My view is that there is not a single spec that tells us everything we need to know about a display.
My personal opinion is that some linear dimension gives me a better feel for the size of display than an area. I would prefer height and width (like a piece of paper) but I can live with diagonal and aspect rate. TV and computer screens are almost always the classic 4:3 and high definition 16:9 aspect ratio. Additionally, you need to know something about resolution (pixels), color fidelity, contrast ratio, maximum screen brightness, and power requirements. Different technologies require different power at different screen sizes, so just knowing area doesn't exactly predict power requirement. ________________________________ From: Patrick Moore <pmo...@asnt.org> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Thu, January 13, 2011 10:58:07 AM Subject: [USMA:49493] Re: Screen size conundrum I am waiting to see how people will answer Glass' question, which is really about unit selection (square millimeters vs. square meters), not energy vs. power. The issue is relevant also for expressions of pixel density, or screen resolution: WOMBAT pixels per inch or SI pixels per. . . millimeter or centimeter or meter? Screen resolution or pixel density is measured along a horizontal line and seems to be expressed most often in pixels per inch or pixels per centimeter. Is this a case where centimeters work better than millimeters? = = = = On 1/12/11 6:58 PM, "Michael GLASS" <m.gl...@optusnet.com.au> 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 >
