Apparently, though unproven, at 22:27 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Paul Hartman did opine thusly:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote: > > Then there's non-square pixels. Without funky voodoo graphics algorithms, > > my screen displays circles as ovals. > > That problem should not exist on LCD if you're using the screen's > native resolution. For example, the most common case of this in CRT > days was 1280x1024 resolution which is not a proper 4:3 aspect ratio > (it is 1.25 rather than 1.33). In other to make a circle look like a > circle you'd need to use 1280x960 instead and adjust the monitor to > make the picture fill the screen, or your programs would need to be > aware of the pixel shape and adjust accordingly (those funky voodoo > graphics algorithms). > > With LCD monitors, the 1280x1080 panels are actually a small bit > taller than a standard 4:3 panel, so a circle should look like a > circle without having to do anything special. (However, if someone > uses any other resolution their circle will be oblong). > > I was a die-hard CRT guy but I've found LCD with at least 100 dpi to > be acceptable compared to the CRTs I've had in the past. And in the > case of my S-IPS monitor I think it is really superior to any CRT I've > ever used. (My monitor with TN panel, however, is pretty bad.) I spent 10 years fixing TVs of every imaginable model and type from the best to the worst, and all the improvements in between. As a result I'm finely tuned to departures from the ideal with any display device. probably finely tuned to a fault :-) I can see pixels refreshing on all flat panels, even the best of the best LED models from Samsung. I finally understood why when I found out how that "Xms refresh time" spec is actually measured. I can see non-square pixels by looking at thin but wide arcs, even more so when an oblong pixel is in a square grid. LCDs are easiest driven in terms of pixels - it maps to video memory. If they are no-square, one has to know the horiz and vert dpi and apply a fudge factor to make the image proportional. If the pixels are on a square grid, then one does not fudge the image. All very horribly complex and frankly, more detail than I can really be bothered with. Which all goes to say that I have an unusual frame of reference, one that is *not* universally applicable :-) Your point about poor CRTs is taken. A lousy CRT is unwatchable but a lousy LCD is tolerable. The finest CRTs though still outshine even the best LCD (again, imho only) -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
