Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Triangular Pixels

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Monitors
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2010 3:06:50 PM

Hello everybody, I'm asking about something I've wondered for a very long time. Pixels these days use square/rectangle shapes, 4 sided, something to that effect. What i was wondering is that if 2 Triangles make up a square/rectangle, or even 4 if you divide it once more and so on, why do we just keep on using squares/rectangles? If every pixel was cut into half on a 1920x1080 monitor, wouldn't it lead to a monitor with a resolution of 3840x2160, and therefore a 8.294 Megapixel screen, vs. the 2 Megapixel screens of today? I'm sure other things might be improved, however is there anything wrong with this? Even again, cut those triangles in half, and you get 7680x4320, at over 33 megapixels. Of course video cards would start crying, and 1920x1080 is already using up all the bandwidth TV's have to offer, but besides that, is there anything wrong with triangular pixels? Maybe even other shapes?

More about : triangular pixels

a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 135 C Monitor
August 9, 2010 3:19:24 PM

I think you are making one very large mistake here. If you cut the pixels in half on a 1920x1080 monitor, you'd have either 3840x1080 or 1920x2160. Your examples are cutting the pixels into quarters.

Also keep in mind, if they made monitors with higher resolutions (they do have some that are higher), the graphics card has to be able to process a lot more information. As a result, they have to find a balance that works with the other hardware in your system.
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2010 3:24:50 PM

fine, cutting pixels into quarters giving the 3840x2160. And like i said with the graphics cards, but are there any other problems with it? 1080p can only go so far, cards are already starting to blow it and modern games out of the water. Sure games will get a lot more detailed and intensive as time goes on, but they can only go so far on 1080p. I was also thinking maybe in the cell phone markets. The common resolution for the best touchscreens is 800x480. Cut the square/rectangle prixels into 4 triangles, and you get 1600x960. Of course graphics cards would have to catch up, however they are already doing quite well on 1080p as it stands.
Related resources
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 135 C Monitor
August 9, 2010 3:29:01 PM

I think you are looking at this wrong. It's not simply a matter of cutting existing pixels in half. They have to create more pixels and all the electronics requires to make them, and make them at half size. Creating smaller pixels is more expense and requires more technology.

They also have to have a market place to sell these monitors. Without demand, they can't cover the costs in making them, without charging a lot more.
August 9, 2010 4:07:17 PM

ares1214 said:
Hello everybody, I'm asking about something I've wondered for a very long time. Pixels these days use square/rectangle shapes, 4 sided, something to that effect. What i was wondering is that if 2 Triangles make up a square/rectangle, or even 4 if you divide it once more and so on, why do we just keep on using squares/rectangles? If every pixel was cut into half on a 1920x1080 monitor, wouldn't it lead to a monitor with a resolution of 3840x2160, and therefore a 8.294 Megapixel screen, vs. the 2 Megapixel screens of today? I'm sure other things might be improved, however is there anything wrong with this? Even again, cut those triangles in half, and you get 7680x4320, at over 33 megapixels. Of course video cards would start crying, and 1920x1080 is already using up all the bandwidth TV's have to offer, but besides that, is there anything wrong with triangular pixels? Maybe even other shapes?


I think your thinging of Pixels and .bmp=Pixel Shaders or Grids & Dots!/ Vertex Shaders and Vertices are Trigonometry! Transform and Lighting! Geometry Engines or GPU are global google satellite! Perfect game for you is UFO Earth Global Defense Series or XCom by Microprose! Thats the most complex games out there in terms of R&D/Fighting Moon UFO's with Earth's Tek! I think Kaiser/Stalin WWI vs. Dwight Eisenhowser(UK)+ Hitler(Denmark/Netherlands) WWII Tek! Clash of Nations is a Paradox of Both countries TEK! 2 Countries vs. 4 countries!
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2010 4:36:43 PM

GunBladeType-T said:
I think your thinging of Pixels and .bmp=Pixel Shaders or Grids & Dots!/ Vertex Shaders and Vertices are Trigonometry! Transform and Lighting! Geometry Engines or GPU are global google satellite! Perfect game for you is UFO Earth Global Defense Series or XCom by Microprose! Thats the most complex games out there in terms of R&D/Fighting Moon UFO's with Earth's Tek! I think Kaiser/Stalin WWI vs. Dwight Eisenhowser(UK)+ Hitler(Denmark/Netherlands) WWII Tek! Clash of Nations is a Paradox of Both countries TEK! 2 Countries vs. 4 countries!


WTF do you ever make sense when you post something

EDIT: ok so i some of your other posts, there were a few that made a little sense
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2010 4:45:40 PM

GunBladeType-T said:
I think your thinging of Pixels and .bmp=Pixel Shaders or Grids & Dots!/ Vertex Shaders and Vertices are Trigonometry! Transform and Lighting! Geometry Engines or GPU are global google satellite! Perfect game for you is UFO Earth Global Defense Series or XCom by Microprose! Thats the most complex games out there in terms of R&D/Fighting Moon UFO's with Earth's Tek! I think Kaiser/Stalin WWI vs. Dwight Eisenhowser(UK)+ Hitler(Denmark/Netherlands) WWII Tek! Clash of Nations is a Paradox of Both countries TEK! 2 Countries vs. 4 countries!


