AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I keep seeing LCD panels that look at first like they're the "widescreen" (16:9) aspect ratio, but turn out to have 1280x768 pixels, instead of 1280x720 or 1365x768. Why?! And are there any 16:9s out there?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
the pixels themselves have a wide aspect ratio (they are rectangular, not square), letting the display have a native 16:9 AR even though the pixel count doesnt seem to add up.


- pink
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Edited because a whole bunch of problems and questions I had were eliminated when I downloaded and measured the demo images of several such monitors, and found that the actual heights and widths of these screens are in fact what you'd think from their pixel resolutions: 5/3; more than 4/3 but less than 16/9. A 16/9 image presented on such a screen would have to be presented with a pair of black bars at the top and bottom, each one 24 pixels tall, which roughly equates to a menu bar or task bar... or filling the screen with 85 pixels cut off the sides... or matched up to the screen's size with a distortion of a bit over 6%.


Why doesn't anybody seem to make true 16:9 LCD panels? The computer world doesn't have a whole lot of reason to widen their screens at all other than the TV world's wide format, so why make a wide screen that doesn't match it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
I assume that you know the X/U/etc/VGA standards have been in place for computer displays for a number of years now. Hence the need to display 768 vertical resolution. JerryG gives a pretty good reason here why 16:10 AR gives you the best of both worlds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
The 768 lines I get... but that could be done at a real 16:9 ratio. It would just take 1365 lines instead of 1280.


When using a 5:3 screen like 1280x768 to show material that was meant for 16:9, do you just blow it up to match the top and bottom, and treat the other 85 pixels like a disposable 6% (3% on each side) horizontal overscan?


(edited to fix the typo)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Oh ya, and are ALL digital fixed-pixel computer displays going to be like this, including the front and rear projectors?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Delvo


When using a 5:3 screen like 1280x720 to show material that was meant for 16:9, do you just blow it up to match the top and bottom, and treat the other 85 pixels like a disposable 6% (3% on each side) horizontal overscan?
I think you need to check your math. 1280X720 is exactly 16:9.


- pink
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Delvo
The 768 lines I get... but that could be done at a real 16:9 ratio. It would just take 1365 lines instead of 1280.
But the 1280 horizontal rez is also one of the VGA standards. I think the point is that LCD manufacturers are trying to cater to the computer world as well and need to stick to computer standards. When sent a 1280X720 HDTV resolution the display can simply not show a few lines top and bottom and display the full resolution without scaling. No blow up or losing of pixels necessary.


Plasma screens do have 1365X768 or 1366X768 resolution in the 50" size because, at that size, I guess the manufacturers aimed them at the HT market predominantly.

Quote:
When using a 5:3 screen like 1280x720 to show material that was meant for 16:9, do you just blow it up to match the top and bottom, and treat the other 85 pixels like a disposable 6% (3% on each side) horizontal overscan?
I'm not sure what this has to do with your first post. You asked why LCDs had 1280X768 resolution. 1280X720 is 16:9 so why do you think that there would be a need to blow up and lose pixels on a 1280X720 display?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
Divvy


I think, Delvo simply mistyped his question (it happens).


If you correct:

"When using a 5:3 screen like 1280x720 to to show material that was meant for 16:9,..."

to:

"When using a 5:3 screen like 1280x768 to to show material that was meant for 16:9,..."


the question makes more sense.


Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by MikeSer
Divvy


I think, Delvo simply mistyped his question (it happens).


If you correct:

"When using a 5:3 screen like 1280x720 to to show material that was meant for 16:9,..."

to:

"When using a 5:3 screen like 1280x768 to to show material that was meant for 16:9,..."


the question makes more sense.


Mike
Um yes I know it happens but the point is I had already provided an answer to that corrected version of the question in the link that I provided. I was not trying to be facetious or pedantic, I thought that he would have at least read the link.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,565 Posts
if you have Displaymate

www.displaymate.com


you can go in to Video System Info and it will give you the info you need including:


resolution

square pixels?

screen aspect ratio


for example on the Mits LT-3020(VGA)


res 1280x768

square pixels? Yes

screen aspect ratio 1.67 H/V Landscape 5:3


not every display is going to be a perfect 16:9 or 4:3: lots of compromises by the manufacturers for many reasons
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
LCD panels on computer displays are made more for editing video than displaying it. Thus, you have space for the 16:9 video, and a strip on the bottom for your editing tools.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
also, as I mentioned earlier in the thread .. don't assume all displays have square pixels. I know this is an LCD specific question but the premise is the same for example look at the pioneer 433cmx. it is a 16:9 pdp with a native res of 1024X768. but the pixels are rectangular, not square, so everything works out in the end.


