I don't follow that logic. you cant downconvert 1920x1200 to 1920x1080(HDTV) without either cropping or stretching, neither of which would be acceptable. jco
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 9:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame 1080i is downconverted from 1920x1200, which is what uncompressed HD is, one of the big advantages of the 23" panels is they display uncompressed HD pixel-for-pixel. There's a reason I specified uncompressed HD. You are correct about the pixel format, I got old-fashioned NTSC mixed up with HD for a second. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: >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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
