why 1680x1050 ?

[Guest]

Why was the dimension 1680x1050 chosen as the size for computer monitors in
that range? Why not 1728x1080 so it would be usable as a TV display, too?
Was this person trying to make people buy 2 displays or just on drugs?

 

[Bob Myers]

Why was the dimension 1680x1050 chosen as the size for computer monitors
in
that range? Why not 1728x1080 so it would be usable as a TV display, too?
Was this person trying to make people buy 2 displays or just on drugs?

What person? Trying to find a single person who you could
call responsible for a given standard size or format would be
a difficult task, to say the least.

1728 x 1080 would not be any more usable as a "TV display"
than 1680 x 1050; while it has the same number of lines as the
TV-standard 1920 x 1080 format, remember that the widescreen
monitor aspect ratio is 16:10, not 16:9 - it still doesn't fit without
scaling or "letterboxing" of some sort.

The choice of 1680 x 1050 - and keep in mind that this wasn't
really "standardized" in advance, it's just where the market
wound up - was the result of two factors. First, the optimum
resolution (in terms of pixels per inch) at the sizes at which this
format is common, both in terms of visual appearance and
manufacturing capabilities. Second, standard formats have to
be chosen with an eye toward matching up with standard row
and column driver packaging. 1680 x 1050 isn't really great in
terms of the latter concern, but the next step down with a
decent horizontal count (1600 x 1000) was a bit low from
the perspective of the first point (and didn't meet or exceed the
1024-line number, which of course was already established
in the 1280 x 1024 5:4 format). Hitting 1024 lines vertically
would've meant something like 1638 x 1024 (the exact
16:10 for 1024 lines is 1638.4 pixels per line), again a pretty
oddball horizontal number. Finally, 1680 IS at least a multiple
of 8 (and 16), and that's still a "magic number" in terms of
establishing standard pixel formats and video timings.

One of the nice things about standards, of course, is that there
are SO many to choose from... Now, just wait to see
what happens as we start to see 16:9 monitors come to the
market.


Bob M.

 

[Nate Edel]

1728 x 1080 would not be any more usable as a "TV display"
than 1680 x 1050; while it has the same number of lines as the
TV-standard 1920 x 1080 format, remember that the widescreen
monitor aspect ratio is 16:10, not 16:9 - it still doesn't fit without
scaling or "letterboxing" of some sort.

AIUI, one of the justifications for 16:10 is that you can display a 16:9
video, and still have a status bar/control bar on the screen.

 

[Bob Myers]

AIUI, one of the justifications for 16:10 is that you can display a 16:9
video, and still have a status bar/control bar on the screen.

That's certainly been one of the justifications for it in
recent professional video applications, but it's not where the
format originally came from. 16:10 goes back to the
first widescreen Sony monitors (CRTs) of the late 1990s,
and at least one of the features originally claimed for it was
that you could put two 8.5x11 or A4 pages side-by-side
on the screen.

Bob M.

 

[House Of The White Rose]

One of the nice things about standards, of course, is that there
are SO many to choose from... Now, just wait to see
what happens as we start to see 16:9 monitors come to the
market.


Bob M.

Hey Bob, you seem, to know your stuff so perhaps you could give me some
insight into something I have always wondered about with some of the HD
Plasma screens. Quite a few of the earlier HD plasma screens have a
native res of 1024x768. That means to get a 16:9 ratio they would have to
use rectangular pixels, right? Well, 1024x768 is not even an HD res so
how can they call them HD? Sure my friends HD Plasma displays 1280x720
but it just upscales 1024x768 to 1280x720, right?

And why did the HD LCD screens use 1366x768 instead of 1280x720? THat
means they have to downscale to 1280x720. Wouldn't it have been better to
just have a native res of 1280x720 like my LCD projector has? That means
when I display 1280x720 I am getting the native res with no scaling at
all, which I read is always better.

 

[House Of The White Rose]

(e-mail address removed) (Nate Edel) wrote in @mail.sfchat.org:

AIUI, one of the justifications for 16:10 is that you can display a 16:9
video, and still have a status bar/control bar on the screen.

Yea, that's what I read is the reason we have 16:10 instead of 16:9
computer screens.

 

[Bob Myers]

Hey Bob, you seem, to know your stuff so perhaps you could give me some
insight into something I have always wondered about with some of the HD
Plasma screens. Quite a few of the earlier HD plasma screens have a
native res of 1024x768. That means to get a 16:9 ratio they would have to
use rectangular pixels, right? Well, 1024x768 is not even an HD res so
how can they call them HD? Sure my friends HD Plasma displays 1280x720
but it just upscales 1024x768 to 1280x720, right?

First - yes, a 16:9 panel which has a native format (a
term I prefer over "resolution," but then I'm picky about
such things - "resolution" in imaging has its own meaning
already) of 1024 x 768 must have, by necessity,
"non-square" pixels - and an image created in a different
format would have to be scaled to fill that screen. That
turns out to be not much of a concern, at least from the
perspective of the earlier (Japanese analog system) days
of HDTV. Analog video doesn't really have any such thing
as "pixels" to begin with, so the panel format is mostly
concerned with how many pixels you need for the image to
look good at a given diagonal size and assumed viewing
distance (and that IS a question of "resolution" in the proper
sense - something you talk about in terms of pixels per inch,
or cycles or lines per visual degree).

Second - they can call it "HD" because that term really
has no special meaning in terms of a particular pixel
count. The de-facto meanings today are "HD = 1280 x
720," and "Full HD = 1920 x 1080," but such things
really have no basis in terms of established standards.
HD really just means "high definition," and anything we've
talked about so far certainly does have at least HIGHER
definition that the earlier "standard definition" 480 or
576-line broadcast formats.

And why did the HD LCD screens use 1366x768 instead of 1280x720?

Actually, both have been used - but as noted earlier, it
can at least be argued that the 768-line version gives you
somewhat of a better match to PC standard formats (if
you care about such things), and more pixels on the screen
anyway. "Scaling" isn't something the TV industry has
really had to avoid, since no matter what you choose for the
panel format, you're going to HAVE to scale some incoming
video anyway. Scaling is not necessarily a bad thing, at least
not when you're talking about something like typical "TV"
images.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

(e-mail address removed) (Nate Edel) wrote in @mail.sfchat.org:


Yea, that's what I read is the reason we have 16:10 instead of 16:9
computer screens.

Not really; 16:10 got established as a computer-industry aspect
ratio back in the days of CRTs. Monitor CRTs and TV CRTs
were already very different products, and it didn't matter that the
PC/workstation industry at the time (mid-1990s) was following
a different AR standard, which was selected for other reasons.

Bob M.

 

[Robert Ford]

Actually, both have been used - but as noted earlier, it
can at least be argued that the 768-line version gives you
somewhat of a better match to PC standard formats (if
you care about such things), and more pixels on the screen
anyway. "Scaling" isn't something the TV industry has
really had to avoid, since no matter what you choose for the
panel format, you're going to HAVE to scale some incoming
video anyway. Scaling is not necessarily a bad thing, at least
not when you're talking about something like typical "TV"
images.

Bob M.

OK, thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.