LCD monitor questions

[Taavi Burns]

On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 02:35:20PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 02:31:50PM -0400, Taavi Burns wrote:
> > You mean a square-screen display?  1280x960 is 4:3.  I have an 18.1"
> > 1280x1024 LCD on my desk at work, and it's decidedly more square than
> > my laptop screen (1024x768).  I don't think I've ever seen an LCD monitor
> > with non-square pixels anyway, and running 1280x1024 at 1280x960 would be
> > absolutely horrid.  ;)
> 
> Hence why the native resolution should have been 1280x960 in the first
> place.

On CRTs, yes.  I think that they did 1280x1024 because on some monitors it
just doesn't "look right".  Might have to do with standard monitor sizes
and the dot pitch (so phosphors were not lined up nicely, causing moire patterns
or some silly thing like that).

> I wonder if you can force it to leave parts of the screen unused and run
> 4:3 aspect ratio display on it anyhow... :)

But if it's displaying perfectly square pixels, do you really care what the shape
of the screen is enough to not want to use some pixels?  Stick your XMMS playlist
in the extra space if you don't want to use it for webbrowsing, or something. ;)

> I have seen 1280x768 I think it was, on some widescreen laptop displays.
> Not sure what ratio that works out to although I think 5:3 might be
> about right.  I guess 15:9 is close to the 16:9 that DVD widescreen
> seems to expect.

My PowerBook as a 1280x854 LCD.  I still get black sections at the top and bottom
when watching DVDs, but they're smaller than on a monitor.  Watching 4:3 videos
also naturally causes black stripes on the sides, but I don't notice them that much.
What is on the screen is still quite big, and beautiful.  (it's a very nice LCD imho)

-- 
taa
/*eof*/
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml