Apparently, though unproven, at 18:53 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Per-Erik Westerberg did opine thusly:
> On ons, 2010-09-08 at 17:40 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > Apparently, though unproven, at 17:24 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, > > Grant > > > > Edwards did opine thusly: > > > > Since 16:9 panels are the same shape as the ones TVs use, I assume > > > > that's why they are cheaper and why the industry prefers them. > > > > > > I thought about that, but the sizes and pixel densities don't overlap > > > at all between laptop panels and TV panels, so I don't see how they > > > can be leveraging production processes or equipment. > > > > The intent is probably more that the picture will visually appear the > > same whether you view it on a laptop, HD TV or widescreen monitor. > > > > Which raises another layer of confusion: when a spec says "16:9" does it > > mean physical dimensions, or pixel density? I've yet to find a device > > that clearly states *how* it arrived at the numbers it quotes in it's > > spec. > > I guess it is the relation between horizontal versus vertical dimension, > it shouldn't matter what the pixel density is ... or does it? Logically speaking, the physical dimension is what the average user is after. They want to know if a certain movie clip fits exactly on the screen with no distortion (and other questions that are basically similar). We techies are often interested in pixel density. As in, how many rows of text can I fit in an xterm? I like 1200 pixels height for this reason - 80 lines on my usual layout. Then there's non-square pixels. Without funky voodoo graphics algorithms, my screen displays circles as ovals. I need to shut up now. My hatred of pixelated display devices is showing. I accept an LCD for my notebook as CRTs just don't fit, but nothing beats a real CRT imho for image quality. Pity about the desk real estate a CRT takes up... -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
