Quote:
Originally Posted by kacir
In a few years they will be selling 25 inch displays that are 24.5 x 2 inches.
|
They would if they could. Not because wider is better, but because it's cheaper. You lose out on both pixels, and surface area.
Let's take a 24 inch 4:3 display, with a resolution of 1600:1200. Now, let's take a 24 inch 16:9 display, that's also 1600 pixels wide. 1600:900. Hmm. Less pixels.
The 24 inch 4:3 display will have this size:
A² + B² = C²
4² + 3² = C²
C = 5.
So, the screen will be 24 / 5 * 4 = 19.2 inch wide, and 24 / 5 * 3 = 14.4 inch high. Your screen surface will be 19.2 inch * 14.4 inch = 276.48 inch².
Now, take a 24 inch 16:9 widescreen:
A² + B² = C²
16² + 9² = C²
C = 18.358 (approx).
The size of the screen will be: 24 / 18.358 * 16 = 20.92 inch wide, and 11.77 inch high (approximately). The screen surface will be 20.92 inch * 11.77 inch = 246.23 inch².
There you have it. If a screen has a wider aspect ratio, while retaining the same diagonal and the same horizontal resolution, you will actually lose vertical pixels, and the surface of the screen will diminish. Therefore, a 24 inch 16:9 widescreen is (probably) cheaper to produce than a 24 inch 4:3 screen.
To retain what you had (surface, number of vertical pixels), the 16:9 widescreen actually needs to be BIGGER than the 4:3 standard screen.
The industry is already slowly starting to push 21:9 inch screens, that are even wider... so keeping the same diagonal, they'll have even less surface, and even less vertical pixels.