LCD aspect ratio problem 16:10

Bob Myers wrote:

>"Del Rio" <delrio.RemoveThis@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:fjojsl$82f$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> Anyway, for the visibility problems I was having, the point is
>> moot, since a little research determined that the display *can*
>> be scaled correctly by the graphics card. Really, to me it was
>> more a question of why panel monitors routinely do internal
>> firmware scaling to incorrect aspect ratios, and why this
>> fact isn't more widely publicized.
>
>The "why" in this case is pretty simple - it's because the
>majority of customers want it that way. People don't
>like to see the black bars that come with letterboxing,
>even though that sort of scaling does preserve the proper
>aspect ratio of the source material

Another thought. It seems like people would be getting used-to
"letterboxing", from watching 2.35:1 DVD's on 16:9 displays.
 >> Stay informed about: LCD aspect ratio problem 16:10 

In article <fjp1jm$bo5$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>,
Bob Myers <nospamplease DeleteThis @address.invalid> wrote:
>The "why" in this case is pretty simple - it's because the
>majority of customers want it that way. People don't
>like to see the black bars that come with letterboxing,
>even though that sort of scaling does preserve the proper
>aspect ratio of the source material (or permits a 1:1
>mapping of image and physical pixels, as would happen
>in the case of a 1920 x 1080 image on a 1920 x 1200
>panel, just to give one common example). There's a
>belief that this represents "wasted space" on the screen,
>even though it IS the right thing to do from an image
>quality standpoint.
>
>It's by no means a new problem, either - the same sorts
>of complaints were heard in the case of 4:3 material
>being displayed on a 5:4 (1280 x 1024) monitor.

It's funny you should mention that, because I'd been bothered
by what I prerceived to be stretching distortion on an
otherwise excellent quality monitor that I was using prior to
getting my new widescreen. After I discovered this aspect
ratio nonsense, I went back and researched the issue. It turns
out that my previous monitor was in fact 5:4 which was
stretching my images because I was running it in a 4:3 mode.

>In some cases, the monitor will give you the option of
>preserving the image aspect ratio, at the cost of the image
>appearing "letterboxed" as shown on that screen.

Yep, although in my case, it was my video card that offered
that option: the Nvidia control panel has a "preserve aspect
ratio" checkbox which will cause just about any video mode to
be scaled correctly at the cost of having blank monitor space.
And I do hate the "wasted space" problem, but I hate distorted
images even more. So thankfully it's not impossible to fix it,
by doing a little research and uncovering the hidden modes
supported in video card drivers.

Another total mystery to me is that after having done the
necessary work to support those correct-aspect ratio modes, the
video card manufacturers would then conceal them by leaving
them out of the user interface panel...! (I've been told that
Nvidia "intended" to indirectly support them through the
"user-defined mode" on the control panel, but that the user
defined mode functionality is broken is the current release of
the control panel. Thankfully, it's just the control panel
that's broken, not the video drivers themselves.)

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: LCD aspect ratio problem 16:10 

"Del Rio" <delrio.RemoveThis@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fjpcu4$4bp$1@reader1.panix.com...

>>In some cases, the monitor will give you the option of
>>preserving the image aspect ratio, at the cost of the image
>>appearing "letterboxed" as shown on that screen.
>
> Yep, although in my case, it was my video card that offered
> that option: the Nvidia control panel has a "preserve aspect
> ratio" checkbox which will cause just about any video mode to
> be scaled correctly at the cost of having blank monitor space.

Right - that's the other option. In that case, though, the monitor
is seeing the "full-screen" timing. For instance, in the case of a
1920 x 1080 image being shown on a 1920 x 1200 monitor,
the monitor is in this case getting a 1920 x 1200 timing - it's
just that the graphics card is filling 60 lines on the top and
60 lines on the bottom with solid black.

> And I do hate the "wasted space" problem, but I hate distorted
> images even more. So thankfully it's not impossible to fix it,
> by doing a little research and uncovering the hidden modes
> supported in video card drivers.

