![]() It is the closest to 16:9 that they could get by keeping the 768 vertical resolution from 1024x768, which had been widely used for the manufacturing of early 4:3 LCD displays. However, at only 0.05%, the resulting error is insignificant.Ĭitations are not provided, but it is a reasonable explanation. As 768 does not divide exactly into the "9" size, the aspect ratio is not quite 16:9 – this would require a horizontal width of 1365.33 pixels. The basis for this otherwise odd seeming resolution is similar to that of other "wide" standards - the line scan (refresh) rate of the well-established "XGA" standard (1024x768 pixels, 4:3 aspect) was extended to give square pixels on the increasingly popular 16:9 widescreen display ratio without having to effect major signalling changes other than a faster pixel clock, or manufacturing changes other than extending panel width by one third.SuperUser contributors mtone and piernov have the answer for us. Why not use 1280x720 or something else as a standard for laptops? I know there are plenty of other resolutions all over the place, but 1366x768 seems to dominate most of the mid-priced laptop world and also seems unique to the laptop world. Yet, 1366x768 is 683:384, a seemingly wild break from the standard. The 720 pixel size is 1280x720, which is also 16:9. Why in the world is the screen resolution 1366x768 a real thing? It has an aspect ratio of 683:384, which is the weirdest thing I have ever heard of while living in a 16:9 world.Īll the screens and resolutions I am familiar with have been the 16:9 aspect ratio. I know that there is a previous question about this, but it does not have any real answers despite having been viewed 12,400 times (in addition to the fact that it has been closed). ![]() SuperUser reader meed96 wants to know why the 1366x768 screen resolution exists: ![]() Photo courtesy of Cheon Fong Liew (Flickr).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |