Running LCD Displays at 1280 x 1024 and effects on photos

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steve, Dec 26, 2004.

  1. Steve

    Steve Guest

    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.
     
    Steve, Dec 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve

    Harvey Guest

    "Steve" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Harvey, Dec 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steve

    Alan Meyer Guest

    "Steve" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Alan Meyer, Dec 26, 2004
    #3
  4. Steve

    Don Lathrop Guest

    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.
     
    Don Lathrop, Dec 26, 2004
    #4
  5. Steve

    SleeperMan Guest

    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...
     
    SleeperMan, Dec 26, 2004
    #5
  6. Steve

    T.N.T. Guest

    On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:08:28 GMT, you, "Harvey"
    <>, wrote in
    news:w6Dzd.842$:

    >
    > "Steve" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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.
     
    T.N.T., Dec 26, 2004
    #6
  7. "T.N.T." <> 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
     
    Dave Martindale, Dec 27, 2004
    #7
  8. Steve

    Guest

    Dave Martindale wrote:
    > "T.N.T." <> 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
     
    , Dec 27, 2004
    #8
  9. Steve

    Guest

    Dave Martindale wrote:
    > "T.N.T." <> 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
     
    , Dec 27, 2004
    #9
  10. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 27, 2004
    #10
  11. "David J Taylor" <> 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
     
    Dave Martindale, Dec 27, 2004
    #11
  12. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 27, 2004
    #12
  13. Steve

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Dave Martindale <> 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.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Dec 28, 2004
    #13
  14. "SleeperMan" <> wrote in message
    news:spFzd.7432$...
    ....
    > 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"
     
    Dan Wojciechowski, Jan 6, 2005
    #14
  15. Steve

    SleeperMan Guest

    Dan Wojciechowski wrote:
    > "SleeperMan" <> wrote in message
    > news:spFzd.7432$...
    > ...
    >> 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...
     
    SleeperMan, Jan 6, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ubiquitous
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,495
    Jim Townsend
    Dec 24, 2003
  2. Kingston CF/1024 and Coolpix 5400

    , Mar 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    292
    Big Bill
    Mar 8, 2005
  3. Rich

    Help for LCD displays?

    Rich, Dec 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    359
  4. Travis

    HD on 1280 x 1024?

    Travis, Nov 21, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,217
    Neil Green
    Nov 25, 2007
  5. Mark

    Re: best monitor for 1280 X 1024

    Mark, May 24, 2005, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    669
Loading...

Share This Page