1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 18:53 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Per-Erik |
2 |
Westerberg did opine thusly: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On ons, 2010-09-08 at 17:40 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
5 |
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 17:24 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, |
6 |
> > Grant |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > Edwards did opine thusly: |
9 |
> > > > Since 16:9 panels are the same shape as the ones TVs use, I assume |
10 |
> > > > that's why they are cheaper and why the industry prefers them. |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > I thought about that, but the sizes and pixel densities don't overlap |
13 |
> > > at all between laptop panels and TV panels, so I don't see how they |
14 |
> > > can be leveraging production processes or equipment. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > The intent is probably more that the picture will visually appear the |
17 |
> > same whether you view it on a laptop, HD TV or widescreen monitor. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > Which raises another layer of confusion: when a spec says "16:9" does it |
20 |
> > mean physical dimensions, or pixel density? I've yet to find a device |
21 |
> > that clearly states *how* it arrived at the numbers it quotes in it's |
22 |
> > spec. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> I guess it is the relation between horizontal versus vertical dimension, |
25 |
> it shouldn't matter what the pixel density is ... or does it? |
26 |
|
27 |
Logically speaking, the physical dimension is what the average user is after. |
28 |
They want to know if a certain movie clip fits exactly on the screen with no |
29 |
distortion (and other questions that are basically similar). |
30 |
|
31 |
We techies are often interested in pixel density. As in, how many rows of text |
32 |
can I fit in an xterm? I like 1200 pixels height for this reason - 80 lines on |
33 |
my usual layout. |
34 |
|
35 |
Then there's non-square pixels. Without funky voodoo graphics algorithms, my |
36 |
screen displays circles as ovals. |
37 |
|
38 |
I need to shut up now. My hatred of pixelated display devices is showing. I |
39 |
accept an LCD for my notebook as CRTs just don't fit, but nothing beats a real |
40 |
CRT imho for image quality. Pity about the desk real estate a CRT takes up... |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |