[quote]As far as the 4:3 or 5:4 thing goes, I think the display may actually be 4:3, it's just that the pixels aren't square, they're just slighty squished rectangles. When you run your CRT at 1280x1024, the aspect ratio doesn't change, the CRT just draws the pixels slightly squished in the vertical plane. Everything still looks square because your computer corrects the geometry. If you notice, most of the standard screen resolutions correspond to a 4:3 ratio with square pixels.<hr></blockquote>
Whay display?
it would be silly for anyone to squish a 5:4 res into a 4:3 without scaling it correctly.
I have a feeling that most video cards run the 1280x1024 resolution as a 4:3 and scale to adjust the appropriate dimensions. My 17" CRT is 4:3 yet I run it at 1280x1024 and everything looks correct. The graphics system must recognize that the pixels aren't square and correct accordingly.
hmmm... Anyone with a 17" LCD care to produce some measurements of the screen ???
<strong>I have a feeling that most video cards run the 1280x1024 resolution as a 4:3 and scale to adjust the appropriate dimensions. My 17" CRT is 4:3 yet I run it at 1280x1024 and everything looks correct. The graphics system must recognize that the pixels aren't square and correct accordingly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But it doesn't, and it's not correct. It's 1.33:1 vs. 1.25:1, and it's hard to notice only a few percent of squish. But accurately measure a large perfect circle or square, and it'll be about 6% larger in one dimension.
You seriously thought the Apple 17" Studio display was 4:3? I don't know, but it seemed pretty obvious the display is much closer to a square than most monitors.
The reason why LCD makers are going wth 1280x1024...they want the optimum resolution for a 17 inch LCD. I run my 18" VIS CRT at 1280x1024, because that's what I think is the best resolution at that screen size. With a monitor that physically has 1280x1024 as a native pixel resolution, you can always go back down to 1280x960. With a 4:3 monitor designed around a 1280x960 pixel resolution, you can't make pixels appear from nowhere...
Never seen one up close. Only worked with 15" ACD's and two 22" Cinema dispays. -- Neither of them at home (wish I were rich)
I know, relax. I was just giving the CRT example to say that pixels needn't be square. Naturally, on an LCD the native resolution is fixed, as are the porportions of the pixels themselves. 4:3/ 5:4, I don't really care, I'd take one either way. Just wanted to know.
22" Cinema Displays dropping to $1999, 23", 27" are all mentioned as possibilities. I suspect that Apple will move to OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) technology for much larger screen sizes since it's less weight, zero defect (no dead pixels), and much less expensive .
Anyone care to chime in on what the maximum resolution over DVI is? People have bandied about 1600x1200. However, the only articles I could find on the subject say that DVI doubles the bandwidth of a previous scheme that included USB and firewire on the same wire (while using the same signalling) -- ADC may not be as proprietary as we think. Anyway, the max resolution of that previous standard was 1280x1024. If this is doubled, wouldn't that equal 2048x1280 or thereabouts? Tom's Hardware Guide has an article about this (they're not that bad with technical info) and they say DVi maxes out at an HDTV friendly 1920x1080, but the spec suggests there's just a little more room in it than that.
Anyone have a link to a DVI spec page or something?
I've e-mailed the contact at the LG web site but they haven't gotten back to me about it yet.
Comments
Whay display?
it would be silly for anyone to squish a 5:4 res into a 4:3 without scaling it correctly.
I have a feeling that most video cards run the 1280x1024 resolution as a 4:3 and scale to adjust the appropriate dimensions. My 17" CRT is 4:3 yet I run it at 1280x1024 and everything looks correct. The graphics system must recognize that the pixels aren't square and correct accordingly.
hmmm... Anyone with a 17" LCD care to produce some measurements of the screen ???
<strong>I have a feeling that most video cards run the 1280x1024 resolution as a 4:3 and scale to adjust the appropriate dimensions. My 17" CRT is 4:3 yet I run it at 1280x1024 and everything looks correct. The graphics system must recognize that the pixels aren't square and correct accordingly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But it doesn't, and it's not correct. It's 1.33:1 vs. 1.25:1, and it's hard to notice only a few percent of squish. But accurately measure a large perfect circle or square, and it'll be about 6% larger in one dimension.
Alex
The reason why LCD makers are going wth 1280x1024...they want the optimum resolution for a 17 inch LCD. I run my 18" VIS CRT at 1280x1024, because that's what I think is the best resolution at that screen size. With a monitor that physically has 1280x1024 as a native pixel resolution, you can always go back down to 1280x960. With a 4:3 monitor designed around a 1280x960 pixel resolution, you can't make pixels appear from nowhere...
I know, relax. I was just giving the CRT example to say that pixels needn't be square. Naturally, on an LCD the native resolution is fixed, as are the porportions of the pixels themselves. 4:3/ 5:4, I don't really care, I'd take one either way. Just wanted to know.
Anyone have a link to a DVI spec page or something?
I've e-mailed the contact at the LG web site but they haven't gotten back to me about it yet.