Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Running LCD Displays at 1280 x 1024 and effects on photos

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
December 26, 2004 11:49:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Just purchased a 17" LCD (LG L1710s) which runs at 1280 x 1024
resolution. Photos look great but problem is my images don't fit
properly in the screen. There is a gap at top and bottom of screen
which from what i read is due to the different aspect ratio of the LCD
Monitor. I can run the LCD at 1280/960 and the pictures look
great,entire screen is filled, but the text looks lousy so not a good
solution. Is there a fix to get the images to fill the entire screen
while keeping my resolution at 1280 x 1024? I can't believe they are
selling millions of these monitors and images don't fit properly.
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 5:13:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve" <theskarnes@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:668d63b9.0412260849.331a6d73@posting.google.com...
> Just purchased a 17" LCD (LG L1710s) which runs at 1280 x 1024
> resolution. Photos look great but problem is my images don't fit
> properly in the screen. There is a gap at top and bottom of screen
> which from what i read is due to the different aspect ratio of the LCD
> Monitor. I can run the LCD at 1280/960 and the pictures look
> great,entire screen is filled, but the text looks lousy so not a good
> solution. Is there a fix to get the images to fill the entire screen
> while keeping my resolution at 1280 x 1024? I can't believe they are
> selling millions of these monitors and images don't fit properly.

Wait till you try printing your images and discover that the prints
cut off parts of the picture. All the standard American print sizes
11x14, 8x10, 5x7, 4x6, 3.5x5, have different aspect ratios.

Some of the cameras have different aspect ratios based on the
different sizes of the CCD sensors.

Within one camera there are often different aspect ratios for
different selectable size images you can take.

Selectable screen parameters on monitors and video cards have
different aspect ratios.

There is no standard, and it's not clear that there would be a
great benefit if there were.

Why blame the monitor?

Alan
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 5:42:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:

> Is there a fix to get the images to fill the entire screen
> while keeping my resolution at 1280 x 1024?

Yeah, prepare your images meant for viewing on that
screen to be 1280x1024.

> I can't believe they are selling millions of these monitors
> and images don't fit properly.

That's nothing compared to what they done with shoes.
I went to a store the other day, and they had hundreds,
maybe thousands of 'em in stock that didn't fit my feet!

Assuming you're not a troll, or just having a little
Christmas fun, the serious answer is that you will
discover over time that there are dozens of variables
in the creation of images. Aspect ratio is only one
of those variables. What seems like a confusing mess
right now will soon become more clear as you
work your way through the confusion. Soon you
will be creating folders on your computer with
different version of photographs for different purposes --
archives straight from the camera, versions optimized
for printing, screen show versions, PowerPoint versions,
and versions meant for viewing on your new monitor.
Related resources
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 9:08:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve" <theskarnes@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:668d63b9.0412260849.331a6d73@posting.google.com...
> Just purchased a 17" LCD (LG L1710s) which runs at 1280 x 1024
> resolution. Photos look great but problem is my images don't fit
> properly in the screen. There is a gap at top and bottom of screen
> which from what i read is due to the different aspect ratio of the LCD
> Monitor. I can run the LCD at 1280/960 and the pictures look
> great,entire screen is filled, but the text looks lousy so not a good
> solution. Is there a fix to get the images to fill the entire screen
> while keeping my resolution at 1280 x 1024? I can't believe they are
> selling millions of these monitors and images don't fit properly.

Cameras have pixel ratios all over the place. Most of the time you will not
get an exact fit. You will encounter black lines at the top and bottom or
on the sides or...the picture will not be shown in its entirety on the
screen. The same is true of wide screen versus normal screen in the dvd
world. It is just the physics of it. Not the manufacturers fault.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 12:29:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:08:28 GMT, you, "Harvey"
<hcohenREMOVE@frontiernetTHIS.net>, wrote in
news:w6Dzd.842$WZ1.689@news01.roc.ny:

>
> "Steve" <theskarnes@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:668d63b9.0412260849.331a6d73@posting.google.com...
>> Just purchased a 17" LCD (LG L1710s) which runs at 1280 x 1024
>> resolution. Photos look great but problem is my images don't fit
>> properly in the screen. There is a gap at top and bottom of screen
>> which from what i read is due to the different aspect ratio of the
>> LCD Monitor. I can run the LCD at 1280/960 and the pictures look
>> great,entire screen is filled, but the text looks lousy so not a good
>> solution. Is there a fix to get the images to fill the entire screen
>> while keeping my resolution at 1280 x 1024? I can't believe they are
>> selling millions of these monitors and images don't fit properly.
>
> Cameras have pixel ratios all over the place. Most of the time you
> will not get an exact fit. You will encounter black lines at the top
> and bottom or on the sides or...the picture will not be shown in its
> entirety on the screen. The same is true of wide screen versus normal
> screen in the dvd world. It is just the physics of it. Not the
> manufacturers fault.

