1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

The Monitor Inch Lie...

Discussion in 'Nvidia' started by Skybuck Flying, Nov 19, 2011.

  1. 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.

    Both of these foolish monitors would classify as 24 inch monitors since
    their diagonal is close to 24 inch.

    However it doesn's take a genius to understand that these monitors have even
    less pixels than a 15 inch monitor.

    Now that I feel awakened you by giving two foolish examples I will explain
    further.

    Think of a circle with a dot in the center, now connect a vertical line from
    the center/dot to the top edge of the circle.

    Now start turning this line around the edge of the circle, in a
    counter-click wise fashion.

    As the line turns around and starts to become more of a diagonal, the
    rectangle which decribes the diagonal starts to become more square, and as
    it becomes more square it's area increases.

    It's only logical to assume that when it's a perfect square it's area is
    maximized. So an angle of 45 degrees would give the maximum area.

    I haven't even yet calculated if this is true but it seems like it.

    This means the best possible 24 inch monitor one could buy is a monitor with
    a diagonal slope of 45 degrees.

    However this is not what monitor manufacturers sell. They do not sell square
    monitors.

    Instead they sell these weird wide inch monitors.

    This is apperently a trick, to classify their monitors as one inch more than
    a 23 inch monitor or multiple inches more as a 17 inch monitor which was
    more square.

    The reason/motivation/thinking/explanation behind this is ofcourse perfectly
    clear: Rectangular monitors has less pixels, in this case because it has
    more vertical lines, and less horizontal lines, saving on pixels on the
    horizontal lines, so the ultimately reason is: less pixels to produce.

    Producing pixels is error prone... some pixels could be dead pixels, so this
    brings down the chance of producing a monitor with a bad pixel.

    This has now lead to monitors like 1920x1200 pixels where I do feel I am
    somewhat constrained In the vertical space.

    Some say it's because we see more in 180 degree field horizontal... which is
    true in a sense.

    But I could perfectly well handle a 2000x2000 monitor since the 2000 is
    still within my viewing space.

    Therefore I hope that 2000x2000 monitors will come into existence into the
    future.

    Since 1200 vertically kinda sux.

    Fortunately for consumers the resolution is always specified so that at
    least gives you some sense of what to expect.

    Though be ware it becomes even stranger with 1920x1080 monitors ! ;) Those
    are even missing a few horizontal lines ! Worthless monitors in my oppinion.

    Some may say this is to prevent black lines while watching movies ?!?!?!?
    Can it get anymore retarded ?!? It probably could, but don't let it ! ;) =D

    I am glad with my 1200 monitor though.... 1080 would just suck even worse !
    ;) :) =D

    Bye,
    Skybuck =D
     
    Skybuck Flying, Nov 19, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Fewer.

    ICL used to make a monitor which one could align in landscape mode or
    portrait mode according to what one was doing. For example, editing a
    page of a document was best done in portrait mode.
     
    Frederick Williams, Nov 19, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. "Frederick Williams" wrote in message

    "
    Fewer.

    ICL used to make a monitor which one could align in landscape mode or
    portrait mode according to what one was doing. For example, editing a
    page of a document was best done in portrait mode.
    "

    Rotating the monitor does not increase pixel count.

    My HP L2335 can rotate and I never use it, I know some people do use
    portrait mode.

    I still would like to have a square monitor with 2000x2000 pixels so I don't
    have to choose between landscape or portrait and can always use my monitor
    for any task ;)

    Simply put: some more vertical screen space would be nice, though I shall
    admit horizontal space is more important for now, perhaps because gui's have
    adepted to 16:10/16:9.

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Nov 19, 2011
    #3
  4. No you idiot, the aspect ratio lets you calculate the dimensions,
    assuming you can handle grade school mathematics.
    In your case, that's optimistic. Just because you are a fucking moron
    don't assume everyone else is as stupid as you.
     
    a7yvm109gf5d1, Nov 19, 2011
    #4
  5. wrote in message

    "
    No you idiot, the aspect ratio lets you calculate the dimensions,
    assuming you can handle grade school mathematics.
    In your case, that's optimistic. Just because you are a fucking moron
    don't assume everyone else is as stupid as you.
    "

    Is there a point in your bullshit ? Except that you are an idiot yourself.

    There is no ratio mentioned in my text, it's width versus height, that's not
    a ratio, you can turn it into a ratio if you want but that is beside the
    point.

    The diagonal is the 24 inch which is always mentioned.

    A diagonal is not a ratio is it now ?

    Bye,
    Skybuck
     
    Skybuck Flying, Nov 19, 2011
    #5
  6. Further more my 0.00001 inch by 24 inch monitor could still be a 1920x1200
    pixels.

    It says nothing about the pixel aspect ratio.

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Nov 19, 2011
    #6
  7. You fucking twit. It's mentionned when you shop for monitors. You DID
    mention monitors in your subject?
    4:3
    16:9
    16:10

    You pick. Or are you claming 35mm film was one atom high? Something
    tells me you will.
    You turd for brains schmuck, you find out the aspect ratio BEFORE.
    Idiot.

