MONITOR ISSUE - new one not displaying squares as squares!
Discussion
Hi there,
As above really.
Have just attached a Samsung monitor to my laptop. Now on the laptop, the screen resolution is set to 1024x768, which is what I want - the new monitor is a 19-inch - and things that I know to be square, display as a slight rectangle. Now adjusting the resolution on the laptop to 'make' it look square, is no good - as it's web-design I'm doing, and it really does need to be square for anyone on the same resolution.
I really thought that for any given resolution - things like squares will be squares. Even on a widescreen.
I was used on monitors at work to being able to adjust not only the 'position' of the screen image, but also how fat or thin it was. Now that would have been the perfect solution here - but I'm as good as definite that the monitor doesn't allow that option - only screen position.
Any workarounds that anyone knows of?
Failing that - I'll just have to leave my laptop screen open too - to see what's really going on.
As above really.
Have just attached a Samsung monitor to my laptop. Now on the laptop, the screen resolution is set to 1024x768, which is what I want - the new monitor is a 19-inch - and things that I know to be square, display as a slight rectangle. Now adjusting the resolution on the laptop to 'make' it look square, is no good - as it's web-design I'm doing, and it really does need to be square for anyone on the same resolution.
I really thought that for any given resolution - things like squares will be squares. Even on a widescreen.
I was used on monitors at work to being able to adjust not only the 'position' of the screen image, but also how fat or thin it was. Now that would have been the perfect solution here - but I'm as good as definite that the monitor doesn't allow that option - only screen position.
Any workarounds that anyone knows of?
Failing that - I'll just have to leave my laptop screen open too - to see what's really going on.
Without sitting in front of the monitor and checking out all the settings, my best guess would be that the 19" is a LCD with a native resolution of 1280*1024, and that it's set up not to scale lower resolutions to fit the screen but rather to display them with 1:1 pixel mapping - i.e. the 1024*768 screen you're feeding to the monitor is being shown in a letterboxed window in the middle of the monitor. If so, then the problem is that you're sending the screen a 4:3 aspect ratio image, but the monitor itself has a 5:4 aspect ratio, so using 1:1 mapping will make a 4:3 image look shorter than it ought to be, and that would give you the rectangular squares you're seeing...
So, the first thing I'd to to try fixing this is to find out what the native resolution of the external monitor is (if it is an LCD, it'll usually mention it somewhere in the on-screen menus, otherwise see if whatever OS your laptop is running was able to pick up the resolution from the monitor) and then set your laptop to display at that resolution.
So, the first thing I'd to to try fixing this is to find out what the native resolution of the external monitor is (if it is an LCD, it'll usually mention it somewhere in the on-screen menus, otherwise see if whatever OS your laptop is running was able to pick up the resolution from the monitor) and then set your laptop to display at that resolution.
If the monitor is not running at it's native resolution, then as you've found there will be discrepancies between what you see on a 1:1 (native resolution) screen and another screen.
I'm guessing the laptop is not widescreen as the resolution you've set it to is for a 4:3 ratio screen - whereas some monitors are 16:10 or 16:9 resolution, with appropriate native resolutions (i.e. my 23" screen is 16:10 and displays 1920x1200; my 17" iMac screen is also 16:10 and displays 1440x900).
If you use a 4:3 ratio on a 16:9/10 monitor then the square will look rectangular - there's no way you can ensure that everyone who sees the site will have their monitor set up correctly, so I'd not worry.
I'm guessing the laptop is not widescreen as the resolution you've set it to is for a 4:3 ratio screen - whereas some monitors are 16:10 or 16:9 resolution, with appropriate native resolutions (i.e. my 23" screen is 16:10 and displays 1920x1200; my 17" iMac screen is also 16:10 and displays 1440x900).
If you use a 4:3 ratio on a 16:9/10 monitor then the square will look rectangular - there's no way you can ensure that everyone who sees the site will have their monitor set up correctly, so I'd not worry.
Hey guys - thanks for the rapid and as-usual erudite replies!
No, no - I didn't say my screen was widescreen - but was illustrating my example of a principle by mentioning it.
The native aspect ratio mismatch does indeed sound like the knub of my issue then - and thanks for the assurance - that indeed, you can't control what settings some people might have - and to worry about things being slightly off even for Web design is a pointless affair.
I will play about a bit with the resolutions (again) in case I missed something the first time.
Thanks again!
No, no - I didn't say my screen was widescreen - but was illustrating my example of a principle by mentioning it.
