seems you've just done exactly that :awe:
also widescreen isn't regular screen chopped off, it's regular screen with more content on the sides.
maybe for sd material a CRT tube would be better, but no way you can seriously say that a good 1080p blu-ray on a quality lcd or plasma doesn't look better than a dvd on a crt.
the CRT may be technically able to display more lines, but any source that still plays on a CRT has pitiful resolution.
since it seems you were talking about CRT monitors & not tvs though, please point me to the crt monitor with > 3840x2160 resolution that you own.
What sort of things does a person who has a CRT and no online presence and an ancient computer buy online? I'm going to assume that it is magazines about Bridge.
CRTs suck.
And they're still overall superior to any LCD
Now get me a 24" monitor with at least 2048x1536 120Hz accurate color and good screen/color/brightness uniformity. Then let the CRT die.
You still haven't told us what amazing CRT you are using.
Am I the only one who uses a 7 year old phone and PC and doesn't have a single Google service or account (including YouTube), no social media, or messaging programs? Never used Android Apple or Linux? Doesn't own a laptop, tablet, or "portable device" and still uses a CRT? Thinks that all this newfangled touch shit is retarded as hell and Win8 is by far the worst thing ever created (worse than WinME). Doesn't own a TV, dislikes "widescreen" (or rather regular screen chopped off), and laughs at the pathetic "HD" resolution that is 1/2 the resolution and lower quality than my ancient glass tube?
I still remember when things were simple easy to use/understand and could do anything you wanted/needed. Now its all ads in your face stupid complicated shit that doesn't make sense and rarely works. Nothing is compatible with anything else and I feel like the PC died years ago.
Who uses their name in their email? The only reason I have one is for things like online shopping. I rarely check it more than once a month. Why does everybody think its cool to post their entire life online, selling their mind body and soul to anybody and anything that wanders by?
Soon you guys start taking computer implants and let the government or Google or whoever control you. I will fight to the death.
Perspective, man. Perspective.
My everyday monitors are 1920x1200 (16:10 aspect). I also have a 2560x1600 display. Nearly all content is produced to target wide-screen output...an DIY has been that way for YEARS. If you have a 4:3 display today, a lot of your content is shrunken or the sides are chopped-off. It's exactly the opposite of how things were when widescreen had only just started to catch on.
The best way to use YouTube is with subscriptions and custom-tailored suggestions. You can watch that for hours. You're missing out.
I can see all HD content at 1920x1440.
You yourself are not running the lower res "HD" crap either...still loosing some to my 4:3 though.
For hours of YouTube, repeat.
And 90% of widescreens never display widescreen. I know many people with a wide variety of cable/satellite TV on new plasma/lcd and there is almost always bars. Until somebody can come up with a true screen standard and gets everybody to move to it there will always be bars. Id rather have the higher resolution of 4:3 if I'm gonna have bars anyway...especially for a PC monitor where work is the primary function. The increased screen real estate is very useful.
Now if they actually upgraded over time and used a true "HD" for widescreen then it could have its place. Since everybody wants crazy wide lets just go all out for the widest widescreen and get some decent DPI at say 5400x2250 and 7200x3000 for low and high. No that's not crazy, far lower DPI than my monitor...but with cinema you don't need quite as much. The 30-50 DPI we're running now is whats crazy. Settle on 30FPS too instead of this retarded 24FPS crap, or come up with another standard that properly displays on any screen without interpolation and frame jutter. You don't need as many frames for cinema, so recorded 30FPS should be fine, doubled for 60Hz displays. Perhaps we could settle on 120Hz minimum and go 40FPS, then use 240Hz active for 3D.
1920x1440 is wide. To watch it on your 4:3 display would reduce the size significantly. I can't stand pan-and-scan, cropping, or stretching...but I also would much prefer an aspect like 16:10 that offers a great compromise. Most content is HD / wide and I can watch with the original aspect ratio and have room for playback controls that do not cover any of the 16:9 video. Old SD content fits a lot better and looks a lot larger than it would on a 16:9 display.
So...you'd prefer to blow-up blurry standard-def 4:3 content (emphasizing the lack of detail) and shrink the high-def wide-screen content? I prefer the opposite, thankyouverymuch.
...which means the highest detail source material you can find will not use an optimal amount of space on your monitor. It will appear shrunken and your eyes will have to try harder to make out the details.I can easily display any 1920x1080 content inside my current 1920x1440 resolution without any panning cropping or stretching.
Actually, you'll have a hard time finding 4:3 source material that is > 480p. Even if you think you found something, it's would be almost always up-scaled from 480p...which would be scaled and ugly. Otherwise, it was shot natively in a wide aspect and cropped to 4:3. Locally-generated content (like games and web pages) would be the only practical way to get the most out of 1920x1440.I can also properly display 4:3 content that isn't stretched or ugly
"Higher PPI." You're saying movies look better when you display the same amount of detail and just make it tiny! I'd prefer a monitor that can display the image a bit larger. That way my eyes can make out the detail.in fact the massively better contrast (black level), color, uniformity, and higher PPI of my monitor make all movie content look much better than a cheap TN.
I heard that cherries aren't naturally red. How do they make them red?has anyone tried burger kings new chicken mcnuggets? theyre pretty close to mcdonalds now...
You obviously don't understand.
1920 divided by 1440 is 1.333~ the same as 4 divided by 3. Not a wide aspect ratio...
I can easily display any 1920x1080 content inside my current 1920x1440 resolution without any panning cropping or stretching.
I can also properly display 4:3 content that isn't stretched or ugly...in fact the massively better contrast (black level), color, uniformity, and higher PPI of my monitor make all movie content look much better than a cheap TN.
Complete opposite of what you say.
Edit: My monitor can also natively support "24 FPS" content as well as "30 FPS" content. Your 60hz monitor can not.
I heard that cherries aren't naturally red. How do they make them red?