Wide-screen Monitor Aspect Ratios – We're Getting Cheated

You may not realize, but you are getting cheated on monitors and laptops, lately. Because we continue to measure screen sizes by their diagonal, we are comparing apples and oranges when we think about the size of an old, squarish monitor with a current wide-screen monitor.

“Aspect ratio” is the ratio of width to height w:h.

It was not that long ago that computer monitors shared the 4:3 (squarish) aspect ratio with traditional television screens (that it, in turn, inherited its size from old film formats). With the trend to wide screens, wider (16:10 aspect ratio) computer monitors and screens have become very popular. Now we are seeing the move to match the wider 16:9 aspect ratio of wide-screen televisions. This is a problem.

Since a computer monitor presents the user’s “workspace,” the important measurement of a monitor is its surface area—its usable area. But screen size specifications are normally reported by their diagonal length. But, for a given diagonal length, applied to screens of different aspect ratios, the apparent sizes and usable areas are quite different. The following illustration shows two screen aspect ratios with the same diagonal length.

Which is bigger?

Old-style, 4:3 aspect ratio of a diagonal length x.	16:9 aspect ratio of a diagonal length x.

Most of the documents we work with are vertically oriented—letters, emails, web pages, and such are all vertically oriented. So, unless a majority of your computer use involves working with or watching videos, the wide-screen format is not the most useful format. It is bad enough that we cannot get 4:3 monitors anymore; the move from 16:10 to 16:9 is even worse.

4:3, 16:10, and 16:9 comparisons, all of the same (diagonal) “size”.

So using surface area in square inches (or centimeters) would be a more honest and useful metric for comparing computer screens of different aspect ratios. To simplify matters by having a single way of reporting both computer monitors and televisions, a better metric for comparing screens of different aspect rations would be to use the screen’s height.

16x9 Diagonal TVs	4x3 Diagonal TVs	16x10 Diagonal Monitors	Surface Area	Width	Height
12			61.53	10.46	5.88
		12	64.72	10.18	6.36
	12		69.12	9.60	7.20
		15	101.12	12.72	7.95
17			123.49	14.82	8.33
	15		108.00	12.00	9.00
	17		138.72	13.60	10.20
24			246.12	20.92	11.77
		24	258.88	20.35	12.72
	25		300.00	20.00	15.00
	30		432.00	24.00	18.00
	32		491.52	25.60	19.20
40			683.68	34.86	19.61
42			753.76	36.61	20.59
	36		622.08	28.80	21.60
46			904.17	40.09	22.55
50			1,068.25	43.58	24.51
56			1,340.01	48.81	27.45
60			1,538.28	52.29	29.42

While the wide-screen is larger, the size of the elements on-screen—particularly when playing videos—will be the same size.

4:3 aspect ratio screen with height y.	16:9 aspect ratio with height y.

When you are looking at widescreen monitors for your computer, you are losing useable space for a given diagonal size when compared with 4:3 monitors. The current move to 16:9 from 16:10 makes this even worse. While it makes portables more compact, it comes at the expense of a useable work area. Don’t be fooled by the quoted “size” and get the largest quality screen you can afford.

[direct link to this post]

A Family Calendar (for the Extended Family)

How tedious it is to keep track of family events... even more difficult when trying to keep track of the extended family. Fortunately, with so many of us online, these days, we can take advantage of calendar sharing. With calendar sharing, family members can use their favorite calendar application (or calendar web site) to either view or modify calendar events. (This works with any groups, as well, of course).

And it is getting easier. In the old days, everyone had to create and manage their own calendars. Later, the ability to share a calendar allowed one person to create and manage a calendar, allowing others to view the changes. Today, it is becoming easier for everyone to participate in adding deleting events on a single calendar.

Creating the Calendar

In order to share a calendar, it needs to be reside somewhere. In the old days of a couple of years ago, this was awkward or complex. Today, Google Calendar (and others) do this for us for free.

Using Google Calendar as an example, one person in the family with a Google account must create a calendar on Google Calendar. This becomes the primary calendar for the family into which family events can be added. As with any calendar program, repeating events such as birthdays and anniversaries can be added there as well.

Sharing a Calendar with Other Google Users

In the simple case, this calendar can be shared with others who want to “subscribe” to it. Any calendar events that appear on the primary calendar will appear on each subscriber’s own calendar. This means that the calendar owner needs to maintain the calendar on behalf of everyone else.

It is trivial for the calendar owner to share a calendar with anyone else with a Google account.

1. Make sure the list of calendars shows your calendar (under “My Calendars”),
2. Click on the menu for the calendar you want to share and select “Calendar settings.”
3. Select the “Share this calendar” section.
4. At the bottom, you can enter the settings for everyone that should have access to the calendar. You can also set whether they can add or change events on the calendar.

Note that, for this method to work, the others must have a Google account before they can see the calendars shared in this fashion. If they do, however, it is very easy for everyone to participate in managing the calendar.

For current or more detailed information, see “Share your calendar” for more details.

Sharing a Calendar with Non-Google People

For those who do not have a Google account, Google Calendar provides URL address that allows others to view the calendar with a browser.

Also, if you have another favorite (modern) calendar program, you can also use an address to subscribe to the calendar events and integrate their display with each person’s own calendars.

1. Make sure the list of calendars shows your calendar (under “My Calendars”),
2. Click on the menu for the calendar you want to share and select “Calendar settings.”
3. At the bottom of the “Calendar details” page, in the “Private address” section, there are buttons on the bottom that will display “iCal” and “XML” buttons that can be used calendar programs to integrate the calendar events. Calenders can be shared with Outlook, Mac Mail, and iPhone calendars, for example.
4. The “HTML” button, in the same section, allows others to view the calendar in a browser.

See “Share with people who don’t use Google Calendar” for more details.

Sharing Ownership of a Calendar with Non-Google People

Google can share calendars with other programs, allowing the calendars to be managed without going to the Google site. This also allows non-Google users to modify the calendar. This feature relies on a technology called CalDAV. This is not yet universally supported by calendar programs, so not everyone will be able to modify the calendar, if they are also not Google account holders.

This works with calender programs such as Outlook, Mac Mail, and the iPhone's calendar. I may fill in more information about how to set this up; in the mean time, see the details at “Get Started with CalDAV” (or leave a comment requesting more information, and I will add more info here).

[direct link to this post]

Canon vs. Nikon (redux)

Too Many Choices

I’ve gone through this once before, trying to decide on a digital SLR. The first time around, I would start with the affordable models; as I thumbed through the catalogs, I’d myself desiring the ones thousands of dollars more. Years passed. I tried to make do with lesser digital cameras but with never feel the satisfaction I’d remembered with film SLRs.

As the years passed, the selection of camera companies (and therefore, camera models) broadened, making the choice even more difficult. There are a lot of great, innovative SLR camera companies out there (e.g., Sony, Pentax, Olympus). So many, I made the nearly arbitrary decision to narrow it down to Nikon and Canon, the two most prolific SLR manufacturers of professional quality SLRs over the past several decades.

At the time, about three years ago, Canon had already established a near monopoly in the digital SLR arena amongst professional photographers (compared to the vast majority that Nikon held during the film era). The primary reason: the broad range of technology that Canon offered and, in particular, Canon offered full-frame sensor cameras as well as the cheaper, APS-C sensor size models. For a long time, there were rumors of Nikon introducing a full-size sensor camera for professionals, but that had not materialized.

The sensor of a digital camera refers to the electronic component that takes the place of what film used to do: turn light into persistent images. For cost reasons, all the digital SLR companies have standardized on a sensors sizes that are much smaller than a traditional 35mm film camera film frame. The size of a sensor has a big impact on the image that it creates; the most obvious is that, for any given lens length, the size of the subject will differ. To preserve the visual integrity of file camera counterparts, as well as other quality advantages of larger sensors, some camera companies (first Canon, then Nikon, and later, Sony) offer full-frame sensor models targeting professional users–“full-frame” is relative to traditional 35mm film.

Making the Choice

Entry level digital SLRs had more features than I ever had on my film SLRs—some only found on professional SLRs of old. From a practical point of view, all digital SLRs are so good that there are only minuscule differences in quality between them. With that and the vague feeling that Canon might stay closer to the cutting edge than Nikon, I chose the Canon Rebel XTi (aka 400D, elsewhere in the world) as my first d-SLR.

Over the next 3 years, I happily and satisfyingly shot 10,000 pictures, all the while relearning photography and learning about all the new facets brought in by digital. This was brought to an abrupt halt when I decided to soak most of my equipment in the salty waters of the Canadian sea. Salt, as you may know, is never good for electronic nor metallic parts; digital cameras and lenses are both. Even if I could get them repaired, it is likely that residual salt would eat away at the internals, killing them again.

Choosing All Over Again

Since I was a kid, I’ve said, “My life would not be complete without a Nikon.” So, with most of my Canon equipment destroyed, I thought I would take the opportunity to re-evaluate Canon vs. Nikon. Both have iterated their camera lines a couple of generations. Notably, 3-months after I made my Canon choice, Nikon finally introduced their line of full-frame sensor cameras. In these intervening years, Nikon has quickly ascended to take over a large percentage of the professional d-SLR audience.

Canon and Nikon; Canon vs. Nikon

Both Canon and Nikon have a wide range of camera models ranging tailored to satisfy the demands of casual photographers to professionals. They have a full range of lenses from cheap and versatile to high-quality professional lenses. In the past 3-year period, Nikon has caught up with Canon and, now, both companies clearly have each other in their sites—there is a near exact feature match amongst their products. There are some subtle differences in their approach, however.

It is a new age, but Nikon has demonstrated, as it did with its film cameras, consistency of design where lenses designed for cameras nearly 50 years ago will work on today's digital cameras! Within its line of “entry-level” d-SLRs, Nikon has maintained the same battery type across that line while Canon has changed the battery and charger needed for nearly every new model. Nikon's approach preserves the user's investment in their equipment and reduces the number of pieces to be packed when traveling. Nikon also has a more flexible advanced flash system that costs an extra few hundred $$ to achieve with Canon. And, Nikon has officially accommodated a GPS accessory that will embed positional information in the meta-data of each image.

On the other hand, Canon has a longer history of high-end digital cameras and whose entry-level series is closely tied. It also has a broader line of advanced, “professional” lenses, many of which are available in variants fitting more size or cost conscious buyers. Subjectively, I prefer the panel information on the latest Canon "Rebel" T1i (aka 500D, elsewhere).

Since most of my photography takes place while traveling, size and weight of my equipment is of utmost importance. Fortunately, there appears to be a stronger focus by both Nikon and Canon, to include more advanced features in its smaller, lower-level camera models. Canon, explicitly and Nikon, perhaps, have split their entry-level line into a less expensive series and more expert, but still, physically small model lines. This suits me perfectly.

	Canon	Nikon
Professional	1D, 1Ds	D2, D3, D3x
Semi-professional	5D, 7D	D700
Advanced	20D, 30D, 40D, 50D	D200, D300, D300s
Advanced Entry-level	Rebel, XT, XTi, XSi, T1i (300D, 350D, 400D, 450D, 500D)	D40, D40x, D60, D80, D90, D5000
Cost Conscious	Rebel XS (1000D)	D3000

There may be variants of the listed models also available. As of 7 Sept 2009. Bold entries are currently available.

Initially, the competition between Nikon and Canon started with the mid-range and entry level models. Then, Nikon changed the competition with with direct competition in the full-frame professional series. Today, we see both companies broadening their product lines in the "semi-pro" and cost cutting models. While, this table is not complete, clearly there is fierce competition in the "advanced entry-level" (nee entry-level) line.

Decisions, Decisions

Over time, I would expect to buy more lenses than camera bodies. So, understanding which lenses are available and their cost becomes an important factor in choosing a system (since, unfortunately, they are not compatible between Canon and Nikon--in fact, hardly any accessories are compatible between the two makes).

The option of moving up to the more advanced cameras play a role in my decision. This evaluation becomes a difficult since I do not have the opportunity to test all the models of each make. Also, nearly every quarter, each manufacturer leap frogs the other with its new models with new technology features and quality improvements.

In the end, the cameras you use have to feel comfortable. If I had not already had the experience with the Canon (or I had waited 3 months the first time around), I probably would have chosen Nikon. However, despite some of the quantitative advantages of Nikon, the familiarity I have developed over the past three years with the Canon is likely to lead me back to rebuilding my Canon system.

[direct link to this post]