Michael, Jon, and Patrick, The "best" unit for TV screen area (size) is the coherent SI unit "meter squared." Flat screens of area about 1 m^2 and larger are already quite common. The "best" unit for TV pixel density is the unit "pixels per meter squared." (I hesitate to call "pixels/m^2" an "SI unit." How is "pixel" related to SI?
Of course, SI prefixes may be applied to the numerators of each unit (preferably, excluding prefixes in the denominators). Gene. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:00:14 -0500 >From: Jon Saxton <spam.t...@verizon.net> >Subject: [USMA:49509] Re: Screen size conundrum >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > >I thought about this issue about 4 years ago. I think the best unit for >measuring screen sizes is dm² but I expect an adverse reaction from >other members of this list. > > >On 2011-01-12 1858, Michael GLASS wrote: >> Dear People, >> >> There's a real problem with electronic screen sizes - all of them. This >> includes cameras, video cameras, computers, DVD players GPS monitors and >> television sets. >> >> >> 1 Because the screens are different shapes, there is no fixed relationship >> between the size of the screen and the measure given. >> >> 2 Even in cases where there is a fixed ratio between shape of the screen and >> the size of the screen, the increase in the size is not linear, but is >> related to the square of the number given. >> >> 3 As a result, power consumption on larger screen sizes is far higher than >> might be anticipated by looking at the screen size. For example, a 15 inch >> computer monitor is very nearly a 33% larger than a 13 inch model whereas 15 >> is just over 15% larger than 13. >> >> 4 With the issue of global warming, the power consumption of larger screens >> is a matter of increasing concern. >> >> 5 Even if you express screen sizes in metric terms the diagonal is still a >> misleading measure of the size of the screen. >> >> It seems to me that the best way to express the size of the screen is to >> give its area. So here is my conundrum: would it be better to express this >> size in square metres, square millimetres or square metres? What do others >> think? >> >> Michael Glass >> >> >
