• mycodesucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    5 hours ago

    I love that Amazon’s approval process for reviews doesn’t filter out ANY of this stupidity.

    I read a livid one-star review once from a customer who angrily returned a wireless router because the box had wires in it.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      8·
      7 hours ago

      Further complicating this is that the screen is curved.

      So… they’d have to take a tailors tape, from one diagonal to another, also pressing it into the screen, being careful not to damage it.

      Either that or take a width heght and depth measurent and do a bit of trig.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      161·
      9 hours ago

      I’m reading we started with the method because with circular, and later nearly circular screens, this was the most consistent measurements.

      Plus, measuring diagonally gives us a clue to both width and height.

        • Default Username@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          3·
          6 hours ago

          They were called “roundies”. Usually the top and bottom were purposefully obscured by the casing. Just look up TVs from the 50s to see what I’m talking about.

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          7·
          8 hours ago

          Cathode Ray Tubes lend themselves to circles (or, indeed, hemispheres). Televisions standardized on 4:3 aspect ratio as kind of a circle with four sides kind of dented in.

          Then there was all the hell of different aspect ratios in the late 2000s or so that…kinda hasn’t stopped?

            • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              5·
              8 hours ago

              Televisions have mostly crystalized on 16:9. Computer monitors are all the fuck over the place; 16:10 is common on laptops but surprisingly difficult to find in standalone monitors, gaming monitors start at 16:9 and only go wider, I believe mine is a 21:9? And then there’s smart phones, which A. are often ultrawide, and B. are usually held in portrait mode.

              Then there’s media itself. Television recorded before ~2006 is often 4:3, with the exception of some shows like Babylon 5 which saw HDTV coming and filmed in widescreen that was cropped for 4:3. Modern television is made for 16:9. Movies? Most of them are made wider than 16:9, with some directors going even wider/vertically narrower to be more “cinematic” because their pay scales with how far up their own asses they are. Same thing happens on Youtube. Linus “Sebastian” Tech Tips was often in the habit of bitching about camera notches/holes in phone screens being in the way of content…while simultaneously mastering his own videos at an ultrawide aspect ratio, so that they’re letterboxed on standard televisions and most computer monitors, and they extend to the edge of a phone screen where all the rounded corners and camera holes are. It’s like he’s bad at decisions or something.

              • paraphrand@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                6 hours ago

                Linus “Sebastian” Tech Tips was often in the habit of bitching about camera notches/holes in phone screens being in the way of content…while simultaneously mastering his own videos at an ultrawide aspect ratio, so that they’re letterboxed on standard televisions and most computer monitors, and they extend to the edge of a phone screen where all the rounded corners and camera holes are. It’s like he’s bad at decisions or something.

                🤣

                I totally disagree with your stance on wider screen movies and TV shows though. Generally speaking, if it’s an aesthetic choice.

                I’ve started to suspect that the minor deviation from 16:9 is a bandwidth saver that streaming services have imposed, though. Because the total pixels go down. And as far as I’m aware, there are no anamorphic video files served on YouTube, Netflix or other services. That seems to have stopped being practiced after we moved on from DVDs.

    • marcos@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      9 hours ago

      It’s reasonable. What they got away with was labeling wide screens as a good thing.

        • marcos@lemmy.worldEnglish
          32·
          9 hours ago

          So, way closer to 4/3 like old standard screens than to 16/9 like the screens nobody even calls “wide” anymore?

          • BombOmOm@lemmy.worldEnglish
            101·
            9 hours ago

            Widescreen format has a width/height ratio of 1.78, human vision has a width/height ratio of 1.8.

            Why would you want a screen that isn’t somewhat close to the same ratio as your vision? Your one pixel tall screen is quite far off from the ratio of human vision.

            • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish
              13·
              9 hours ago

              “wide screens” != “widescreen”. I’m merely demonstrating that distinction with an extreme example.

      • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        2·
        9 hours ago

        Wide screens are great when you treat them as 2 screens combined as one. It just doesn’t make sense for a single window for most usecases

        • marcos@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          7 hours ago

          As long as you get a much larger diagonal than the screens they are replacing…

    • Speiser0@feddit.orgEnglish
      12·
      8 hours ago

      Well, it’s also in inches, so nobody has a mental image of what the number means anyways.

  • mrgoosmoos@lemmy.caEnglish
    8·
    8 hours ago

    no, no, they have a point

    why is a resolution primarily measured in vertical pixels, but a screen size is measured in diagonal? shouldn’t it be vertical, so that it’s easily comparable across resolutions and sizes?