It is the manufacturer's fault if it doesn't display anything correctly
at 1280x960 res which is the correct aspect ratio for a 4x3 LCD. If
1280x1024 is the native resolution of the LCD then it doesn't have square
pixels and will not display nicely anything that requires square pixels.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 12:45:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:
> Just purchased a 17" LCD (LG L1710s) which runs at 1280 x 1024
> resolution. Photos look great but problem is my images don't fit
> properly in the screen. There is a gap at top and bottom of screen
> which from what i read is due to the different aspect ratio of the LCD
> Monitor. I can run the LCD at 1280/960 and the pictures look
> great,entire screen is filled, but the text looks lousy so not a good
> solution. Is there a fix to get the images to fill the entire screen
> while keeping my resolution at 1280 x 1024? I can't believe they are
> selling millions of these monitors and images don't fit properly.

See if you have different pic size setting available on your camera. I know
that on my old olympus i could set it to monitor ratio, or standard analog
film ratio , which is 3:2. And sometimes camera's best resolution is a bit
different than monitor size, but there are lower resolutions available, like
1600x1200, which will fit (after resizing). Note that monitor ratio is 4:3,
while - for example on my Canon S1 max resolution (whixh is 2048x1536) is
5:4, while i do have 1600x1200 1024x768 , both 4:3.
On the other hand i think i did see some picture player which can resize
monitor size temporarily - only while showing pics...just i'd be damned if i
remember where...
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 1:41:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
> "T.N.T." <tnt@localhost.ca> writes:
>
> >It is the manufacturer's fault if it doesn't display anything
correctly
> >at 1280x960 res which is the correct aspect ratio for a 4x3 LCD. If
> >1280x1024 is the native resolution of the LCD then it doesn't have
square
> >pixels and will not display nicely anything that requires square
pixels.
>
> >Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> From his description of text looking good at 1280x1024 and bad at
> 1280x960, we can likely conclude that the panel itself is 1280x1024.
>
> However, I'll bet that the pixels are actually square, and the active
> area of the screen has a 1.25 aspect ratio (5:4), not 1.33 like a
> classical CRT. If that's true setting the graphics card to 1280x1024
> will display digital images correctly, including making circles
round.
>
> In that case, his only complaint is that the camera doesn't give
images
> that fit the screen exactly. A 1.33 image displayed on a 1.25
monitor
> needs narrow blank bars at the top and bottom. But this isn't really
> much of a problem:
>
> - If the images must be 4:3, viewing programs like Irfanview can
display
> them with the extra area black so it's not distracting.
>
> - If the images must fit the screen exactly, he can crop them to a
5:4
> ratio in his image editor. Since the normal camera output is at much
> higher resolution, the images need to be shrunk for screen display
> anyway, and adding a cropping step doesn't add much work.
>
> Dave
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 1:41:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
> "T.N.T." <tnt@localhost.ca> writes:
>
> >It is the manufacturer's fault if it doesn't display anything
correctly
> >at 1280x960 res which is the correct aspect ratio for a 4x3 LCD. If
> >1280x1024 is the native resolution of the LCD then it doesn't have
square
> >pixels and will not display nicely anything that requires square
pixels.
>
> >Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> From his description of text looking good at 1280x1024 and bad at
> 1280x960, we can likely conclude that the panel itself is 1280x1024.
>
> However, I'll bet that the pixels are actually square, and the active
> area of the screen has a 1.25 aspect ratio (5:4), not 1.33 like a
> classical CRT. If that's true setting the graphics card to 1280x1024
> will display digital images correctly, including making circles
round.
>
> In that case, his only complaint is that the camera doesn't give
images
> that fit the screen exactly. A 1.33 image displayed on a 1.25
monitor
> needs narrow blank bars at the top and bottom. But this isn't really
> much of a problem:
>
> - If the images must be 4:3, viewing programs like Irfanview can
display
> them with the extra area black so it's not distracting.
>
> - If the images must fit the screen exactly, he can crop them to a
5:4
> ratio in his image editor. Since the normal camera output is at much
> higher resolution, the images need to be shrunk for screen display
> anyway, and adding a cropping step doesn't add much work.
>
> Dave
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 7:24:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"T.N.T." <tnt@localhost.ca> writes:

>It is the manufacturer's fault if it doesn't display anything correctly
>at 1280x960 res which is the correct aspect ratio for a 4x3 LCD. If
>1280x1024 is the native resolution of the LCD then it doesn't have square
>pixels and will not display nicely anything that requires square pixels.

>Correct me if I'm wrong.

From his description of text looking good at 1280x1024 and bad at
1280x960, we can likely conclude that the panel itself is 1280x1024.

However, I'll bet that the pixels are actually square, and the active
area of the screen has a 1.25 aspect ratio (5:4), not 1.33 like a
classical CRT. If that's true setting the graphics card to 1280x1024
will display digital images correctly, including making circles round.