My only advice for the "wasted space" problem is - try
not to think about it. You don't want distortion, and you
DO want the pixels in the image to line up 1:1 with the
pixels on the screen. If it helps, put tape that matches the
color of your bezel over the "wasted" black areas.

Bob M.
 >> Stay informed about: LCD aspect ratio problem 16:10 

On or about Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:50:14 +0000 (UTC) did delrio.RemoveThis@panix.com
(Del Rio) dribble thusly:

>The only thing I was wondering was how much performance hit it
>puts on the card, running the desktop in a strange alternative
>mode like that and then upscaling it for output at the
>monitor's native res. I wonder if I'm losing framerate in
>games from doing that?

Modern graphics cards don't suffer any performance hit from upscaling
output frames. It's all done after rendering.
--
- Mike

Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.
 >> Stay informed about: LCD aspect ratio problem 16:10 

"chrisv" <chrisv.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:fa50m3l79l8dets2b6god2edssqf2reigp@4ax.com...
> Bob Myers wrote:
>
(snip)
>>
>>The "why" in this case is pretty simple - it's because the
>>majority of customers want it that way. People don't
>>like to see the black bars that come with letterboxing,
>>even though that sort of scaling does preserve the proper
>>aspect ratio of the source material (or permits a 1:1
>>mapping of image and physical pixels, as would happen
>>in the case of a 1920 x 1080 image on a 1920 x 1200
>>panel, just to give one common example). There's a
>>belief that this represents "wasted space" on the screen,
>
> Probably by the same morons who didn't figure-out how to stop (really)
> wasting space on their CRT's by adjusting the horizontal and vertical
> stretch.
>
>>even though it IS the right thing to do from an image
>>quality standpoint.
>>
>>It's by no means a new problem, either - the same sorts
>>of complaints were heard in the case of 4:3 material
>>being displayed on a 5:4 (1280 x 1024) monitor.
>>
>>In some cases, the monitor will give you the option of
>>preserving the image aspect ratio, at the cost of the image
>>appearing "letterboxed" as shown on that screen.
>
> Would that be something easily found in the specs? I'm guessing not.
> More contempt for the thinking user shown by the manufacturers.

Actually it is in most spec's, but then most shoppers don't understand
most of today's spec terms, and generally just go for whatever they
"think" they want ....

To the OP issue of aspect ratio, it was an intentional decision by
the panel companies, and integrators like BenQ have no real choice
in the matter... That said, there are very concrete reasons for having
originally developed the 16:10 ratio - and interestingly enough, even
many Microsoft folks don't know the history.... I was in a meeting
once when a MS guy asked the question - I answered the question
(to allow displaying 2 full A4 pages side by side) and it went completely
over his head - reason I know is some others did not hear the answer,
so asked it to be repeated, and he said something totally different.....
Remember the "original" 16:10 display was an aperture grill CRT,
not a LCD....
Also remember that panels intended for data display are the ones
with 16:10.... for the same original reason - 'course if doesn't mean
anything unless you're in Europe & using A4 format paper.... USers
generally have no comprehension of that aspect (pun intended...).
This is yet another issue that tends to fly in the face of the old
idea of "convergence" between data & entertainment.... IMHO.

Regards,
NGA
 >> Stay informed about: LCD aspect ratio problem 16:10 

In article <men1m3huk3aqojbe2mhb03hd2d64cnakrq.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
Mike Ruskai <BUTthannydI.DeleteThis@DONTearthlinkLIKE.netSPAM> wrote:
>On or about Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:50:14 +0000 (UTC) did delrio.DeleteThis@panix.com
>(Del Rio) dribble thusly:
>
>>The only thing I was wondering was how much performance hit it
>>puts on the card, running the desktop in a strange alternative
>>mode like that and then upscaling it for output at the
>>monitor's native res. I wonder if I'm losing framerate in
>>games from doing that?
>
>Modern graphics cards don't suffer any performance hit from upscaling
>output frames. It's all done after rendering.

Thanks. I'd kind of hoped the answer would be that the
upscaling took place in some kind of post-processing step, but
it's relief to hear it affirmed.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: LCD aspect ratio problem 16:10