As he says the screens are the same size.
Therefore yes, if the cursor is moved the same *physical*
distance on both screens then yes that same distance will
be made up of more pixels on the higher res screen.
This is because the higher res screen has more dots per
inch.
What is missing in the analysis is that when moved, the
mouse cursor does *not* disturb every pixel along the way,
so not every pixel needs to be repainted.
If you have two identical machine other than the the LCD,
then if you move the mouse cursor the same distance (in
the same amount of time) on both machines, the computers
should both draw and erase the cursor the same number of
times on both screens The difference will bee in how many
pixels the image of the cursor jumps between each time
it's drawn.
Lets say you move the mouse from one side of the screen to
the other, since the dimensions of the screen are identical,
then that is a move of the same distance. If you make this
move in the same amount of time on both (say .5 seconds)
the computer woulg draw the cursor the same number ot times
on both. (say something like 100 times.) On a WXGA screen
this would mean that each painting of the cursor would be
13 pixels further along, and on the WUXGA screen it would be
19 pixels further.
THe pixels that the cursor *jumps* over remain untouched.
They don't have to be painted in the image of the cursor,
and they don't have to be repainted in the image of the
background either. Given the fact that the cursor image
is made of the same number of pixels on each (and thus
shows up smaller on the screen with smaller and closer pixels)
the total number of pixels disturbed by moving th mouse
is the same on both screens.
On top of that the discussion is moot, since the refreshing
of one pixel is done totally in parallel with all the others.
It really doesn't matter if there are more that need
repainting or not, since it's not like one has to wait in
line for others to finish repainting befor it can take it's
turn.
As for why one might want this extra screen real estate, yes
user's of both screens can make their windows the same number
of inches (or cm) across, but the user with the higher resolution
screen will have much more detail, and a smoother image inside
that window.
On the WXGA screen a window might be 256 pixels (20% of the
horizontal width of the screen,) on the WUXGA scrren the same
size window would be made from 384 pixels (also 20% of the
width of the screen.) These extra pixels allow a finer grain
picture in the same space. A color photo will appear less
grainy, and text will appear smoother. Also if the user is
willing to put up with it, the higher-res screen will allow
smaller fonts that on the lower res screen would be unreadable.
They will be tiny, but the pixels will be available on the high
res screen to fully define the letters, whereas on the lower-res
screen the dots will run together.
It really all boils down to dots per inch. and just like on
cameras an printers, the higher dots per inch is usually more
desirable, since it produces a smother more detailed picture
at the same size.
Don't you think with more dots to be lit in the same period of time there has to be more processing?
Each pixel needs to be refreshed with each redraw. I would think it would take more processing power and a better Video card to keep up with the redraw od 1600 pixels vs 1280! The redraw (refresh rate) has to be faster to draw more pixel information in the same area. There is no argument with the resolution as your film example gives but to go further the picture is a still which has to be refreshed 72 times a second.
If there ar 4 million grains of silver in a 1280 picture and 8 million in a 1600 picture i would think it would take a lot more effort to "move" the higher grained photo to the next print. Including the computer processes AND the LCD processes.
Thats why I can run games with a lesser video card on a lower resolution screen with less pixels to fill.
Or to put it more plainly... irrespective of how many pixels need to be refreshed on a screen, each individual pixel refreshes independently and does not wait in line for another pixel to be refreshed.
A 35ms response time on a WUXGA or even a QXGA screen is a 35ms response time, no matter how hard you want to convince yourself that you made a better choice.
Look, there really is no need to debate the finer points of this. If the argument that higher dpi displays like the WUXGA have slower apparent pixel response due to the greater number of pixels then the WUXGA would be over twice as slow as the WXGA. Let's repeat that - twice as slow. If that were true the WUXGA would be very, very, very, very clearly worse in use than the WXGA. But it isn't, it's the same as the WXGA. End of argument.
What is missing in the analysis is that when moved, the mouse cursor does *not* disturb every pixel along the way, so not every pixel needs to be repainted.
