| 1 |
On ons, 2010-09-08 at 17:40 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Apparently, though unproven, at 17:24 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Grant |
| 3 |
> Edwards did opine thusly: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > > Since 16:9 panels are the same shape as the ones TVs use, I assume |
| 6 |
> > > that's why they are cheaper and why the industry prefers them. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > I thought about that, but the sizes and pixel densities don't overlap |
| 9 |
> > at all between laptop panels and TV panels, so I don't see how they |
| 10 |
> > can be leveraging production processes or equipment. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The intent is probably more that the picture will visually appear the same |
| 13 |
> whether you view it on a laptop, HD TV or widescreen monitor. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Which raises another layer of confusion: when a spec says "16:9" does it mean |
| 16 |
> physical dimensions, or pixel density? I've yet to find a device that clearly |
| 17 |
> states *how* it arrived at the numbers it quotes in it's spec. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I guess it is the relation between horizontal versus vertical dimension, |
| 22 |
it shouldn't matter what the pixel density is ... or does it? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
/ P-E |
Archives