[MPlayer-users] monitor size vs. aspect ratio vs. resolution

[Rich Felker]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 10:34:50PM -0500, Reshat Sabiq wrote:
> >This is correct. The picture is 4:3, so it will only be as large as
> >the maximal 4:3 region on your screen.
> >
> This particular DVD looked like 720x480 w/o any scaling. But yes, 
> usually it gets scaled to the largest area as you said.

You seem to be confusing number of samples with image dimensions.

> >Stretching is a stupid feature that makes your video look incredibly
> >ugly, that's why MPlayer doesn't do this by default or have automatic
> >modes for it.
> >
> In theory you are right. But i find myself using this feature almost for 
> every DVD i watch, sometimes even agreeing to a little distortion. In 
> the case above, it made all the difference, as i was able to make what 
> the video at least 1.5 times bigger. I think mplayer should support 
> something like that.

If you made that much of a change, you must have horribly distorted
the picture..

> >>2. which monitor would you guys prefer: the one with max resolution of 
> >>1280x800 (but it doesn't support 1280x720 or any other 16:9 pixel 
> >>ratio), or the one with max resolution of 1280x720?
> >
> >It really doesn't matter, but assuming pixels are square, 1280x800 is
> >better since it's closer to 4:3.
> > 
> Why do you think closer to 4:3 is better? Is it because most media is 
> made for 4:3?

Two reasons. First, the mplayer reason, I mostly watch anime and most
anime is 4:3, not 16:9 or whatever other crazy aspects (2.34:1??)
people use for action movies.

Second, and more general.. this is a computer, not a movie viewer.
Presumably you want to use it for writing documents, browsing the web,
composing email, etc. For all of these purposes, it's preferable for
the screen to be tall and narrow. In the old days some people actually
used 3:4 or even 8.5:11 monitors, for this very reason. (And if you're
wondering what the actual rationale is, it's that tracking a long line
of text from the left to the right of a wide monitor is hard on your
eyes.. and tracking to the start of the next line is even harder.
Narrow text, among other things like proper paragraph breaks,
increases readability dramatically.

> My physical dimensions, 1.6, for instance, are closer to 
> 1.78. Since physical dimensions are what determines the best aspect 
> ratio, did you perhaps mean that the resolution closer to 4:3 is better 
> because it's likely to be present on physical dimensions closer 4:3? So 
> you would pick a 1.6 physical ratio monitor w/ max resolution of 
> 1280x800 over a 1.78 physical ratio monitor w/ max resolution 1280x720, 
> correct?

I was assuming that whichever monitor you chose would have square
pixels, so that the ratio of number of pixels would be identical to
the physical aspect ratio. If this wasn't the case, then all of what I
said was meaningless, sorry.

> P.S. I'm really not making fun w/ this question, despite the seeming 
> appearance of it. :)

:)

Rich