LCD Aspect Ratio?

[tobeythorn]

I'm thinking about buying a LCD display, but I keep reading conflicting information on the issue of aspect ratios of LCD's. Could someone set the record straight on this. Many displays claim 4:3 ratio but have 1280x1024 resolution. I am picky about accuracy of a display as I do CAD work. Will circles look like ovals or am I missing something? If this is the case, any recommendations for a good LCD with correct proportions?

thanx very much for your help!

 

[Wolfshanze]

Not sure about other monitors, or if you can set it with drivers like NVidia's Detonators, but I recently looked into this very issue myself.

When you have a native resolution like 1280x1024 (a 5:4 aspect ratio), there is simply no way on God's green earth you're going to get a 4:3 aspect ratio like 1024x768 show up the way it is supposed to without stretching of some sort....

...unless of course the LCD blacks out some pixels at the top and bottom ("letterboxing").

I noticed on my own Viewsonic VP912B, which sports a native resolution of 1280x1024 (5:4) whenever I used a 4:3 aspect ratio resolution the screen would "letterbox" and black out some pixels at the top and bottom of the screen to give a true image without distortion.

Of course though there was no distortion, I can't say the same thing about clarity in non-native resolutions, which still suck with LCDs.

My opinion, if you're going to get an LCD, use it in native mode... even with "letterboxing", differant resolutions still don't look as good as a CRT if the LCD is not in its native resolution. If it letterboxes, at least you won't get oval circles!

 

[imported_johnson]

Many displays claim 4:3 ratio but have 1280x1024 resolution.

Do not buy those.
http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2289

 

[tobeythorn]

Thanx for your replies. I do have to wonder why anyone would manufacture a display with disporportionate resolution. Even many enthuist displays have this problem. Then again, many people think that 6-bit per channel colour looks as good as 8-bit.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: tobeythorn
Thanx for your replies. I do have to wonder why anyone would manufacture a display with disporportionate resolution. Even many enthuist displays have this problem. Then again, many people think that 6-bit per channel colour looks as good as 8-bit.

There is no LCD with this problem. LCDs have square pixels so there is no distortion, and any LCD panel that has a 5:4 resolution is physically 5:4.

 

[PurdueRy]

Geometry on a LCD cannot be bit. Simply put...it is perfect. No convergence, or anything

 

[tobeythorn]

Take the celebrated 193p for example. The samsung website claims it has a resolution of 1280x1024. this is a 5:4 ratio. They also claim that the aspect ratio of the screen is 4:3. assuming that samsung isn't lying and that the display has square pixels, the image is either going to have to be squashed or some messy image processing is going to have to be implimented, which isn't going to happen. so im assuming that the screen is slightly squashed. This may be something that could go mostly unnoticed if you don't work in graphics or CAD.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: tobeythorn
Take the celebrated 193p for example. The samsung website claims it has a resolution of 1280x1024. this is a 5:4 ratio. They also claim that the aspect ratio of the screen is 4:3. assuming that samsung isn't lying and that the display has square pixels, the image is either going to have to be squashed or some messy image processing is going to have to be implimented, which isn't going to happen. so im assuming that the screen is slightly squashed. This may be something that could go mostly unnoticed if you don't work in graphics or CAD.

Whatever you read saying it has a 4:3 aspect ratio is just wrong. Every LCD computer monitor I have ever seen uses square pixels, and thus if it has a 5:4 native resolution, it has a 5:4 aspect ratio for the display. I've seen some LCD and plasma televisions with nonsquare pixels (e.g. a 16:9 HDTV screen with 1024x768ish pixels), but never a computer monitor.

Edit: I looked at Samsung's website, and EVERY 19" LCD they have is listed as 1280x1024 with "4:3" aspect ratio. Since I know for a fact that several of these (such as the 192X series) use 5:4 panels, this is obviously a mistake on their website.

 

[batmanuel]

In reference to the Samsung website, I have a feeling that 4:3 is being used more as a way to say the display is not a widescreen (like the 2005FPW) instead of being an accurate measurement of the dimensions. I'm thinking that they are overgeneralizing in order to keep from confusing people.

I see it as being like how movies are generally referred to a being in 16:9 aspect ratio, even though it is hard to find a movie that actually IS in exactly 16:9. (For example ET is in 1.85:1, Star Wars 1.33:1, Pulp Fiction 2.35:1). Not terribly accurate, but it gets the point across to the masses.