Pixel aspect ratio of monitors & TV's (are they square?)

Why is it impossible to find the actual screen height and width of
computer monitors and TV's?

I'm trying to figure out what size of a modern flat-screen TV would give
me an identical picture-height of my 12-year-old Sony 36" diagonal tube
tv.

So I have to assume a bunch of stuff to figure this out. Like

1) do modern plasma and LCD tv's have square pixels, or rectangular
pixels?
2) is the aspect ratio of these modern displays 16:10 or 16:9?

My Sony was marketed as a 36" TV, but the bezel is 37" (diagonal), with
a height of 22.5" and width of 29.75 (rounding to the closest 1/4
inch). This is pretty much exactly 4:3 (as expected).

As near as I can tell, assuming that modern flat-panel TV's are 16:10,
then I'd be looking for a 41" or 42" (diag) screen size to give me at
least the same-sized picture as my old Sony.

But a hi-def picture size is 1920 by 1080, which is 16:9 (not 16:10).
So what standard are TV's made with these days? 16:10 or 16:9?

It'd be nice if they posted the damn hight and width of the screen for
these TV's - and computer monitors as well. Why don't they?

And what about the pixels - are they square or not?

On 10/10/2011 9:53 PM, PC Guy wrote:
Why is it impossible to find the actual screen height and width of
computer monitors and TV's?

I'm trying to figure out what size of a modern flat-screen TV would give
me an identical picture-height of my 12-year-old Sony 36" diagonal tube
tv.

So I have to assume a bunch of stuff to figure this out. Like

1) do modern plasma and LCD tv's have square pixels, or rectangular
pixels?

I have not seen one that is anything but square.

2) is the aspect ratio of these modern displays 16:10 or 16:9?

It depends. I'm using a Samsung monitor that also has a TV tuner built
in. It is 16:10, but that's probably in the minority. If you can find
the "Maximum Resolution" or "Recommended Resolution" for the device,
that should render the aspect ratio.

My Sony was marketed as a 36" TV, but the bezel is 37" (diagonal), with
a height of 22.5" and width of 29.75 (rounding to the closest 1/4
inch). This is pretty much exactly 4:3 (as expected).

As near as I can tell, assuming that modern flat-panel TV's are 16:10,
then I'd be looking for a 41" or 42" (diag) screen size to give me at
least the same-sized picture as my old Sony.

But a hi-def picture size is 1920 by 1080, which is 16:9 (not 16:10).
So what standard are TV's made with these days? 16:10 or 16:9?

The size of TV you're talking about will almost certainly be 16:9. It's
been my experience that the 16:10 units are considered for use as a
desktop monitor, they're generally under 30".

Also, TV don't really come in every dimension. If you're looking for
something between 40" and 50", it's pretty much going to be a 40", 42"
or 46" set. (Some manufacturers may round up to a 43" or 47".)

It'd be nice if they posted the damn hight and width of the screen for
these TV's - and computer monitors as well. Why don't they?

And what about the pixels - are they square or not?

A 40" 16:9 set would have a screen height of about 19.6".
A 42" 16:9 set would have a screen height of about 20.6".
A 46" 16:9 set would have a screen height of about 22.6".

An x" 16:9 set would have a screen height of about 0.49x".

PC Guy wrote:

It'd be nice if they posted the damn hight and width of the screen for
these TV's - and computer monitors as well. Why don't they?

Annoying, isnt' it? This will give you an idea of the physical size of the
viewable screen:

http://tvcalculator.com/

Jon

Grinder wrote:

1) do modern plasma and LCD tv's have square pixels, or rectangular
pixels?

I have not seen one that is anything but square.

Well, just like screen height and width which isin't listed on the spec
sheet of consumer TV's, neither is the shape of the pixels. So if
you've "seen" the square-ness of the pixels on flat-screen TV's, tell me
where or how you've seen them.

2) is the aspect ratio of these modern displays 16:10 or 16:9?

It depends. I'm using a Samsung monitor that also has a TV tuner
built in. It is 16:10, but that's probably in the minority.

It seems that TV's are 16:9, whereas computer monitors are 16:10

A 40" 16:9 set would have a screen height of about 19.6".
A 42" 16:9 set would have a screen height of about 20.6".
A 46" 16:9 set would have a screen height of about 22.6".

Well, that's a big difference.

If TV's came in 16:10 format, then I'd need a 42" wide-screen TV to
match the vertical picture height of my 36" Sony tube TV.

