Landscape vs. Portrait

Off topic discourse and banter encouraged.
bill.starguy
Asternaut
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:38 pm

Landscape vs. Portrait

Postby bill.starguy » Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:13 pm

Which orientation do 99.99999999% of ALL computers use for their monitors? Uh ... Landscape. Then why would any image that doesn't have an obvious Earth horizon be placed on APOD in Portrait? I get it: I can download and rotate on my own, but when I'm asking my students to evaluate or explain or even just appreciate the image on APOD they have to scoll up and down to see the image and the documentation. Screw the smartphones.

In conclusion, if you you want APOD to look like 99% of all submissions on The Weather Channel, then keep up the dumb idea of Portrait orientation. Otherwise, why not make your own job easier and post images in Landscape?

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 13279
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Landscape vs. Portrait

Postby Chris Peterson » Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:20 pm

bill.starguy wrote:Which orientation do 99.99999999% of ALL computers use for their monitors? Uh ... Landscape. Then why would any image that doesn't have an obvious Earth horizon be placed on APOD in Portrait? I get it: I can download and rotate on my own, but when I'm asking my students to evaluate or explain or even just appreciate the image on APOD they have to scoll up and down to see the image and the documentation. Screw the smartphones.

In conclusion, if you you want APOD to look like 99% of all submissions on The Weather Channel, then keep up the dumb idea of Portrait orientation. Otherwise, why not make your own job easier and post images in Landscape?

The appropriate orientation is the one that the imager considers most suitable for his target, not the one dictated by the output device. Even so, it's worth considering that you are too quick in discounting those smartphones. Probably the majority of APOD viewers are now using phones or tablets, not PCs, and therefore, a portrait format should be assumed for the default viewer.

For most deep sky images, the best orientation is the astronomical standard- north up/east left. In that case, the orientation will be determined by the shape of the target, and will be neither an aesthetic choice nor one determined by assumptions about the output device.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8646
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Landscape vs. Portrait

Postby geckzilla » Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:01 pm

Wow, I've never met someone quite so passionate about orientation. Maybe we should only present square aspect ratios and be done with it. :roll:
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 14420
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: Landscape vs. Portrait

Postby neufer » Sun Sep 04, 2016 5:49 pm

geckzilla wrote:
Wow, I've never met someone quite so passionate about orientation.
Maybe we should only present square aspect ratios and be done with it. :roll:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... ntal-lines wrote:
What Makes You Look Fat: Vertical or Horizontal Lines?
Wearing the pinstriped suit masquerades a few extra pounds, right? Oh no.
by Berit Brogaard D.M.Sci., Ph.D, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog
The Superhuman Mind : Feb 13, 2015

<<It’s a common belief that if you want to appear slimmer than you actually are, you should wear clothes with vertical stripes. The classical pinstriped business suit would be an example of this sort of clothing masquerading a few extra pounds. It turns out that this folk belief is fundamentally wrong. A square composed of horizontal lines appears taller and narrower than an identical square made up of vertical lines.

This illusion was discovered by Hermann von Helmholtz in 1925, and is also known as the Helmholtz illusion. Helmholtz’s explanation of the illusion was that a filled out area looks longer than an unfilled area of the same size. His thought was that the figure with horizontal stripes looks filled and hence longer from bottom up, whereas the square with vertical lines looks filled and hence longer from left to right. This then generates the illusion that the square with horizontal lines is taller and slimmer than the same-sized square with vertical stripes, which looks short and fat.

In 2009 British psychologists Peter Thompson and Kyriaki Mikellidou followed up with similar studies using three-dimensional female models. And lo and behold! The illusion persisted. When two people are the same size, a person wearing a horizontal-striped dress appears to be the thinner of the two. In order for the them to appear to be the same size, the person wearing the horizontal stripes would have to be six percent wider than the person dressed in vertically-striped clothing.>>

Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
BMAONE23
Commentator Model 1.23
Posts: 4076
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Landscape vs. Portrait

Postby BMAONE23 » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:05 am

Bill,
A simple solution would be to have a second monitor that is rotated to portrait. Not only would this provide for viewing portrait oriented images but it also makes web browsing more enjoyable as most web pages scroll in portrait direction
Here is a brief description of that process
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/how-to/windo ... s-3615164/

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8646
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Landscape vs. Portrait

Postby geckzilla » Mon Sep 05, 2016 5:41 am

I had a monitor that would rotate once and I tried using it like that just to see how it was, but for some reason it hurt my neck. It was oddly uncomfortable.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

starsurfer
Stellar Cartographer
Posts: 2844
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:25 pm

Re: Landscape vs. Portrait

Postby starsurfer » Mon Sep 05, 2016 5:44 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
bill.starguy wrote:Which orientation do 99.99999999% of ALL computers use for their monitors? Uh ... Landscape. Then why would any image that doesn't have an obvious Earth horizon be placed on APOD in Portrait? I get it: I can download and rotate on my own, but when I'm asking my students to evaluate or explain or even just appreciate the image on APOD they have to scoll up and down to see the image and the documentation. Screw the smartphones.

In conclusion, if you you want APOD to look like 99% of all submissions on The Weather Channel, then keep up the dumb idea of Portrait orientation. Otherwise, why not make your own job easier and post images in Landscape?

The appropriate orientation is the one that the imager considers most suitable for his target, not the one dictated by the output device. Even so, it's worth considering that you are too quick in discounting those smartphones. Probably the majority of APOD viewers are now using phones or tablets, not PCs, and therefore, a portrait format should be assumed for the default viewer.

For most deep sky images, the best orientation is the astronomical standard- north up/east left. In that case, the orientation will be determined by the shape of the target, and will be neither an aesthetic choice nor one determined by assumptions about the output device.

I love north up! :D

starsurfer
Stellar Cartographer
Posts: 2844
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:25 pm

Re: Landscape vs. Portrait

Postby starsurfer » Mon Sep 05, 2016 5:45 pm

geckzilla wrote:I had a monitor that would rotate once and I tried using it like that just to see how it was, but for some reason it hurt my neck. It was oddly uncomfortable.

Deep sky images printed in a book are easy to view north up simply by rotating the book! Also don't you have someone to massage your neck? :lol2:


Return to “Open Space: Discuss Anything”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests