Michael, the task of describing a screen size can involve a cascade of different types of measure.
i do not know which particular measure should be considered most important. and i think that different users of particular consoles or peripherals, or for that matter, consumers of particular formatted media, might have different opinions of what particular measure would be most important. the reality that there have occurred certain transitions from earlier video formats to HD formats does not make the task of describing video screens any easier. i somehow have the impression that content might have been compromised if though reformatting the content was cropped from one aspect to another. at the same time hopefully newer improved screen resolutions don't follow a trend to compromise content from earlier video formats. i think that information about the following measures is useful and important: aspect ratio (and width and height in millimeters) pixel density (in terms of a metric measure of meter or millimeter) other measures may certainly also be useful and important: power or energy ratings picture, light, or color ratings where possible, i think that these measures should be expressed or represented in terms of appropriately-chosen SI units. i think that the pre-metric inch is less comparable than either the meter or the millimeter. best regards, Ron On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Michael GLASS <[email protected]>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 > > -- -------------------- Ron Stone ------------------------- disclaimers or other restrictions may apply to this message. ------------------------------------
