[frank]

Originally Posted by 3dd

It's hard to find 1024 x 576 these days (even though I got one when I actually ordered a 1024 x 600). Lenovo, Acer, Asus, HP, Toshiba, etc. all do their Netbooks w/1024 x 600 on a 10.1" display. Assuming they are all real 10.1", then the physical size of these displays should be exactly the same as Dell's, so they all should have "non-square" pixels.

That's quite a leap in logic. I don't think that is true at all.

In other news, I found a squished circle Dell Mini 10v 1024x600 display photo on Flickr:

Flickr: rrrchrrr - dell mini 10v 1024x600 display is squished; pixels not square

[The Crusher]

Just to be OCD, I created an image that should illustrate the amount of distortion, in a way that works on both regular displays and 600-pixel 10v displays.



tom

[brogie]

I would like to ask again about any solution or fix for that. I was trying SwitchResX Control but couldn't find or add new setup...

[gaster]

Does the 1012 have this same issue?

[webman2k]

wow - this thread has made me feel better about my OCD issues. I didn't even notice this before, and now I do, but it really doesn't bother me. I use the mini for web surfing, light use, and my Macbook for any production work.

Like many have said, the vast majority of people who bought these will never notice, because they're just using it for light use, web stuff, media playback, etc.

This isn't like going from 4:3 to 16:9 - the distortion is so ridiculously small, it's not even noticeable even if I'm looking for it sometimes.

And like someone else mentioned, the extra 24 pixels are welcome. On such a small screen, an extra line of text is more than welcome!

[InNewtonITrust]

Frankly, Anguish, I'd say Stingray's comparison photo on page 4 really does what your photos try to... sorry, just wanted to say this, 'cos it feels like a fellow open-sourcer's out-of-his-way efforts went rather underappreciated, while another's were deeply reverred... OCD??

Anyway, the quality of conversation on this thread (or these entire forums? I haven't checked out...) is vastly stimulating. And entertaining. As testimony:

Originally Posted by fdalbor

I watch a lot less Television than I used to because of this forum

Seriously. I'm here not because I own a 10v at all (heh!), but 'cause the mood's so great!

[InNewtonITrust]

Originally Posted by inigopete

It sounds like one of those problems that people make more of a deal out of because they know it's there. Thanks for the pics Anguish, that helps illustrate that it _is_ there.
Could someone who's more mathematically able than me work out the trigonometry? I have a theory that because the screen tilts and most people slouch and straighten up a good three or four inches in their seat, they seldom look straight at the screen (i.e. at an exact 90 degree angle to the plane of the screen). I suggest the 4% foreshortening effect is not as significant as people think, given how much their perspective on the screen can change anyway.

Just a theory...

Not quite, sir (/ma'am?)...

Tilting the screen backwards makes it even thinner. It decreases it's apparent vertical length (height, that is). By looking at the screen from below (vertical viewing angle>90°), we're taking the hor:vert ratio not lower (to a perfect 16:9, which is what we want) but higher (to 16:0.000...1 . Or, indeed, to infinity:1, in which case our screen looks like a horizontal straight line- it's been tilted back far enough). Slouching/straightening is the same thing again- these will affect the apparent vertical length... and not just affect it, but make it smaller. No matter what we do, the most "sqaure" pixels we can get are by looking at the screen head-on (vertical viewing angle = 90°), which, of course, gives us the now infamous "imperfect 16:9" "sqaushed" screen.

In fact, and this is really funny, what you're implying is that all of us who use any kind of laptop are squashing our screens to match the 10v's. The Squash is EVERYWHERE!

Originally Posted by inigopete

I suggest the 4% foreshortening effect is not as significant as people think, given how much their perspective on the screen can change anyway.

Oh. That's what you were saying. True. Heh, so basically, since we're already squashing our screens anyway to an extent, this '4%' more shouldn't bother us.
That's just a bummer to those 2 (thus far) people who've sold their devices off because they couldn't stand this issue, to buy other stuff that they'll distort regardless. That's... well.

Sooo, how do put your theory's jist to use? It sure isn't wrong- we have to look at the other axis. The horizontal one. And the math has already been done for us:

Originally Posted by Max_Carnage

Coulda just rotated the thing 3.6 degrees to the left or the right to compensate...
Seriously, I expect you're right. Not a big problem for most people without OCD though, even those using it for design/cad.

And there's the solution to the *ahem* problem (if you ignore the Obsessive Disorder part, yes). Our man (/lady?) has attached exact numerical quantities too- 3.6°. Not up/down, but to either side.

Which brings us here:
Have any of you checked out this beauty? ! FAUX PAS ALERT !

[reflex]

Originally Posted by gaster

Does the 1012 have this same issue?

Yes, if you opted for the lesser 1024x600 screen on the 1012. It's 1024x600 packed into a 16:9, so it has slightly non-square pixels. The better 1366x768 screen should have square pixels.

[krs9999]

Well, I checked the pixels on my 1024x600 10V display and the pixels are perfectly square.
There is no reason why a 1024x600 display should have 'sqashed" pixels - after all, 1024x600 is the standard WSVGA resolution; 1024x576 is the odd ball - there is no standard with that resolution.
File:Vector Video Standards2.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the error people made in their logic was to assume that the display has a 16:9 aspect ratio - it doesn't.
For those who measured non-square pixels, all I can assume that they have an odd-ball display.

Is there any way to identify the display model and manufacturer without taking the laptop apart? I bet you that there are probably different 1024x600 panels in these notebooks, some perhaps with non-square pixels.
But a 1024x600 pixel display does not automatically make the pixels "non-square".

[reflex]

Originally Posted by krs9999

Well, I checked the pixels on my 1024x600 10V display and the pixels are perfectly square.
There is no reason why a 1024x600 display should have 'sqashed" pixels - after all, 1024x600 is the standard WSVGA resolution; 1024x576 is the odd ball - there is no standard with that resolution.
File:Vector Video Standards2.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the error people made in their logic was to assume that the display has a 16:9 aspect ratio - it doesn't.
For those who measured non-square pixels, all I can assume that they have an odd-ball display.

Is there any way to identify the display model and manufacturer without taking the laptop apart? I bet you that there are probably different 1024x600 panels in these notebooks, some perhaps with non-square pixels.
But a 1024x600 pixel display does not automatically make the pixels "non-square".

I expect all 10v panels are the same aspect ratio, whether they're 1024x576 or 1024x600. And I think 1024x600 10.1" 16:9 with squished pixels is now the standard screen in most netbooks. But since I don't have a 10v, I can't say for sure whether its screen is squished.

I can tell you that the newer 1012 absolutely has squished pixels with the 1024x600 screen. It's not dramatic, but it is noticeable.

Try examining your screen's EDID with a utility. It should give you the physical size and the manufacturer. According to EDID, my 1012's screen is 223x125mm (16:9) and made by CPT (Chunghwa Picture Tubes?). I also confirmed the reported dimensions with a ruler.