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
-- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Thank God for Skybuck regulators.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.