29-09-2021, 07:14 PM
(29-09-2021, 06:55 PM)ppppenguin Wrote: There is a minor difference between wide screen computer monitors and TV monitors. TV is 1920x1080, or 16x9. Computer monitors are mostly 1920x1200, or 16x10
Good luck trying to find ANY generic screen or generic laptop that's not 16:9. Many FHD tablets are also 16:9. The panels are cheaper and the makers tout video watching. But I have a Beko TV that's not 16:9 (it crops HDTV) and yesterday got a tablet that was 1920 x 1200. The 1920 x 1200 used to be more common on computers, and 1600 x 1200 before that. For A4 PDFs, the 1080 lines is not enough as the 1200 lines just about works. So I bought a Benq 24" 2560 x 1440 screen for my laptop. About the 1/5th of the price of a decent laptop. Anything smaller was 1920 x 1080, same as the 15" laptop. It would be better if it was 18" to 21" as I think 20" is about as much as fits in a view with reading glasses.
(29-09-2021, 06:55 PM)ppppenguin Wrote: 625 and 525 digital TV do not. This was the result of a clever choice of 13.5MHz for Y sampling. This works for both standards and was a useful simplification at the time. PITA for interfacing computer graphics which was normally square pixels.
A clever or cheap choice? It suited the USA & Japan. Also the 1280 x 720 progressive resolution in the USA is good improvement on 480 visible line 525 NTSC, especially for sports and film transfer. But not such a step up in Europe which had no 3:2 pull-down artefacts on film sources and a nominal 576 lines. I'd have liked Europe Digital WS (16:9) to have been 1024 x 576 and Europe HD to have been progressive only 48 fps and 96 fps at 2048 x 1152 instead of 1920 x 1080 (typically now 1440 x 1920).