But because large TV's apparently only come in 16:9 format, I need a 46"
wide-screen to match the vertical picture height of my Sony.

I assume that the TV being plasma or LCD makes no difference in that
both types only come in 16:9 format. ?

On 10/11/2011 7:33 PM, PC Guy wrote:
Grinder wrote:

1) do modern plasma and LCD tv's have square pixels, or rectangular
pixels?

I have not seen one that is anything but square.

Well, just like screen height and width which isin't listed on the spec
sheet of consumer TV's, neither is the shape of the pixels. So if
you've "seen" the square-ness of the pixels on flat-screen TV's, tell me
where or how you've seen them.

I have only ever seen a single pixel pitch listed for LCD panels. If
there pixels were something other than square, there would be an x- and
y-pitch.

2) is the aspect ratio of these modern displays 16:10 or 16:9?

It depends. I'm using a Samsung monitor that also has a TV tuner
built in. It is 16:10, but that's probably in the minority.

It seems that TV's are 16:9, whereas computer monitors are 16:10

A 40" 16:9 set would have a screen height of about 19.6".
A 42" 16:9 set would have a screen height of about 20.6".
A 46" 16:9 set would have a screen height of about 22.6".

Well, that's a big difference.

If TV's came in 16:10 format, then I'd need a 42" wide-screen TV to
match the vertical picture height of my 36" Sony tube TV.

But because large TV's apparently only come in 16:9 format, I need a 46"
wide-screen to match the vertical picture height of my Sony.

I assume that the TV being plasma or LCD makes no difference in that
both types only come in 16:9 format. ?

It's true that the display technology will not necessarily affect the
screen's aspect ratio.

On Oct 10, 10:53 pm, PC Guy wrote:
As near as I can tell, assuming that modern flat-panel TV's are 16:10,
then I'd be looking for a 41" or 42" (diag) screen size to give me at
least the same-sized picture as my old Sony.

There's the formula, but as many are spec-ed to run natively at
1360x768, should be possible then to figure a native-sized pixel.
Since they're all standardized beyond 4:3 at wide-screen, and only so
much the sets actually do, there's talk about black boarders. With
the appropriate hard/software driving the input, boarders become
negligible and will exceed mode provisions or features generally
advertised. Used to be blacks and how deep in depth of detail someone
looking wanted to check, also, an acceptable number of dead pixels on
a return policy and who gets to pay shipping regardless if one goes up
in smoke.

Flasherly wrote:

... I'd be looking for a 41" or 42" (diag) screen size to give
me at least the same-sized picture as my old Sony.

There's the formula, but as many are spec-ed to run natively at
(...)
a return policy and who gets to pay shipping regardless if one
goes up in smoke.

Your response is largely gibberish given the context of this thread.

On Oct 12, 7:08 pm, PC Guy wrote:

Your response is largely gibberish given the context of this thread.

Sorry I wasn't able to get closer to that precise context, if it's of
any help to know, yes, that a micron measurement to switching dye-
wafer substratum, near exclusively manufactured off the Pacific Rim,
from three primary colors will be then roughly a factor of some
rectangular conveyance. Perhaps best if somewhat obliquely
conceptualized, when approaching a Walmart or BestBuy sales personnel
for an exactness to the set, than appearing foursquare from a
declassified perspective of underutilized real estate at black borders
from yesteryear's standards. Statistically, all within an allowance
and acceptable rate to equate averages over $1000US annual outlay per
household, of course, on audio/visual equipment at cost factor of
inclusion of industrial entertainment subscription rates. Do enjoy
the upgrade, though, PC guy.

On 10/13/2011 8:05 AM, Flasherly wrote:
On Oct 12, 7:08 pm, PC wrote:

Your response is largely gibberish given the context of this thread.

Sorry I wasn't able to get closer to that precise context, if it's of
any help to know, yes, that a micron measurement to switching dye-
wafer substratum, near exclusively manufactured off the Pacific Rim,
from three primary colors will be then roughly a factor of some
rectangular conveyance. Perhaps best if somewhat obliquely
conceptualized, when approaching a Walmart or BestBuy sales personnel
for an exactness to the set, than appearing foursquare from a
declassified perspective of underutilized real estate at black borders
from yesteryear's standards. Statistically, all within an allowance
and acceptable rate to equate averages over $1000US annual outlay per
household, of course, on audio/visual equipment at cost factor of
inclusion of industrial entertainment subscription rates. Do enjoy
the upgrade, though, PC guy.

Well done.