In that case, his only complaint is that the camera doesn't give images
that fit the screen exactly. A 1.33 image displayed on a 1.25 monitor
needs narrow blank bars at the top and bottom. But this isn't really
much of a problem:

- If the images must be 4:3, viewing programs like Irfanview can display
them with the extra area black so it's not distracting.

- If the images must fit the screen exactly, he can crop them to a 5:4
ratio in his image editor. Since the normal camera output is at much
higher resolution, the images need to be shrunk for screen display
anyway, and adding a cropping step doesn't add much work.

Dave
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:21:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
[]
> - If the images must fit the screen exactly, he can crop them to a 5:4
> ratio in his image editor. Since the normal camera output is at much
> higher resolution, the images need to be shrunk for screen display
> anyway, and adding a cropping step doesn't add much work.
>
> Dave

Although it introduces an extra problem at the taking stage if precise
framing is required. Perhaps high-end cameras should offer an additional
extra aspect ratio of 5:4 as well as the 3:2 commonly offered to
supplement the natural 4:3?

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 10:51:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> writes:

>Although it introduces an extra problem at the taking stage if precise
>framing is required. Perhaps high-end cameras should offer an additional
>extra aspect ratio of 5:4 as well as the 3:2 commonly offered to
>supplement the natural 4:3?

Don't forget 16:9 monitors, which are increasingly common.

How often does anyone shoot an image to exactly fit one particular
monitor? Manufacturers could do this in camera, but why not do it in
the image editor later?

I think it would be most useful for the camera makers to do what movie
cameras have long done: show the entire image area that will be
recorded, but superimpose a reticle showing the amount of image that
will actually be visible with the chosen projection aperture (e.g. 1.66,
1.85). That way, you don't discard any image data and can crop
differently later, but you get a guide for positioning the subject for
one particular aspect ratio.

That's what most APS cameras did too: they always shot the full 16:9
frame, but the film could be encoded with instructions to mask off part
of the image to get a panorama or classic (1.5) aspect ratio image.

Dave
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 12:07:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
[]
> I think it would be most useful for the camera makers to do what movie
> cameras have long done: show the entire image area that will be
> recorded, but superimpose a reticle showing the amount of image that
> will actually be visible with the chosen projection aperture (e.g.
> 1.66,
> 1.85). That way, you don't discard any image data and can crop
> differently later, but you get a guide for positioning the subject for
> one particular aspect ratio.

Yes, that should be really easy with today's electronic viewfinders. I am
already starting to use the horizontal and vertical alignment lines (like
I used to have on the architectural finder - an F? screen on the Nikon
F3). A jolly site easier to flick a switch than to actually change the
finder screen!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 1:36:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
> That's what most APS cameras did too: they always shot the full 16:9
> frame, but the film could be encoded with instructions to mask off part
> of the image to get a panorama or classic (1.5) aspect ratio image.

Actually APS cameras shot (note past tense) a 4:7 format called APS-H,
either masking off top and bottom to produce panoramic APS-P (9.8 x 28mm)
or masking off the sides to produce 35mm-like ratio APS-C (16 x 24mm).
Note that 28 x 9.8 is wider than HTDV 16:9.

Not that anyone cares about APS. Sorry for mentioning it.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 3:31:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:spFzd.7432$F6.1296138@news.siol.net...
....
> film ratio , which is 3:2. And sometimes camera's best resolution is a bit
> different than monitor size, but there are lower resolutions available,
like
> 1600x1200, which will fit (after resizing). Note that monitor ratio is
4:3,
> while - for example on my Canon S1 max resolution (whixh is 2048x1536) is
> 5:4, while i do have 1600x1200 1024x768 , both 4:3.
....
SleeperMan:

I'd check my math if I were you. 2048x1536 is 4:3, not 5:4.

For the Original Poster: most of today's digital cameras take 4:3 ratio
pictures.
Many also support a cropped 3:2 ratio setting as well. Beyond that, you
will
need to crop your photos to fit the desired end result (or
stretch/compress/distort).


--
Dan (Woj...) [dmaster](no space)[at](no space)[lucent](no space)[dot](no
space)[com]
===============================
"I see you coming / To the end of the day
And was it worth it? / No one can say
I see your face / It is ghostly pale
Into the sunset / We are watching you sail"
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 10:56:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dan Wojciechowski wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:spFzd.7432$F6.1296138@news.siol.net...
> ...
>> film ratio , which is 3:2. And sometimes camera's best resolution is
>> a bit different than monitor size, but there are lower resolutions
>> available, like 1600x1200, which will fit (after resizing). Note
>> that monitor ratio is 4:3, while - for example on my Canon S1 max
>> resolution (whixh is 2048x1536) is 5:4, while i do have 1600x1200
>> 1024x768 , both 4:3.
> ...
> SleeperMan:
>
> I'd check my math if I were you. 2048x1536 is 4:3, not 5:4.
>
True...my mistake.
But, if you don't have 3:2 feature on your camera, software cropping can be
pain sometimes, since either you cut something on upper or somethign on
lower edge. But, with experience you learn to take some reserve when
shooting...
!