Wrong, HDTV uses square pixels, the format is actually 1080x1920 which is 16x9. That's why its called "1080i", its not 1200 pixels vertically. jco
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 8:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame Don't forget overscan on TV displays and the fact that video pixels are rectangular and computer display pixels are square. It screws with the aspect ratio. Uncompressed HD video is only 16x9 on a TV due to having rectangular pixels, the actual resolution (1920x1200) is 16x10. J. C. O'Connell wrote: >Im not disagreeing, Im just wondering WHY WHY WHY? >The new world standard for widescreen video is >16x9 so why in the world would they use something >close but not matching. that's what I don't get.... >jco > >-----Original Message----- >From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 8:33 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame > > >Resolution and aspect ratio are fixed on an LCD, given square pixels, >resolution dictates aspect ratio on an LCD and one can compute the >latter from the former. Widescreen monitors are mostly 16x10 (needless >to say, the rare widescreen CRT's may be different). > > >J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > >>"most" monitiors are 16x10? I don't get it. >>I was talking about the pixel array which >>of course could be different than the screen >>aspect ratio ( at least on a crt it can). >>jco >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 7:33 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame >> >> >>No, that's typical for a 20" widescreen LCD. Most monitors are 16x10 >>rather than 16x9. >> >>-Adam >> >> >>J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Isnt that an odd aspect ratio? neither the traditional 4x3 or the >>>newer 16x9. Whats the deal on that? JCO >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:43 PM >>>To: [email protected] >>>Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame >>> >>> >>>I run my 20-inch Apple Cinema Display (trendy flat panel:-) at 1680 x >>>1050. It's superb for image editing and is beautifully in synch with >>>my printer. Paul >>>On Nov 12, 2005, at 4:02 PM, William Robb wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" >>>>Subject: RE: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>FWIW, One thing I did just upgrade regarding image editing and >>>>>PCing >>>>>in general is my monitor. I switched to a 19" super trinitron CRT >>>>>running at 1200x1600 and the difference is huge compared to my old >>>>>monitor. I would never go back to 960x1280 and that's about all you >>>>>can get on the trendy "flat panel" LCD displays at this point. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>I'm not ready to give up on CRT monitors yet either. My brother in >>>>law >>>>has a really nice 21" screen, I'm not sure who makes it, that I am a >>>>little envious of. Right now I have a 19" Samsung Syncmaster which has >>>>been quite good, but my video card wont support a big enough screen at >>>>a refresh rate I can live with. >>>>I can see a Matrox video card in my future. >>>> >>>>William Robb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
