Jump to content



Photo

Linus Torvalds: 2560x1600 Needs To Be Next Standard


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#46 Laslow

Laslow

    ...

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 03

Posted 03 November 2012 - 20:17

This is very, very simple math here. Middle school level stuff. Please, please tell me this isn't still going over your head.

It's not about math, it feels unwieldy and doesn't work. You're missing the human element here.


#47 Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 60,877 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 03 November 2012 - 20:40

Linus is most wise.

We should be using Star Trek-like screens by now. ;)

#48 Joshie

Joshie

    Wandering NPC

  • 4,616 posts
  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Location: Seattle, WA

Posted 03 November 2012 - 20:54

It's not about math, it feels unwieldy and doesn't work. You're missing the human element here.

Hang on here. I'm going into extreme detail to communicate my point of view, and all you're going to do is throw out a subjective remark like "it feels unwieldy" and conclude that it therefore "doesn't work"?

I see once you decide to believe something, you completely shut yourself off to even processing contradictory information. Can you even explain why it "doesn't work"? Or do you just say things and expect to be right by virtue of Having Spoken?

#49 Laslow

Laslow

    ...

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 03

Posted 03 November 2012 - 21:06

Hang on here. I'm going into extreme detail to communicate my point of view, and all you're going to do is throw out a subjective remark like "it feels unwieldy" and conclude that it therefore "doesn't work"?

I see once you decide to believe something, you completely shut yourself off to even processing contradictory information. Can you even explain why it "doesn't work"? Or do you just say things and expect to be right by virtue of Having Spoken?

Your point of view is nonsense, extreme detail, or otherwise. If it doesn't take you 5 seconds to realize the practical benefits of using a 16:10 monitor to edit 16:9 frames, then you're just dense.

#50 Crimson Rain

Crimson Rain

    Idiot Hater

  • 926 posts
  • Joined: 29-September 12
  • OS: Windows 8.1 x64
  • Phone: Lumia 1020 Yellow

Posted 03 November 2012 - 21:09

16x10 is an obsolete aspect ratio.

16:9 is a **** ratio for computers.

#51 Fahim S.

Fahim S.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 02
  • OS: Windows 8 - OG
  • Phone: Google Nexus 4 16GB by LG

Posted 03 November 2012 - 21:11

Your point of view is nonsense, extreme detail, or otherwise. If it doesn't take you 5 seconds to realize the practical benefits of using a 16:10 monitor to edit 16:9 frames, then you're just dense.


Actually his view is spot on - I'd take a bigger 16:9 monitor over a smaller 16:10 monitor because I don't lose vertical space, but do gain horizontal space.
I have made the move (24" 16:10 1920x1200 to 27" 16:9 2560x1440) and don't find doing real work more jarring.

#52 +Phouchg

Phouchg

    Random Oracle

  • 5,172 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 11
  • Location: Krikkit
  • OS: VTOS 6.1.7601 x64

Posted 03 November 2012 - 21:12

Holy Penguin is just like Woz - lost touch with reality a long time ago. I guess living on donations of big tech companies to grep stuff all day does that to people.

(companies that happen to get that money by constantly going against every principle he himself appears to stand for)

And, like many of his followers, he forgets that for most other people stuff like huge pixel matrices cost hell lot of money to buy. And it's not like it's coming cheap for companies, too - phones and schmablets have become half-thousand/euro/pound (and more) devices. Except that a great many of them are being sponsored by telcos - that can afford it because they then proceed to suck raw money out of their customers. Laptops for the most part don't have that kind of deals, so they're not getting hi-def screens either and that's all there is to it.

#53 Joshie

Joshie

    Wandering NPC

  • 4,616 posts
  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Location: Seattle, WA

Posted 03 November 2012 - 21:17

Your point of view is nonsense, extreme detail, or otherwise. If it doesn't take you 5 seconds to realize the practical benefits of using a 16:10 monitor to edit 16:9 frames, then you're just dense.

In other words, you can't actually explain it. My post thoroughly went through why aspect ratio doesn't matter in the context of editing 16:9 video. But you've decided you're right, and you're clearly a very stubborn person.

However, no amount of your insulting personality or superiority complex changes the fact that I can buy two 2560x1440 monitors for a minimally higher cost than one 2560x1600 display, and you can't name one single use case where that one display does a better job than those two displays.

In fact, I seriously doubt you can do anything but insult people. Faced with the challenge of actually constructing an argument, you realize you have nothing to say, and instead of dealing with the fact that you simply haven't put much thought into the topic, you're taking the low road, insulting people, and feeling like it makes you the better person.

Spoiler: you can't win an argument without actually making one first. Reload from last save and try again.

#54 +OOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOO

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,348 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 04

Posted 03 November 2012 - 21:19

If he's saying "stop with the retina crap" he doesn't understand what the concept of retina is. It's not JUST higher resolution. It's higher DPI. There's a very distinct difference. Higher res is all well and good, but a simple higher resolution mode means tiny text and icons. No one wants that. We need to have these useable. So retina display means fully useable but with more pixels per inch. Smoother text and icons.

However, I love that the Macbook Pro Retina runs at 2880x1800 constantly. No matter what 'mode' you're in. I use the 'looks like 1920x1200' mode. It's the kind of size of icons and text you'd get at 1920x1200 but of course, is on Retina, therefore being drawn at 2880x1800, which means it's super crisp. As smooth and beautiful looking as the regular mode.

So yeah ... higher resolution as standard? No. Higher DPI as standard? Well, Apple's likely to make that the case next year ;)

#55 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 04 November 2012 - 00:49

Linus is most wise.

We should be using Star Trek-like screens by now. ;)


Yeah, what happened to that?

#56 Laslow

Laslow

    ...

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 03

Posted 04 November 2012 - 00:50

In other words, you can't actually explain it. My post thoroughly went through why aspect ratio doesn't matter in the context of editing 16:9 video. But you've decided you're right, and you're clearly a very stubborn person.

However, no amount of your insulting personality or superiority complex changes the fact that I can buy two 2560x1440 monitors for a minimally higher cost than one 2560x1600 display, and you can't name one single use case where that one display does a better job than those two displays.

In fact, I seriously doubt you can do anything but insult people. Faced with the challenge of actually constructing an argument, you realize you have nothing to say, and instead of dealing with the fact that you simply haven't put much thought into the topic, you're taking the low road, insulting people, and feeling like it makes you the better person.

Spoiler: you can't win an argument without actually making one first. Reload from last save and try again.

You're arguing about pixels, when it's an argument about dimensions. You just don't get it.

#57 moloko

moloko

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,694 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 02

Posted 04 November 2012 - 03:14

16:9 is a **** ratio for computers.


they are almost the same.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!