Full Version: 19in widescreen with new pro fresnels
Anyone know what the resolution should be for this to be feasible? I don't understand how resolution and diagonal length translate to actual screen size, so if anyone can help me out, that would be great. I found a really really nice 19in WS monitor with a res of 1440x900 (16:10), what does that translate to in length and height?
QUOTE (TheAxeMaster @ Dec 13 2005, 02:00 PM) 
Anyone know what the resolution should be for this to be feasible? I don't understand how resolution and diagonal length translate to actual screen size, so if anyone can help me out, that would be great. I found a really really nice 19in WS monitor with a res of 1440x900 (16:10), what does that translate to in length and height?
actually I think its pretty darn close to 16" x 10" (16 squared = 256, 10 squared = 100 , = 356, diagonal is square root of 356 = 18.8" ... )
edit: or assuming thats the native resoultion, find the pixel size (usually .264 or less in a 19" I think) and multiply that by the resolution, again, it'll get you close to actual viewing size
It is native resolution. so, for a 0.294mm pixel pitch:
1440 x 0.294mm = 423.36mm
900 x 0.294mm = 264.6mm
So the new pro lenses (431mm x 406mm) will just work
excellent, thank you. I never really knew what the pixel pitch was for. So, working backwards, just to check:
423.36mm^2 + 264.6mm^2 = 2.49 * 10^5
square root of that is 499.25mm, which is 19.655 inches. Is that right? It says 19in viewable on the specs. Not that it matters really, since the lens is good either way, just seemed a little funny.
Also, assuming worst case pixel pitch of 0.294mm, the max res for the new fresnels would be 1465 x 1380. Interesting the almost 1:1 aspect ratio, considering that most things are 1.33:1 at minimum. Seems like a lot of wasted fresnel, but I guess if you're trying to be compatible both ways (4:3 and 16:9/10) it might make sense.
Also, if anyone is interested, the monitor I'm thinking about using is here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16824116373
1440 x 0.294mm = 423.36mm
900 x 0.294mm = 264.6mm
So the new pro lenses (431mm x 406mm) will just work
excellent, thank you. I never really knew what the pixel pitch was for. So, working backwards, just to check:423.36mm^2 + 264.6mm^2 = 2.49 * 10^5
square root of that is 499.25mm, which is 19.655 inches. Is that right? It says 19in viewable on the specs. Not that it matters really, since the lens is good either way, just seemed a little funny.
Also, assuming worst case pixel pitch of 0.294mm, the max res for the new fresnels would be 1465 x 1380. Interesting the almost 1:1 aspect ratio, considering that most things are 1.33:1 at minimum. Seems like a lot of wasted fresnel, but I guess if you're trying to be compatible both ways (4:3 and 16:9/10) it might make sense.
Also, if anyone is interested, the monitor I'm thinking about using is here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16824116373
Don't know if it helps but my 17" WS is 15" or 381mm wide. Don't forget that the fresnels might need to be framed. (depending on how you are mounting them, i am trying to avoid any extra glass for support) Thta will cut down on the viewable area of the fresnels. You might need deeper slots in the frames to keep the pro fresnels flat compared to the smaller standard fresnels.
QUOTE (TheAxeMaster @ Dec 13 2005, 06:26 PM)
It is native resolution. so, for a 0.294mm pixel pitch:
1440 x 0.294mm = 423.36mm
900 x 0.294mm = 264.6mm
So the new pro lenses (431mm x 406mm) will just work excellent, thank you. I never really knew what the pixel pitch was for. So, working backwards, just to check:
423.36mm^2 + 264.6mm^2 = 2.49 * 10^5
square root of that is 499.25mm, which is 19.655 inches. Is that right? It says 19in viewable on the specs. Not that it matters really, since the lens is good either way, just seemed a little funny.
Also, assuming worst case pixel pitch of 0.294mm, the max res for the new fresnels would be 1465 x 1380. Interesting the almost 1:1 aspect ratio, considering that most things are 1.33:1 at minimum. Seems like a lot of wasted fresnel, but I guess if you're trying to be compatible both ways (4:3 and 16:9/10) it might make sense.
Also, if anyone is interested, the monitor I'm thinking about using is here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16824116373
1440 x 0.294mm = 423.36mm
900 x 0.294mm = 264.6mm
So the new pro lenses (431mm x 406mm) will just work
excellent, thank you. I never really knew what the pixel pitch was for. So, working backwards, just to check:423.36mm^2 + 264.6mm^2 = 2.49 * 10^5
square root of that is 499.25mm, which is 19.655 inches. Is that right? It says 19in viewable on the specs. Not that it matters really, since the lens is good either way, just seemed a little funny.
Also, assuming worst case pixel pitch of 0.294mm, the max res for the new fresnels would be 1465 x 1380. Interesting the almost 1:1 aspect ratio, considering that most things are 1.33:1 at minimum. Seems like a lot of wasted fresnel, but I guess if you're trying to be compatible both ways (4:3 and 16:9/10) it might make sense.
Also, if anyone is interested, the monitor I'm thinking about using is here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16824116373
well, I said it would get you close...probably have to subtract a little for the black matrix the pixels are in.... so thats probably a tad on the high side but close enough for rough drafting...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.