Answer: If not distub every pixel analog the way and not every pixel needs to be repainted, you may be right, but its same effect on both WUXGA an WXGA so WXGA is faster again !!!! I dont know if you are right, it depent on grahphic card. If graphic card can do this like you said, it can do this on both resolutions WXGA and WUXGA and the difference is same again !!!
If the cursor image is 10 pixels by 10 pixels, then each
time it's drawn 100 pixels change color. Then it's erased
and 100 pixels are redrawn to look like the background.
That's 200 pixels changed.
This is repeated say 10 times on both screens when moving
the same number of inches. now you've got 2000 pixels changing
on both screens. If the response rate on both screens is
identical, then both will see all the pixels finish updating
at the exact same time, and the human eye will see the exact
same amount of ghosting on both screens.
Yes I see that you understad. Yes its exactly what I mean. WXGA with responce time 50ms is not so bad, but WUXGA with 50ms is horrible ( who has WUXGA Hitachi can confirm it ). Lets all see my second tab. If somebody has WUXGA samsung with 35ms its like you had WXGA with 50ms, but WXGA with 50 isnt bad !! This aproximation will be precise when you will be move with you cursor faster !!! If you move very slow the difference dont be visible. If you play games or DVD or working with fast changing your image there will be higher difference, max. like WXGA with 50ms !!
Can anybody who has SHARP sent me his specifications and model number. I want find these spec on internet, because I heard that its better then Samsung, but I can find, that SHARP has 15,4 TFT !!!
Lets see, there is catalogu of all LCDs. I asked which model they have for DELL INSPIRON, they told me LG-Phillips, Hitachi and Samsung. Not SHARP, there is no 15,4 SHARP. Please who has this display, sent me exact model number ( fo example : Samsung LTN154P1 ). I will find spec for your SHARP. Im vere currious, if has better responce time then Samsung.
If SHARP = LG-Phillips , owner of WUXGA has great LCD, becasuse LG-Phillips has responce time 25ms !!
You have more pixels at WUXGA in one inch ( or in centimetre ). Do you understand !!!!! You give me example, when both screens has same pixel size ( but they havent ), if was like it, you must have bigger dimension of your screen ( you havent ). WXGA will be 15,4 but WUXGA will be bigger then 15,4 screen. Are you understand now. All people here are compare these resolution at different distances ( the distances are same ). Think, you havent same pixel pitch !!! You have much smaller pixel pitch then WXGA. Do you know why ? Because its on same distance 334.5 mm !!! If you will have same pixel size 1mm and same the gap between two pixels will be 0 mm WXGA with 1280 pixels side by side will be 1280 mm long and WUXGA will be 1920 mm long. You compare this two screens on different distances !!!! But there is same distance on WXGA and WUXGA, therefore there is the effect what Im writing about !!
My theory is right, because you will have same numbers if you will count it in Vertical or horizontal position. Axis X or axis Y.
I wrote that responce time is same, but you move faster regard to your pixels on WUXGA then on WXGA. If you move with same speed to bottom of your plastic cover ( in this plastic cover is your LCD) with same speed on both WUXGA and WXGA ( speed to plastic cover ). The speed regard to pixels on WXGA its slower, but on your WUXGA is with reagard to your pixels faster and you will see the ghosts,
But if you will move with same speed regards to pixels on both LCD ( WXGA and WUXGA ) you will see same ghosts on both displays !!! because they have same responce time !!!
Sorry. You are not reading what I've written properly.
I understand that a WUXGA has more dots per inch (or cm) DPI
than WXGA.
I understand that a line on both screens the same number of
inches (or cm) long on both screens will be made from more
pixels on the WUXGA screen. As you say the pixels are smaller
on a WUXGA screen.
That's the whole point!! That's where the WUXGA screen gets
it's finer detail, and better image quality. (higher resolution
means more DPI)
You need to understand several things:
1. Response time is the time that it takes a single pixel to fully
change from one color to another. It has nothing to do with other
pixels on the screen which may or may not be changing.
