. Of course, the one 4k set I've 
seen didn't even have *ANY* inputs other than HDMI, so completely 
useless as far as I'm concerned, especially considering the price. 
(Seriously? >$1k and they *still* couldn't toss in some cheap connectors 
and decoder? Ridiculous. Clearly marketed directly at people with more 
money than sense.) But I guess they expect me to re-buy all the SD stuff 
I already own. Fuck that. I'll pirate before I let them pull that shit 
on me.

[1] People these days don't even know there's a difference between 
flastscreen and flatpanel. Ugh.

[2] 4k: Can screens EVER standardize on fucking ANYTHING anymore?!? Pick 
a fucking notation for describing resolutions and STICK WITH IT!!! It's 
like the freaking "Lenny"/"Mountain Lion"/"Ice Cream Sandwich" bullshit 
here. I don't *want* to know the correct ordering of snacks/cats/toy 
story characters, and I'm *certainly* not going to memorize which 
idiotic (and completely unnecessary) name refers to WHAT freaking 
version. Idiotic unnecessary indirection.

"Woody/Sarge???" WTF? "SD/1080p/4k???" WTF? Enough redundant naming 
conventions already.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list