In short, Yes, there are some 'widescreen' displays that are not exactly 16:9. Most are close and may not be exact for a good reason. Others are exactly 16:9 even though their pixel count may not appear to be.


In any case, there are plenty of fixed pixel displays that are true 16:9 if that is what you require.


- pink
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
This is sort of changing the subject but ...


Having exactly 16:9 is not so important given the fact that there is no standard for wide screen movies. Half the movies released to DVD are not 16:9 wide screen but one of about 4 others. Who decides what aspect ratio a given movie will be shot in? What are the Studios thinking shooting a film in anything but 16:9. Not only does this effect our lives but also creates work for the theaters when setting the film up for viewing.


Is there a petition somewhere that I can sign to show my displeasure with the movie studios?


Geoff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by mr pink
also, as I mentioned earlier in the thread .. don't assume all displays have square pixels. I know this is an LCD specific question but the premise is the same for example look at the pioneer 433cmx. it is a 16:9 pdp with a native res of 1024X768. but the pixels are rectangular, not square, so everything works out in the end.

- pink
This is not true because windows does not know that it is supposed to be outputting to a 16:9 aspect monitor it still thinks that it is outputting in 4:3 ratio @1024x768. AFAIK there is no widescreen mode in windows at a 1024x768(4:3 pixel ratio) therefore any pictures, text unless the app has aspect control, will be vertically compressed (ie. circle --> oval).


i have not tried but i think this is the best way: Windows does however have a 16:9 ratio @ 1280x720 which is the sames as 720p which means if your HDTV can take 720p why not send it the equivalent in a PC signal, [email protected] and this signal would then will be scaled by the HDTV scaling circuitry to [email protected] 16:9 ratio (same as a 720 HD signal needs scaling)


Would love to know if this works ok cause then i would be more sure in purchasing a HDTV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,771 Posts
Great question. I know this is off topic but I have also wondered why most Computer LCD's are 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960. This does distort the the shapes on the screen, I have confirmed it with the perfect circle tool in Photoshop. When I watch 4x3 content there are black bars on the top and bottom.


My friend also has a 30 Sharp LCD, with a native resolution of 1280x768, when he watches HD content there are thin black bars on the top and bottom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by divvy
I had already provided an answer to that corrected version of the question in the link that I provided. I was not trying to be facetious or pedantic, I thought that he would have at least read the link.
What adjective would you apply to a false and baseless accusation that I didn't read a link that didn't really answer my question?


The people in that other thread were talking about a specific display, and they stated that that display has two modes for handling 16:9 material: match L&R with black bars at top and bottom, or match T&B with some image lost off the L&R edges. But that doesn't answer my broadcast question about what people do with most displays, that don't have that feature. Is there software that gives you the same choice from the computer? Is one of these two options impossible with a display that doesn't have the choice built in? Which one happens by nature if you don't fiddle with it? Which method does who prefer and why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Paul Bigelow
Samsung LTM-225W: 1280x720


I think that will be true for the forthcoming Samsung LTN-223W as well.
What is that thing and where can I get it, or the info about it? When I searched for that name at Samsung's website, all I got was links to their Chile and Mexico pages. And when I go through Samsung's normal links to look for LCD panels, the only "wide" ones I see are the 241MP, 403T, 172W, all of which are either 5:3 (15:9)or 8:5 (16:10).


I noticed that others here say that there are plenty of digital displays that are really 16:9, undistorted (no stupid unsquare pixels), and one person suggests it's a matter of size because bigger screens are for TV/theater while smaller ones are only for computers. Since LCD panels tend to be the smaller displays, does that mean that none of these abundant true-16:9 digital displays are LCD panels? If there are true 16:9 LCD panels, where are they hiding?! If I got a 5:3 panel now (to get my HTPC going and replace my small TV) and wanted to add a larger projection screen later (as an upgrade, and to have a separate "theater" screen so the two screens would specialize for different uses), would I then find that those are true 16:9, and thus have monitors of two different aspect ratios?
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top