It's the time between when the CPU or GPU changes the color value
for that pixel in video RAM till when the change is finished showing
up on the screen.
It doesn't matter wether 1 pixel is changing or if 100,000,000 pixels
are changing, on a 35ms screen they will all be done changing in 35ms.
THEY HAPPEN in PARALLEL.
2. The cursor on both screens is made from the SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS.
It's 10x10 or 16x16 or something like that. It will actually measure
out to be smaller (in inches or cm) on the WUXGA screen, but it is
made up of the same number of pixels. As you say WUXGA pixels are
smaller.
3. The mouse cursor is NOT PAINTED at every pixel postion along the
way. It 'jumps'. If it is moved slow enough then it might hit every
pixel, but also at this slower speed you'd never see 'ghosting'
either.
4. So if you move the mouse cursor the same distance on both screens,
From one side to the other lets say. and if you do it in the same
AMOUNT OF TIME, then the computer will paint the image of the mouse
cursor the SAME NUMBER OF TIMES ON BOTH SCREENS. Since there are
more dot's in a CM on the WUXGA screen, then it will 'jump' over
more dots between each painting of the cursor. This means that the
WUXGA screen will also have more pixels that WILL REMAIN UNTOUCHED
by the cursor image, and BOTH SCREENS WILL HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF
PIXELS MODIFIED.
So from #1 it doesn't matter how many pixels change since they all
react in parallel, and from 2,3 and 4, it's really the same number of
pixels changing in both cases anyway. Therefore, SCREEN RESOLUTION HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH RESPONSE TIME.
Look you doofus, the simple fact is the WUXGA does not ghost more than the WXGA. The fact that you still think it does makes it obvious that you have not seen both screens. If you had seen both screens side by side you'd realise how wrong you are. I'm going to try hard to ignore this silly thread now.
1) If you move with mouse cursor ( horizontal - right side of your screen ) from one side of the screen with same speed on both WXGA and WUXGA. After 2 seconds you will stop. Will you be at same distance from the start on both WXGA and WUXGA ???
Both screen has dimension in horizontal axis X = 334.5 mm
2) If yes, so imagine, that you stop exactly in the middle of your screen, you are with your cursor at the distance 167 mm from start ( 334.5 / 2 ). On WUXGA you went across 920 pixels and on WXGA you went across 640 pixels. Is it True ???
3) If yes, so imagine, that the pixels on WUXGA and WXGA will be with same size. The way on WUXGA will be longer about 280 pixels ( 920-640 ). Is it True ??
4) If yes, so imagine, that one pixel on both WUXGA and WXGA has size of 1mm. The gaps between two pixels will be 0 mm. The way on WUXGA is 920mm long and on WXGA is 640mm long. If we have same time on the start our experimet ( see point 1 ). The time was 2 seconds. If the time is same but the way on WUXGA is longer the mouse cursor must move faster ( with higher speed ) if you want to have the cursor in the finish at same time on both WUXGA and WXGA.
Conclusion: With this effect the same speed moving on both WXGA and WUXGA you will move faster regards to pixels on WUXGA then WXGA, this is easy to understand.
Answer all these points, and tell me which do you not understad or which is wrong and why. Think about it harder, lets your answer not sounds like from idiot.
1)= ? 2)= ? 3)= ? 4)= ?
If you will not answer to my question I will know that you realize your mistake. If you want answer, answer all these points. I will try to explain better.
Firstly, I have seen an XGA screen of the same size as my UXGA screen, and didn't notice any difference in performance in issues like moving the cursor. Both screens handled this kind of load identically, to my eyes.
Secondly, even if it were true that the XGA has a slightly faster response time, the numbers you've suggested (23 vs. 35ms) are getting to the boundary where people can no longer detect the difference, so I'm not sure you can really say that one is better, when the difference isn't detectable.