UHM?!
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2010 10:19:00 PM

bystander said:
I think you are looking at this wrong. It's not simply a matter of cutting existing pixels in half. They have to create more pixels and all the electronics requires to make them, and make them at half size. Creating smaller pixels is more expense and requires more technology.

They also have to have a market place to sell these monitors. Without demand, they can't cover the costs in making them, without charging a lot more.


I realize its not just a matter of taking a saw, cutting the pixels into triangles, and gluing them back together. Of course they would have to make the extra pizels and the tech to implement them. However, isnt the triangle a more efficient shape? Side note, doesnt tesselation use triangles?
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 135 C Monitor
August 9, 2010 10:23:46 PM

ares1214 said:
I realize its not just a matter of taking a saw, cutting the pixels into triangles, and gluing them back together. Of course they would have to make the extra pizels and the tech to implement them. However, isnt the triangle a more efficient shape? Side note, doesnt tesselation use triangles?


I believe TV's used to use triangles or something like that. I believe it was done so that things didn't appear to have straight lines, as TV's generally show organic life. However, these TV's also showed lettering horribly, as straight lines make reading a lot easier.

Tesselation may make triangles, but they create point to point lines between the corners and they aren't uniform in size, so would not really benefit from pixels being triangle.
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2010 10:38:25 PM

bystander said:
I believe TV's used to use triangles or something like that. I believe it was done so that things didn't appear to have straight lines, as TV's generally show organic life. However, these TV's also showed lettering horribly, as straight lines make reading a lot easier.

Tesselation may make triangles, but they create point to point lines between the corners and they aren't uniform in size, so would not really benefit from pixels being triangle.


Yeah, the tesselation i wasnt saying would be better on triangle pixels, just saying a side note. However, if you think about it, triangles lined up or put together make straight lines, just like squares and rectangles. However, when the did use them im assuming a decent time ago, im sure they didnt have as high a resolution as 1080p, and that id imagine make the shortcoming, straight lines, look a lot worse than it would now. Just out of curiousity, what shape would you recommend?
April 5, 2013 12:30:01 AM

I wondered the exact same thing back when I was a kid. My physics teacher laughed at me for asking him. My teacher in 3D animation didn't even understand what I said.

To answer your question I would say that a square pixel might have been a choice based upon convenience. Just like it is easier to build a square building or build with square legos. Or perhaps it is because our perception of reality (3 dimensions) is based upon the cube (X/Y/Z) and that became the obvious choice.

If you ask me triangles would be a much more efficient geometric shape, since it allows you to draw lines at a 45 degree angle without any jagged edges, unlike a line made of square pixels that looks like a set of stairs from the side. Round shapes would also become much less jagged.

PS: My physics teacher also laughed when I proposed that the universe could contain shapes and colors, that we could not even imagine or perceive. Now I basically feel like i pwned him quite hard.
a c 177 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
April 5, 2013 3:12:45 AM

ares1214 said:
Hello everybody, I'm asking about something I've wondered for a very long time. Pixels these days use square/rectangle shapes, 4 sided, something to that effect. What i was wondering is that if 2 Triangles make up a square/rectangle, or even 4 if you divide it once more and so on, why do we just keep on using squares/rectangles? If every pixel was cut into half on a 1920x1080 monitor, wouldn't it lead to a monitor with a resolution of 3840x2160, and therefore a 8.294 Megapixel screen, vs. the 2 Megapixel screens of today? I'm sure other things might be improved, however is there anything wrong with this? Even again, cut those triangles in half, and you get 7680x4320, at over 33 megapixels. Of course video cards would start crying, and 1920x1080 is already using up all the bandwidth TV's have to offer, but besides that, is there anything wrong with triangular pixels? Maybe even other shapes?


To get things clear, this is what i always thought to be true about colour display technology:

- pixel's are the square 2D shapes that are rendered on your screen output that you see, it is the output at the end of the process, your screen translates them in to a block composed of 1 red and/or 1 green and/or 1 blue (or none in case of black), assuming native screen resolution and video card output are the same.

- the virtual 3D shapes rendered by the graphics card are made from triangles.

- CRT monitors use circular dots of red green and blue to make a pixel, CRT TV's use rectangular r, g, b dots as do LCD's.

DLP projectors use single microscopic square mirrors, colours are made by a spinning colour wheel made of 3 colours and normally a white section also. So before the mirrors, the three colours are all created separately, but at a rate so fast our brain thinks its one colour. Its a concept where the harder you think about it, the more impossible it seems :S. Its basically an illusion, but it works.

Which is it you think could possibly be another shape? It makes sense that at the moment, the rgb colours should optimally be rectangular, but together make a square, to give best coverage of the monitor area, and give best performance for the square pixels that are rendered. they match to give a sharp image, so whatever the shape, the output of the graphics card and physical dot shape of the monitor should be the same. A hexagonal shape for example, i think would take more processing, although it would make an image appear smoother on screen. it may make the dot less noticeable as a visible square, but not quite a circle which would waste more screen real estate as they have no edges to align to. You also want less black area between the dots, so there is no contrast to tell there is shape there. So to change the technology, both the output of the virtual image, and physical shape of the display would have to change.
!