Re: Monitor dimensions
- From: "HEMI-Powered" <none@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:14:53 GMT
David J Taylor added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
David, I learned a lot the last time this stuff came up. I'veI've noticed that my Samsung Syncmaster 172w is set toAlmost without exception, all monitors in non-professional use
1024x768 when I change it to 1280x1024 I get the distortion
as well. My monitor set itself up when I loaded in the
drivers for it so I never altered them. Do I now need to
rescale the photos? I've checked with a couple of friends and
their square monitors are set to 1024x768
have square pixels. Meaning that if they have a native
resolution of 1280 x 1024, they should be driven at 1280 x
1024. Your monitor is slightly unusual in that its native
resolution is 1280 x 768 pixels, and that therefore is the
resolution you should drive it at.
When resizing photos, just ensure that the box "Maintain
aspect ratio" is checked. For 3:2 images such as produced by
your DSLR, that should result in images sized 1152 x 768
pixels for a full image which completely fills your display
horizontally. There will be a small black band at left and
right (as the 1152 pixels of the image is less than the 1280
pixels of the monitor). When resizing for the Web, I would
probably use half that or less - so 600 x 400 pixels, or you
can let your software do it for you.
come to think that I maybe accidently bought a 4:3 monitor when I
bought my Samsung 21" 213T, which I run at 1280 x 960.
I'm vaguely considering a 244" Samsung 244T. Now that I know the
right thing to look for, I can go to their web site and maybe
find out what screen resolutions it supports and/or call their
customer hot line.
My question to you is this: suppose the 244T or whatever 24" I
eventually buy (26" is too big for my desk, 24" will be quite
tight even when I move my PC mini-tower to the floor) has square
pixels and would run as you suggest at, say 1280 x 1024. What
happens when I display a 1280 x 960 image which I'd previously
cropped 4:3 so as to completely fill my monitor screen? I've been
doing that for years, starting from my scanning days.
I assume that what I will see is a black band at the top and
bottom but NOT a distorted image. Am I right about this? It would
really surprise me - and tick me off - if tens of thousands of
images are not crap.
BTW, where did square pixels come from? I understand the 4:3
thing having its roots in the old time-sharing non-graphics
terminals, then moving to the PC under DOS. I believe 4:3 was
chosen partially because it made the 80 x 24 line displays work
better and because it true roots are in commerical TV. You always
have great info and insights, so you can probably set me straight
- and ease my mind!
BTW, why am I a Samsung "bigot"? Good question. When I looked
locally at the very best the stores carried, it had the best
overall display of photographs of any other brand, and that
included the lower end Sony's. I thought a high-end, read: much
more expensive, Sony could best my Samsung, but I've been
immensely satisfied with it, I've looked AGAIN at competing
brands, and concluded I have a winner. You have any comments as
to my preferences? You can discuss my sanity in these issues as
well, we're OK with each other. <grin>
Thanks in advance for any info you might be able to provide.
--
HP, aka Jerry
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Monitor dimensions
- From: David J Taylor
- Re: Monitor dimensions
- From: John Bean
- Re: Monitor dimensions
- References:
- Monitor dimensions
- From: Bruce
- Re: Monitor dimensions
- From: BF
- Re: Monitor dimensions
- From: Bruce
- Re: Monitor dimensions
- From: David J Taylor
- Monitor dimensions
- Prev by Date: Re: Monitor dimensions
- Next by Date: Re: Monitor dimensions
- Previous by thread: Re: Monitor dimensions
- Next by thread: Re: Monitor dimensions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|