Sigh, editing video is not the same thing as viewing video.
I'll restate my position -
Resolution is what matters for computer monitors - shape doesn't matter.
I really don't care what aspect my monitors are as long as they have enough pixels. I love high resolution monitors of any aspect ratio. I was simply reacting to some of the things that were said like -
- WS provides more real estate
- WS lets you have a longer horizontal time line
These are simply not true. There are currently no 17" LCDs that run natively at 1600x1200 so making that comparison isn't valid. It's also obvious that bigger is better. I have made a direct side by side comparison of a 22" WS (at 1680x1050) against a 21" 4:3 (at 1600x1200) and guess what - they are so similar that it's hard to tell the difference. Do I like bigger? Of course, within reason. I'd love to have a couple of those 30" monitors that run at 2560 x 1600. I could care less about their shape, it's their resolution that makes my eyes glaze over. There are a lot of WS LCDs now available, but I just checked on NewEgg. They have less WS monitors available than non-WS, not by much, but it's still less (they provide real numbers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Eason  Back to the original question -- again. If you are editing video -- be you a media pro, a consumer or in the corporate world -- it's my opinion that a 16:9 display (or two) would be the best option because it's the direction that the whole world is moving toward and you will need to see your work in the world standard. |
The question is about EDITING not VIEWING. There is nothing in any editor that I've ever used that really needs a WS aspect ratio except for preview windows and these are usually tiny. I currently use two 4:3 displays for editing and a separate 4:3 TV monitor for previews. I'm sure the TV monitor will be replaced with a WS TV when I start editing HD video, but my NLE won't need to change and neither will my computer monitors. I completely agree that I will need to see my work in it's native aspect ratio, but that still isn't
editing. There is no need to run an NLE on the same aspect screen as the video you are editing. I think the general public will eventually purchase more WS computer monitors as PCs be more accepted as media hubs. Lot's of people will be watching video on their PC monitors and using their PCs on their TV monitors. It makes loads of sense to match aspect ratios in those cases. I do think a convergence will happen eventually and I'll make a prediction that over the long run, aspect ratio will matter very little.
For the record - I'm very glad you got a WS high resolution display. The one I bought is much loved. You'll soon learn that you can't live without all of those extra pixels.
Best regards,
PCH
PS - HD will NEVER be mandated by the law. Digital broadcasting will be mandated, but the two aren't necessarily related.
Friday, September 7th, 2007, 10:55 PM
. As for movies that were already made in a wider format, you can have the consolation of knowing that the black bars are at least not as big as on a 4:3 screen. Some TVs have a zoom feature that will cut out those bars. You'll lose some of the picture on the left and right, but if the bars really bug you it might be worth it.
In situations where there is a debate that doesn't seem to end, gets off-topic or it's obvious that parties are not going to agree -- I'd like to remind everyone at CMN that the very best thing to do in that situation is to state your opinion and then leave it alone. This isn't the first time I've said this, so no one is being singled out. Just to show that I practice what I preach, I've said everything I want to say on the matter of 16:9 vs 4:3.
Linear Mode
