Re: 1600x1200 is easier on a 15" screen.

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #115,057

Picture of deSitter

8/23/03 11:18:59 AM

Re: 1600x1200 is easier on a 15" screen.

Well, isn't the point that an LCD has a quantized drawing zone, while a CRT is a continuum?

(As mentioned, out of 10 A31s I've dealt with recently, not *one* had a single bad pixel. In the HMM, IBM lists some horrible-sounding tolerances for bad pixels - "no more than 11 bright, 18 dark, or 16 bright and dark combined". Sheesh!)

-drl

Post #115,061

by Another Scott

8/23/03 11:30:11 AM

8/23/03 11:44:55 AM

Good point. I'll have to think on that...

[link|http://www.princetongraphics.com/product_sen751.htm|This] page at Princeton Graphics says:

1280 x 1024 Native Resolution:
Displays a crisp, clear 1280 x 1024 native resolution and is capable of 640 x 480 to 1600 x 1200 resolutions.*

Maximum/Native Resolution:
UXGA 1600 x 1200 Maximum Resolution*
XGA 1280 x 1024 Recommended Resolution

Compatibility:
Digital: Digital Visual Interface (DVI), up to 1280 x 1024
Analog: Scales up to 1600 x 1200*
VESA\ufffd 1280 x 1024 @ 85/75/60Hz
VESA\ufffd 1024 x 768 @ 85/75/70/60Hz
VESA\ufffd 800 x 600 @ 85/75/72/60/56Hz
VESA\ufffd 640 x 480 @ 85/75/72/60Hz
Super VGA, VGA, Macintosh\ufffd 832 x 624@ 75Hz,
Power Mac\ufffd and more

* Analog Input Mode Only.

They are doing some interpolation tricks, somehow, to get 1600x1200 when driven by analog signals. But physically, the SENergy 751 is a 1280x1024 LCD. The .PDF Specification Sheet says the active screen is 13.61\ufffd x 10.89\ufffd (345.6mm x 276.48mm). At 0.27 mm per pixel, there are 1280 pixels across and 1024 pixels up, so it adds up.

Cheers,
Scott.

Edited by Another Scott Aug. 23, 2003, 11:44:55 AM EDT

Expand All History

Latest thoughts on good 21-22" monitors for work? - (Another Scott) - (11) - Aug. 22, 2003, 09:51:34 PM EDT

Can't immediately see how big this one is... - (static) - (1) - Aug. 22, 2003, 11:21:51 PM EDT

Thanks, that's a 19". The 21" is the 1100DF - (Another Scott) - Aug. 22, 2003, 11:59:18 PM EDT

Re: Latest thoughts on good 21-22" monitors for work? - (pwhysall) - (5) - Aug. 23, 2003, 03:40:42 AM EDT

Interesting. - (Another Scott) - (4) - Aug. 23, 2003, 09:14:30 AM EDT

Re: Interesting. - (deSitter) - (3) - Aug. 23, 2003, 10:38:41 AM EDT

1600x1200 is easier on a 15" screen. - (Another Scott) - (2) - Aug. 23, 2003, 10:59:32 AM EDT

Re: 1600x1200 is easier on a 15" screen. - (deSitter) - (1) - Aug. 23, 2003, 11:18:59 AM EDT

Good point. I'll have to think on that... - (Another Scott) - Aug. 23, 2003, 11:44:55 AM EDT

I LOVE mine - (broomberg) - Aug. 24, 2003, 01:28:33 PM EDT

Re: Latest thoughts on good 21-22" monitors for work? - (qstephens) - Aug. 27, 2003, 03:57:41 PM EDT

Ended up going with a Sony CPD-G520P - (Another Scott) - Sept. 24, 2003, 05:36:47 PM EDT

Huh? Doesn't even rhyme!
88 ms