Third, using response time as the only measurement of the worth of an LCD screen is deeply flawed. You simply don't get the kind of real estate to work with on an XGA screen. You can't view things in high-resolution, like pictures or games - everything is blockier, poorer quality (the difference between running a game at 1024x780 and 1600x1200 is incredible). It's harder to work with 2 documents or programs side-by-side on a lower-resolution screen. Response time is important, in that a decent threshold is required for a good-quality screen, but ever-faster response times don't add to the utility of an LCD, in my view.
@kjmcdonald wrote:
Sorry. You are not reading what I've written properly.
I understand that a WUXGA has more dots per inch (or cm) DPI
than WXGA.
I understand that a line on both screens the same number of
inches (or cm) long on both screens will be made from more
pixels on the WUXGA screen. As you say the pixels are smaller
on a WUXGA screen.
That's the whole point!! That's where the WUXGA screen gets
it's finer detail, and better image quality. (higher resolution
means more DPI)
You need to understand several things:
1. Response time is the time that it takes a single pixel to fully
change from one color to another. It has nothing to do with other
pixels on the screen which may or may not be changing.
It's the time between when the CPU or GPU changes the color value
for that pixel in video RAM till when the change is finished showing
up on the screen.
It doesn't matter wether 1 pixel is changing or if 100,000,000 pixels
are changing, on a 35ms screen they will all be done changing in 35ms.
THEY HAPPEN in PARALLEL.
2. The cursor on both screens is made from the SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS.
It's 10x10 or 16x16 or something like that. It will actually measure
out to be smaller (in inches or cm) on the WUXGA screen, but it is
made up of the same number of pixels. As you say WUXGA pixels are
smaller.
3. The mouse cursor is NOT PAINTED at every pixel postion along the
way. It 'jumps'. If it is moved slow enough then it might hit every
pixel, but also at this slower speed you'd never see 'ghosting'
either.
4. So if you move the mouse cursor the same distance on both screens,
From one side to the other lets say. and if you do it in the same
AMOUNT OF TIME, then the computer will paint the image of the mouse
cursor the SAME NUMBER OF TIMES ON BOTH SCREENS. Since there are
more dot's in a CM on the WUXGA screen, then it will 'jump' over
more dots between each painting of the cursor. This means that the
WUXGA screen will also have more pixels that WILL REMAIN UNTOUCHED
by the cursor image, and BOTH SCREENS WILL HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF
PIXELS MODIFIED.
So from #1 it doesn't matter how many pixels change since they all
react in parallel, and from 2,3 and 4, it's really the same number of
pixels changing in both cases anyway. Therefore, SCREEN RESOLUTION HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH RESPONSE TIME.
kjmcdonald
14 Posts
0
January 25th, 2004 23:00
His logic is flawed.
As he says the screens are the same size.
Therefore yes, if the cursor is moved the same *physical*
distance on both screens then yes that same distance will
be made up of more pixels on the higher res screen.
This is because the higher res screen has more dots per
inch.
What is missing in the analysis is that when moved, the
mouse cursor does *not* disturb every pixel along the way,
so not every pixel needs to be repainted.
If you have two identical machine other than the the LCD,
then if you move the mouse cursor the same distance (in
the same amount of time) on both machines, the computers
should both draw and erase the cursor the same number of
times on both screens The difference will bee in how many
pixels the image of the cursor jumps between each time
it's drawn.
Lets say you move the mouse from one side of the screen to
the other, since the dimensions of the screen are identical,
then that is a move of the same distance. If you make this
move in the same amount of time on both (say .5 seconds)
the computer woulg draw the cursor the same number ot times
on both. (say something like 100 times.) On a WXGA screen
this would mean that each painting of the cursor would be
13 pixels further along, and on the WUXGA screen it would be
19 pixels further.
THe pixels that the cursor *jumps* over remain untouched.
They don't have to be painted in the image of the cursor,
and they don't have to be repainted in the image of the
background either. Given the fact that the cursor image
is made of the same number of pixels on each (and thus
shows up smaller on the screen with smaller and closer pixels)
the total number of pixels disturbed by moving th mouse
is the same on both screens.