The native aspect ratio mismatch does indeed sound like the knub of my issue then - and thanks for the assurance - that indeed, you can't control what settings some people might have - and to worry about things being slightly off even for Web design is a pointless affair.
I will play about a bit with the resolutions (again) in case I missed something the first time.
Thanks again!
Okay - having understood the issue now - I've had a play-around - and you were right - the resolution that my monitor has as native is the 1280x1024 setting. What should be square here is square.
I know on many websites it mentions the best resolution needed to view them at - but any website I make that's right in the 1280x1024 format - is making for the need to scroll both vertically and horizontally on my laptop with 1024/768 native res.
So - in your opinion - is it me who is behind the times with a laptop and native res of 1024x768 - whereby my sites will seem very small on most people's 1280x1024 screens - or do most people still use 1024x768 native res screens.
And which is worse to error for - rather have one's sites look too small if people's screens are different - or have the sites too big - needing scrolling?
I know on many websites it mentions the best resolution needed to view them at - but any website I make that's right in the 1280x1024 format - is making for the need to scroll both vertically and horizontally on my laptop with 1024/768 native res.
So - in your opinion - is it me who is behind the times with a laptop and native res of 1024x768 - whereby my sites will seem very small on most people's 1280x1024 screens - or do most people still use 1024x768 native res screens.
And which is worse to error for - rather have one's sites look too small if people's screens are different - or have the sites too big - needing scrolling?
Not being funny mate,
Websites designed to work at a fixed screen size are nothing but a pain in the posterior and a major turn off for me. I have a number of devices ranging from 320x240 (PDA) 640x480 Media center Integrated PC Screen 1024x768 - laptop, 1344x768 (media laptop & MCE PC) and a 1650x1200 office PC. I use these all at varying times to browse the web - very rarely if ever using "full screen" - proportional layouts always used to be the way to go back in the early days of the web when I used to write the odd CGI application - this seems to be a thing of the past these days.
I don't know if this is becuase technology has "Moved on".
SImes.
Websites designed to work at a fixed screen size are nothing but a pain in the posterior and a major turn off for me. I have a number of devices ranging from 320x240 (PDA) 640x480 Media center Integrated PC Screen 1024x768 - laptop, 1344x768 (media laptop & MCE PC) and a 1650x1200 office PC. I use these all at varying times to browse the web - very rarely if ever using "full screen" - proportional layouts always used to be the way to go back in the early days of the web when I used to write the odd CGI application - this seems to be a thing of the past these days.
I don't know if this is becuase technology has "Moved on".
SImes.
The dot pitch in the X direction is not even vaugely garanteed to be the same as the dot pitch in the Y direction, on every monitor. They are usually similar on LCD panels because manufacturers generally produce a display for use at a given (native) resolution, and that will have a standard aspect ratio.
On CRT monitors, it was virtually garanteed that the dot pitch would not be the same, becuase the user had control over the base setting of the video size and position on the display.
The monitor settings are reported through the driver software and then the OS. For "display devices" like a printer, you will get very accurate information for the dot pitch in both X and Y directions.
For LCD displays you'll also get accurate information, but with CRT's the opertaing system will make a "best guess" on the basis of the make and model of display, and the current resolution. It can only be best guess, because as I say the computer is not usually in control of the size and position of the video on the tube.
On CRT monitors, it was virtually garanteed that the dot pitch would not be the same, becuase the user had control over the base setting of the video size and position on the display.
The monitor settings are reported through the driver software and then the OS. For "display devices" like a printer, you will get very accurate information for the dot pitch in both X and Y directions.
For LCD displays you'll also get accurate information, but with CRT's the opertaing system will make a "best guess" on the basis of the make and model of display, and the current resolution. It can only be best guess, because as I say the computer is not usually in control of the size and position of the video on the tube.
Hmmm - more good stuff.
51mes - absolutely agree as it happens. However - I'm using very specific software that writes the stuff for me (am only charging £100-£300 max) and the flexibility you mention doesn't exist unless one's a proper programmer/coder, I guess. What you mention does indeed sound like the ideal solution - just a shame I can't implement it using what I do - which is otherwise fantastic.
51mes - absolutely agree as it happens. However - I'm using very specific software that writes the stuff for me (am only charging £100-£300 max) and the flexibility you mention doesn't exist unless one's a proper programmer/coder, I guess. What you mention does indeed sound like the ideal solution - just a shame I can't implement it using what I do - which is otherwise fantastic.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff