Forum.ArchosFans.com

Unofficial Archos Support Forum
It is currently Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:43 pm

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:52 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
http://armdevices.net/2012/10/13/archos ... hos-97-xs/


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:27 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:57 pm
Posts: 1903
Location: Nomad
I like the look of the 97 (IPS screen and all), but it looks 4x3 (and I've also never had problems with my G9 101 that isn't IPS). I would prefer a 16x9, so I'll probably stick with the 10.

At those prices though... maybe I'll pick up both of them and try to convince her that one of them is for her. :badgrin:


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:25 pm 
Offline
Archos Expert
Archos Expert

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:05 am
Posts: 242
Location: U.S.A.
Harfainx wrote:
I would prefer a 16x9


I would be interested in some further details about why you prefer 16 x 9 over 4 x 3?

I've never understood why so many people ever even liked or wanted "widescreen", especially since it was really only just a marketing gimmick to start with. I'll try to explain the why/how it ever came about and why I do not like it...

Way back in the 1940's and 1950's there were major wars going one. The early films and even TV were 4:3 (logical, see why further below). Since most resources were going to the military, that meant things for other uses became much more expensive. Among those things was the cost of film for movies.

Around the same time, the Hollywood movie industry started to try to take over all the movie theaters. So..

To cut costs on film, they decided to reduce the height of each frame simply so they could get a longer movie within the same amount of footage of film.

Likewise, they also (logically) concluded that it was much easier and cheaper to build a theater that was wider instead of the cost of a higher one. And, they had to also compete against the then great thing called Television (which was 4:3).

So, the only real reason things ever went "wide screen" back then was simply all about cutting costs and making more money at the theaters. And do NOT let any bogus movie director ever tell you any different! Ben Hur would actually have been even more spectacular if they could have filmed it in 4:3, but that would have been far more complicated (because they would have had to also have been able to handle both the sky above and much more ground below in each shot... so, they really only were making it easier to film, NOT to make it better for the viewer).

Since that was all bunk to begin with... then along came "digital" TV... and, just like Hollywood everyone else in the whole chain now had to make some extra bucks. So, out of nowhere, TV's had to be "wide screen"... or at least 16:9 (which makes no sense at all since hardly any movies were/are ever made at that aspect ratio).

So, now we have to watch any really good (old movies that are excessive widescreen) still letter-boxed on our brand new 16:9 TV's (or other displays like a tablet)... meanwhile, there are just a bunch of crappy new movies (that are all computer generated garbage with frames that flash by so fast you can not even see what they are so proud of producing)... and it still does seldom fits properly on a 16:9 display.

Now let's get REAL for a moment OK?

There is a whole group of people that got conned into believe that 16:9 is how our eyes see things, BUT that is only partially true, and for the most part totally false. And, you can try this yourself to understand things better...

Close your right eye and check what you see, then open that one and close your left eye and check what you see.

Your right eye can not see past the bridge of you nose to the left, and you left eye can not see to past the bridge of your nose to the right. Are you with me so far?

Now, sure, if you combine what your left eye and right eye can see together you will get something (that is mostly in focus) from both of them that is roughly a 16:9 aspect ratio. But...

Now think about it a bit... Just how much of ALL of that is really in full focus of BOTH eyes. Bang, got ya there, it's really only about a 4:3 aspect.

And, if you are watching a so called "wide screen" TV from across the room, or even a cellphone or tablet you are actually seeing far more around it. So, there is absolutely no logical reason for any display to be "wide screen" in my opinion. I'd rather see peoples foreheads and chests included instead of the top of their heads chopped off and nothing below their chin in a movie like most movies show now.

If you, or anyone else for that matter, really likes or even wants "wide screen" I'd really like to hear just why you want to NOT see the rest of things (like peoples hair or chests in close ups)?

_________________
Archos 101 G9 8G classic (512M RAM)


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:11 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
mls wrote:
I would be interested in some further details about why you prefer 16 x 9 over 4 x 3?


1280x720 is 16:9

1920x1080 is 16:9

3840x2160 is 16:9

16:9 is the industry standard.

Horizontally is how we view the world, we tilt our heads sideways way more than we tilt our heads upwards.

yes the lens of the eye works vertically and horizontally more ore less equally, but it is never at rest and given that western culture reads left to right I dare say that most of us saccade horizontally primarily.

In anyways, all the movies and TV shows are now 16:9, and if they are not exactly 16:9, most of them look much better on a 16:9 screen than on a 4:3 screen, because you get much less letterboxing on the 16:9 screen, thus you get a much larger fuller experience to the aspect ratio that the film maker intended.

the eyes are placed on horizontal axis of your face and not the vertical. It becomes more natural to a have your eyemovement on that axis.

The field of view of each eye may be 4:3, but we have two eyes that are side by side, and our brains fuse the images together, giving us essentially a 120 degree horizontal FOV. Try closing one eye and notice how much the AR narrows - our total FOV is significantly wider than 4:3.

Most (as in more than half) of movies are filmed in the 2.4:1 format (I'm grouping everything from 2.35 to 2.4 together). Those look ok on 16:9 but they look terrible on 4:3.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:26 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:57 pm
Posts: 1903
Location: Nomad
mos, you can try to "prove" me wrong all say. The fact is that I expressed an opinion for what I like, not fact about anything.

You want an experiment? Hold your 10" tablet a foot away from your face and close one eye, then the other. BOTH eyes can see the entire screen. At least mine can.

Please use a little thought before calling someone out for a clearly expressed opinion.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited