Widescreen or no widescreen in main use? (2 Viewers)

[tarite]

I use MP in the bedroom on 4/3 32", but plan to upgrade to wide soon.

 

[pbb]

Currently, around 88% of MediaPortal users is using widescreen as their main MP interface. Also interesting: LCD is used by 52%, 24% uses a CRT display, 11% plasma, 9% uses a projector, and 5% a back-projection TV. If I interpreted the data right, that is ;-)

Interested in more? Read my post on MP user statistics I am about to post!

 

[THDBASED]

I am also using a new 26" LCD since about two weeks ago...but I also still have a similar size CRT and a 19" TFT

 

[infinite.loop]

Hi,

since lately there have been many skins released either for 16/9 or 4/3 I would like to know which kind of screen you are using with MP? This may give skinners a clue if it is still worth to create their skin for both screen-types.

i selected none, because i do have a widescreen TV, but i use BlueTwoBig which is a 4:3 skin.

the reason is that "all" widescreen skins have a way too small fontsize to read the text easiely on my 32"LCD (running with 1280x720) from a normal viewingdistance of ~3.5meters.

 

[jcm]

I think it doesn't matter what the majority uses. As a basic feature there should be a 4:3 and a 16:9 skin anyway.

 

[dekkers]

/me voted Widescreen since my both TV's and laptop's are widescreen
I use MP just on the tv in the livingroom.

I think (personally) it's better focusing on widescreen tv in the future. See it like this:
90% of MP's target group are computer and audio/video fantatics. These group of users are willing to pay for new-technology like LCD and Plasma screens (i know, not everybody, but the most). And since LCD's and plasma's are being cheaper every minute, there's no need for 4:3 in the future.

just my 2 cents

 

[rsbrux]

I have a 5:3 widecreen (1280x768) and use BlueTwo Wide. Unfortunately, the use of pixel-based dimensions in the skin files makes it really tough for me to get CD covers to display right. They are always a bit stretched, or they have blac bars above and below or both. I started making a custom skin,but gave up because it was so much work doing it all manually. So, my big wish for the future of MePo skins is to use some widely available, tool-supported technology (xHTML, CSS?) for their design.

 

[infinite.loop]

I have a 5:3 widecreen (1280x768) and use BlueTwo Wide. Unfortunately, the use of pixel-based dimensions in the skin files makes it really tough for me to get CD covers to display right. They are always a bit stretched, or they have blac bars above and below or both. I started making a custom skin,but gave up because it was so much work doing it all manually. So, my big wish for the future of MePo skins is to use some widely available, tool-supported technology (xHTML, CSS?) for their design.

that doesnt work.

imagine a gfx of a rectangle with round corners. the think what happens when you stretch that.
bingo -> it gets distorted

 

[rsbrux]

imagine a gfx of a rectangle with round corners. the think what happens when you stretch that.
bingo -> it gets distorted

That's exactly what happens now. In fact, the distortion of graphics doesn't bother me. It's the distortion of photographs (e.g. CD covers, artist thumbnails) that bothers me. The advantage of standard HTML notation, is that it supports specifying dimensions either in proportions (% of area) or in pixels, whichever is appropriate for the subject. The disadvantage of the MePo skin structure is:
1. Everything has to be specified in pixels, which requires a lot of work and makes the result less portable.
2. In the final presentation, the pixel dimensions don't count anyway. If the screen resolution differs from the skin resolution, then everything is just stretched or compressed (i.e. distorted) to fit.

 

[infinite.loop]

imagine a gfx of a rectangle with round corners. the think what happens when you stretch that.
bingo -> it gets distorted

That's exactly what happens now. In fact, the distortion of graphics doesn't bother me. It's the distortion of photographs (e.g. CD covers, artist thumbnails) that bothers me. The advantage of standard HTML notation, is that it supports specifying dimensions either in proportions (% of area) or in pixels, whichever is appropriate for the subject. The disadvantage of the MePo skin structure is:
1. Everything has to be specified in pixels, which requires a lot of work and makes the result less portable.
2. In the final presentation, the pixel dimensions don't count anyway. If the screen resolution differs from the skin resolution, then everything is just stretched or compressed (i.e. distorted) to fit.

i do not see such a distortion in BlueTwo.