On top of that the discussion is moot, since the refreshing
of one pixel is done totally in parallel with all the others.
It really doesn't matter if there are more that need
repainting or not, since it's not like one has to wait in
line for others to finish repainting befor it can take it's
turn.
As for why one might want this extra screen real estate, yes
user's of both screens can make their windows the same number
of inches (or cm) across, but the user with the higher resolution
screen will have much more detail, and a smoother image inside
that window.
On the WXGA screen a window might be 256 pixels (20% of the
horizontal width of the screen,) on the WUXGA scrren the same
size window would be made from 384 pixels (also 20% of the
width of the screen.) These extra pixels allow a finer grain
picture in the same space. A color photo will appear less
grainy, and text will appear smoother. Also if the user is
willing to put up with it, the higher-res screen will allow
smaller fonts that on the lower res screen would be unreadable.
They will be tiny, but the pixels will be available on the high
res screen to fully define the letters, whereas on the lower-res
screen the dots will run together.
It really all boils down to dots per inch. and just like on
cameras an printers, the higher dots per inch is usually more
desirable, since it produces a smother more detailed picture
at the same size.
-Kyle
Tombo777
1 Rookie
•
64 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 08:00
Each pixel needs to be refreshed with each redraw. I would think it would take more processing power and a better Video card to keep up with the redraw od 1600 pixels vs 1280! The redraw (refresh rate) has to be faster to draw more pixel information in the same area. There is no argument with the resolution as your film example gives but to go further the picture is a still which has to be refreshed 72 times a second.
If there ar 4 million grains of silver in a 1280 picture and 8 million in a 1600 picture i would think it would take a lot more effort to "move" the higher grained photo to the next print. Including the computer processes AND the LCD processes.
Thats why I can run games with a lesser video card on a lower resolution screen with less pixels to fill.
onanie
1 Rookie
•
36 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 09:00
Or to put it more plainly... irrespective of how many pixels need to be refreshed on a screen, each individual pixel refreshes independently and does not wait in line for another pixel to be refreshed.
A 35ms response time on a WUXGA or even a QXGA screen is a 35ms response time, no matter how hard you want to convince yourself that you made a better choice.
caboosemoose
240 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 10:00
William.w
31 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 13:00
Message to: kjmcdonald
He wrote:
What is missing in the analysis is that when moved, the
mouse cursor does *not* disturb every pixel along the way,
so not every pixel needs to be repainted.
Answer: If not distub every pixel analog the way and not every pixel needs to be repainted, you may be right, but its same effect on both WUXGA an WXGA so WXGA is faster again !!!! I dont know if you are right, it depent on grahphic card. If graphic card can do this like you said, it can do this on both resolutions WXGA and WUXGA and the difference is same again !!!
onetobenl
73 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 14:00
What a flawed theory...you are really don't understand...
Think in an individual pixel!...not in an mm,cm,m,etc.
A WUXGA with response time 50 ms is just as horrible as WXGA with response time 50 ms.
And a WUXGA with response time 35 ms is just as fast as WXGA with response time 35 ms...
It doesn't have to do with resolution!
kjmcdonald
14 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 14:00
If the cursor image is 10 pixels by 10 pixels, then each
time it's drawn 100 pixels change color. Then it's erased
and 100 pixels are redrawn to look like the background.
That's 200 pixels changed.
This is repeated say 10 times on both screens when moving
the same number of inches. now you've got 2000 pixels changing
on both screens. If the response rate on both screens is
identical, then both will see all the pixels finish updating
at the exact same time, and the human eye will see the exact
same amount of ghosting on both screens.
I don't understand what you were saying.
-Kyle
William.w
31 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 14:00
Message to : Tombo777
Yes I see that you understad. Yes its exactly what I mean. WXGA with responce time 50ms is not so bad, but WUXGA with 50ms is horrible ( who has WUXGA Hitachi can confirm it ). Lets all see my second tab. If somebody has WUXGA samsung with 35ms its like you had WXGA with 50ms, but WXGA with 50 isnt bad !! This aproximation will be precise when you will be move with you cursor faster !!! If you move very slow the difference dont be visible. If you play games or DVD or working with fast changing your image there will be higher difference, max. like WXGA with 50ms !!