    I wouldn't even let my cat use your skull as a litter box.
     
    a7yvm109gf5d1, Nov 20, 2011
    #7
  8. This is the aspect ratio, and is specified along with the diagonal
    inches, and a whole bunch of other specifications.

    Be wary of how it's measured though. CRTs are measured by the actual
    glass tube, not the useful viewing area. So since you don't know how
    much glass extends off the edge behind the plastic front, you need to
    look at what others say to get *actual* accurate size.
    Not necessarily, the size of a monitor, and how many pixels it can
    show (apart from technical limitations) are ENTIRELY up to the
    manufacturer.
    That's nice, but unfortunately, I've lost interest.
     
    John Tserkezis, Nov 20, 2011
    #8
  9. Skybuck Flying

    GMAN Guest

    Seriousely Skybuck, it is not normal for a person to go on and on and on
    about shit that doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.
     
    GMAN, Nov 20, 2011
    #9
  10. "GMAN" wrote in message

    "
    Seriousely Skybuck, it is not normal for a person to go on and on and on
    about shit that doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.
    "

    Gjez gman, get some respect for the little things, even your small little
    wheener ! ;) =D

    Bye,
    Skybuck =D
     
    Skybuck Flying, Nov 20, 2011
    #10
  11. The point I am making is very simple:

    Just because somebody says: my monitor is 24 inch and yours is only 23 inch,
    then it doesn't necessarily mean that his 24 inch monitor actually has more
    pixels.

    Nothing can be said just based on the inches measurement.

    So it's basically useless to categorize monitors in groups based on inches.

    You wan't to see an example ? Fine here you go:

    http://www.alternate.nl/html/catego...e=2&bfbox=1&&tn=HARDWARE&l1=Monitoren&l2=LED&

    Fortunately the website does also mention other things, like resolution and
    such, otherwise it would be useless....

    So it's on the brink of being useless ! ;) =D

    Bye,
    Skybuck =D
     
    Skybuck Flying, Nov 20, 2011
    #11
  12. Skybuck Flying, Nov 20, 2011
    #12
  13. Also as the alternate.nl site shows.

    The inch measurement is actually the main thing/scheme and not a little
    thingy like you seem to think, again you do not understand reality.

    It's probably related to americans measuring their dicks in inches and
    believing more inches is bigger dick.

    Well rest assured, in this thread I have already proven that more inches
    diagonal doesn’t necessarily mean a bigger dick ! ;) =D

    That most feel somewhat reassuring for you ! ;) :)

    www.alternate.nl

    ^ visit monitor section ! ;)

    Bye,
    Skybuck.

    LOL.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Nov 20, 2011
    #13
  14. Of course it certainly could be, but when you see this monitor on
    display in a store what would tempt you to buy it?
     
    Norman Peelman, Nov 20, 2011
    #14
  15. It matters most when you are looking for a monitor/tv that will fit
    in a certain available space which has nothing to do with aspect ratios
    or pixel counts (which don't mean much to the average consumer.)

    But if you're interested in some good reading:

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/howmanydots/
    http://askville.amazon.com/highest-...arket-cost/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=33416234
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081114133755AAke5jR

    Just beware that the odds of you being able to afford what you're
    after are small.
     
    Norman Peelman, Nov 20, 2011
    #15
  16. Skybuck Flying

    Fred Abse Guest

    This is a throwback to the days of circular CRTs with a rectangular mask.
    The quoted figure was the diameter of the *outside* of the faceplate, not
    the phosphor area. Since CRT makers had no control over the size of mask
    their customers fitted, it made sense to specify CRTs this way. TV
    manufacturers chose to adopt the convention that a TV with a 14" CRT was a
    "14 inch TV".

    It kinda stuck.

    Early TVs had a 5x4 aspect ratio, despite the transmitted picture always
    being 4x3. Later on, this changed.
     
    Fred Abse, Nov 20, 2011
    #16
  17. Skybuck Flying

    GMAN Guest

    You like looking at men?
     
    GMAN, Nov 20, 2011
    #17
  18. Skybuck Flying

    Rhaspun Guest

    No kidding. I look at the published screen size, at the physical
    dimension and the specs. Must importantly I look at the monitor. If it
    looks good then it's all good to go.
     
    Rhaspun, Nov 21, 2011
    #18
  19. I thought that after blowing up your dream PC, you were just going to give
    up all this technology garbage and join an ashram or something.

    Please don't tell me that the yogis got you a Usenet feed.
     
    Paul Hovnanian P.E., Nov 21, 2011
    #19
  20. "GMAN" wrote in message

    "
    You like looking at men?
    "

    You want me to look at you ? What's the matter, girls don't like looking at
    your small little wheener ? ;)

    Bye,
    Skybuck =D
     
    Skybuck Flying, Nov 21, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.