It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:09 am



Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
All things Display. 
Author Message
Stranger
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:14 pm
Posts: 6295
Location: Estonia
Reply with quote
Post All things Display.
There is something I don't understand. How big is full hd physically? What I want to know is that when I have a 1080 image, what size is the optimal display where the picture needs very little streching/shrinking. This probably raises the question of how the 1080 image was captured.

Source of the question.

When one walks into a shop, they see a 22" monitor sporting a 1080p resolution and a 52" tv sporting a 1080p resolution.

Quote:
One use of the term “display resolution” applies to fixed-pixel-array displays such as plasma display panels (PDPs), liquid crystal displays (LCDs), digital light processing (DLP) projectors, or similar technologies, and is simply the physical number of columns and rows of pixels creating the display (e.g., 1920×1080). A consequence of having a fixed-grid display is that, for multi-format video inputs, all displays need a "scaling engine" (a digital video processor that includes a memory array) to match the incoming picture format to the display.
- Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution


So how is it that the same amount of lines can fit onto a 22" inch display?

Quote:
Resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not total number of pixels. Pixels per inch (PPI) or pixel density is a measurement of the resolution of devices in various contexts. The PPI of a computer display is related to the size of the display in inches and the total number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions.

For example, a 15 inch (38 cm) display whose dimensions work out to 12 inches (30.48 cm) wide by 9 inches (22.86 cm) high, capable of a maximum 1024×768 (or XGA) pixel resolution, can display around 85 PPI in both the horizontal and vertical directions. This figure is determined by dividing the width (or height) of the display area in pixels by the width (or height) of the display area in inches.
- Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density


Peltz's tv, a 26" Philips LCD with a resolution of 1366*768. Diagonal resolution in Pixels is SQRT(1366*1366+768*768)=1567 and PPI=1567/26=60.
Peltz's display, a 20" Asus LCD with a resolution of 1440*1050. Diagonal resolution in Pices is SQRT(1440*1440+1050*1050)=1782 and PPI=1782/20=89.

So the same amount of lines can be achieved by what, using smaller pixels or what? If i had a theoretical screen of 8000" could in that case the size of a pixel be theoretically the size of a SUV?

Quote:
A pixel, or pel (picture element) is.. the smallest addressable screen element in a display device; it is the smallest unit of picture that can be represented or controlled. The word pixel is based on a contraction of pix ("pictures") and el (for "element").

The more pixels used to represent an image, the closer the result can resemble the original(This holds true until we stretch the picture or the image and the displaying device are with identical features, for instance an a4 size paper and a display that is exactly the size of a4 paper so no image resizing is necessary and we have gazillion billion pixels to capture the image so there is no way to tell the difference in quality - P)

- Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel .


Lets look at this from the other side. When I take a picture with my camera, I can also choose a resolution. But that picture is also affected by the type of lenses used, the viewing angle of the objective and more.

Going to stop here for the moment to give my brain some breathing room. It feels like I am missing something but I just cant put my finger on it. Then there's the human eye and the broadcast signal and ffs how is one average person supposed to sort through this shit. I guess the end result should come down to guidelines for resolutions ie one shouldn't buy a screen with x resolution below y inches because they dont benefit from it nor above z inches because it looks like crap on it. For instance a 2000p screen wouldn't make much sense on a 6" screen because it would look exactly the same as a 1000p screen. But a 1000p or 2000p would not make sense on a 500" screen because it would look like shit. Is there some way to rationalize this shit or should I just say "fuck it" and move on.

_________________
When someone asks how rich you are, quote Rinox " I don't even have a rusty nail to scratch my butt with...!"

Be well or Get Help!!


Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:33 am
Profile
Stranger
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:14 pm
Posts: 6295
Location: Estonia
Reply with quote
Post Re: All things Display.
While my display cant actually display a 1440x1050, it can only do (a) 1400x1050 or (b) 1440x900 the physical amount of lines is there so I used the maximum number of lines for calculation.

_________________
When someone asks how rich you are, quote Rinox " I don't even have a rusty nail to scratch my butt with...!"

Be well or Get Help!!


Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:51 am
Profile
Stranger
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:14 pm
Posts: 6295
Location: Estonia
Reply with quote
Post Re: All things Display.
Quote:
The more pixels used to represent an image, the closer the result can resemble the original -wikipedia


OK so using the source as the baseline, is it correct to deduct that if you have a higher resolution than that of the source, you see every detail there is to see. But if you have less, then some detail is lost. But the thing is, if you watch a 52" tv with resolution of 1080p and the source is 480p then the picture looks like shit because it is upscaled to 1080p to fit the screen meaning that half the lines conjure up content that doesn't exist!? Which would mean that we get more details than the source actually has. This is when we look at pre-rendered shit. I have no idea how game engines actually work and what exactly changes when the resolution is upped.

I'm guessing that game engine textures generally are very high resolution pictures inside a picture so when we up the resolution they become less shit so to speak. The source details become more visible when we up the resolution yet we cant actually match the native resolution of the picture (texture?).

_________________
When someone asks how rich you are, quote Rinox " I don't even have a rusty nail to scratch my butt with...!"

Be well or Get Help!!


Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:52 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 3 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.