If SHARP is LG-Phillips ( http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/en/product/notebook.html?tg=view&idx=180 ) . There is WXSGA+ with responce time 25ms, its great LCD.
Can anybody who has SHARP sent me his specifications and model number. I want find these spec on internet, because I heard that its better then Samsung, but I can find, that SHARP has 15,4 TFT !!!
Lets see, there is catalogu of all LCDs. I asked which model they have for DELL INSPIRON, they told me LG-Phillips, Hitachi and Samsung. Not SHARP, there is no 15,4 SHARP. Please who has this display, sent me exact model number ( fo example : Samsung LTN154P1 ). I will find spec for your SHARP. Im vere currious, if has better responce time then Samsung.
If SHARP = LG-Phillips , owner of WUXGA has great LCD, becasuse LG-Phillips has responce time 25ms !!
Catalogue of LCDs:
http://www.screentekinc.com/search-lcd-screen.shtml?lcds_product=Dell%2520Inspiron
William.w
31 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 14:00
Message to: kjmcdonald
You have more pixels at WUXGA in one inch ( or in centimetre ). Do you understand !!!!! You give me example, when both screens has same pixel size ( but they havent ), if was like it, you must have bigger dimension of your screen ( you havent ). WXGA will be 15,4 but WUXGA will be bigger then 15,4 screen. Are you understand now. All people here are compare these resolution at different distances ( the distances are same ). Think, you havent same pixel pitch !!! You have much smaller pixel pitch then WXGA. Do you know why ? Because its on same distance 334.5 mm !!! If you will have same pixel size 1mm and same the gap between two pixels will be 0 mm WXGA with 1280 pixels side by side will be 1280 mm long and WUXGA will be 1920 mm long. You compare this two screens on different distances !!!! But there is same distance on WXGA and WUXGA, therefore there is the effect what Im writing about !!
My theory is right, because you will have same numbers if you will count it in Vertical or horizontal position. Axis X or axis Y.
William.w
31 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 15:00
Message to onetobenl
I wrote that responce time is same, but you move faster regard to your pixels on WUXGA then on WXGA. If you move with same speed to bottom of your plastic cover ( in this plastic cover is your LCD) with same speed on both WUXGA and WXGA ( speed to plastic cover ). The speed regard to pixels on WXGA its slower, but on your WUXGA is with reagard to your pixels faster and you will see the ghosts,
But if you will move with same speed regards to pixels on both LCD ( WXGA and WUXGA ) you will see same ghosts on both displays !!! because they have same responce time !!!
kjmcdonald
14 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 15:00
I understand that a WUXGA has more dots per inch (or cm) DPI
than WXGA.
I understand that a line on both screens the same number of
inches (or cm) long on both screens will be made from more
pixels on the WUXGA screen. As you say the pixels are smaller
on a WUXGA screen.
That's the whole point!! That's where the WUXGA screen gets
it's finer detail, and better image quality. (higher resolution
means more DPI)
You need to understand several things:
1. Response time is the time that it takes a single pixel to fully
change from one color to another. It has nothing to do with other
pixels on the screen which may or may not be changing.
It's the time between when the CPU or GPU changes the color value
for that pixel in video RAM till when the change is finished showing
up on the screen.
It doesn't matter wether 1 pixel is changing or if 100,000,000 pixels
are changing, on a 35ms screen they will all be done changing in 35ms.
THEY HAPPEN in PARALLEL.
2. The cursor on both screens is made from the SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS.
It's 10x10 or 16x16 or something like that. It will actually measure
out to be smaller (in inches or cm) on the WUXGA screen, but it is
made up of the same number of pixels. As you say WUXGA pixels are
smaller.
