Hello,
>
>Monitor manufacturers like to publish the size of their monitors in inches.
>This is known as the diagonal line.
>
>However I could sell you a monitor which has 0.00001 inch width and 24 inch
>height or a monitor which is 24 inch width and 0.00001 inch height.
Well, I doubt that! You might create it, but sell it ??
You're totally ignoring the fact that they also use a "standard" width/height ratio. In old sets it was normally 4:3. Now many are 16:9
" Well, I doubt that! You might create it, but sell it ?? "
" You're totally ignoring the fact that they also use a "standard" width/height ratio. In old sets it was normally 4:3. Now many are 16:9 "
I am not ignoring it, I am contesting it.
The lie is it's because of our 180% horizontal vision.
I think the ratio was chosen to lower pixel count.
You admit it yourself the ratio changed from 4:3 to 16:9, very suspicious.
Bye, Skybuck.
2560x1600, 1920x1200 two 1.6x ratios are both probably chosen as this is close to the golden ratio 1.618 common in aesthetics/architecture.
cheers, Jamie
Lots of considerations go into this sort of thing, and the cheap mass market monitors are driven more and more by TV specifications.
You do have to look at the aspect ratio and resolution (and the associated pixel size and pixel aspect ratio-most are square these days) when shopping for monitors. the vertical resolution is limiting when trying to read an entire page on the screen at once. 1600 pixels is barely enough vertically for a normal density letter size page (A4 is a bit worse, I guess). A 16:9 aspect ratio monitor will show two facing letter size pages acceptably if it will show one.
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
Thank God for Skybuck regulators.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required