3. The mouse cursor is NOT PAINTED at every pixel postion along the
way. It 'jumps'. If it is moved slow enough then it might hit every
pixel, but also at this slower speed you'd never see 'ghosting'
either.
4. So if you move the mouse cursor the same distance on both screens,
From one side to the other lets say. and if you do it in the same
AMOUNT OF TIME, then the computer will paint the image of the mouse
cursor the SAME NUMBER OF TIMES ON BOTH SCREENS. Since there are
more dot's in a CM on the WUXGA screen, then it will 'jump' over
more dots between each painting of the cursor. This means that the
WUXGA screen will also have more pixels that WILL REMAIN UNTOUCHED
by the cursor image, and BOTH SCREENS WILL HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF
PIXELS MODIFIED.
So from #1 it doesn't matter how many pixels change since they all
react in parallel, and from 2,3 and 4, it's really the same number of
pixels changing in both cases anyway. Therefore, SCREEN RESOLUTION HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH RESPONSE TIME.
-Kyle
caboosemoose
240 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 15:00
OK, I've had enough of this BS.
Look you doofus, the simple fact is the WUXGA does not ghost more than the WXGA. The fact that you still think it does makes it obvious that you have not seen both screens. If you had seen both screens side by side you'd realise how wrong you are. I'm going to try hard to ignore this silly thread now.
William.w
31 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 15:00
Message to all who didnt understand yet
Please answer me to this question.
1) If you move with mouse cursor ( horizontal - right side of your screen ) from one side of the screen with same speed on both WXGA and WUXGA. After 2 seconds you will stop. Will you be at same distance from the start on both WXGA and WUXGA ???
Both screen has dimension in horizontal axis X = 334.5 mm
2) If yes, so imagine, that you stop exactly in the middle of your screen, you are with your cursor at the distance 167 mm from start ( 334.5 / 2 ). On WUXGA you went across 920 pixels and on WXGA you went across 640 pixels. Is it True ???
3) If yes, so imagine, that the pixels on WUXGA and WXGA will be with same size. The way on WUXGA will be longer about 280 pixels ( 920-640 ). Is it True ??
4) If yes, so imagine, that one pixel on both WUXGA and WXGA has size of 1mm. The gaps between two pixels will be 0 mm. The way on WUXGA is 920mm long and on WXGA is 640mm long. If we have same time on the start our experimet ( see point 1 ). The time was 2 seconds. If the time is same but the way on WUXGA is longer the mouse cursor must move faster ( with higher speed ) if you want to have the cursor in the finish at same time on both WUXGA and WXGA.
Conclusion: With this effect the same speed moving on both WXGA and WUXGA you will move faster regards to pixels on WUXGA then WXGA, this is easy to understand.
Answer all these points, and tell me which do you not understad or which is wrong and why. Think about it harder, lets your answer not sounds like from idiot.
1)= ? 2)= ? 3)= ? 4)= ?
If you will not answer to my question I will know that you realize your mistake. If you want answer, answer all these points. I will try to explain better.
spiked_martini
948 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 15:00
Firstly, I have seen an XGA screen of the same size as my UXGA screen, and didn't notice any difference in performance in issues like moving the cursor. Both screens handled this kind of load identically, to my eyes.
Secondly, even if it were true that the XGA has a slightly faster response time, the numbers you've suggested (23 vs. 35ms) are getting to the boundary where people can no longer detect the difference, so I'm not sure you can really say that one is better, when the difference isn't detectable.
Third, using response time as the only measurement of the worth of an LCD screen is deeply flawed. You simply don't get the kind of real estate to work with on an XGA screen. You can't view things in high-resolution, like pictures or games - everything is blockier, poorer quality (the difference between running a game at 1024x780 and 1600x1200 is incredible). It's harder to work with 2 documents or programs side-by-side on a lower-resolution screen. Response time is important, in that a decent threshold is required for a good-quality screen, but ever-faster response times don't add to the utility of an LCD, in my view.
onetobenl
73 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 15:00
I am agree with you Kyle...