Re: Digital photo frames comparison

["Michael" <michaelhims@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Paul

(Fell free to skip this bit)
If you know the diagonal measurement of the screen, then you use pythag to
=
find the other side lengths as you said. But you hit a problem when as you
=
don't know both. In order to get arond this you use the "4:3"
ratio. This p=
rovides you with a 3 on the vertical, 4 on the bottom and a 5 as the
diagon=
al. However as you screen is bigger than this, you have to scale these up
b=
y multiplying them all by x. You can then substitute your screen diagonial
=
length (lets say we're talking about a 17" inch monitor) as 5x. So you
have=
5x =3D 17. Divide both sides by 5 and your left with your x value. You the=
n times x by 3 and 4 for the other sides. In order to work out the number
o=
f pixels you then divide the number in each plane by the monitors side.
*snaps fingers*
And your back in the room.=20

Now I've put it all into this spreadsheet for you:
http://www.mhims.co.uk/Screen%20Display%20Calc.xls

I'm pretty sure it's right though I have just woken up so I might have
gone=
wrong somewhere.......

It helps if you did your GCSEs last year :-)

Michael

----- Original Message -----=20
From: Paul Gordon=20
To: UKHA_D Group=20
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: [ukha_d] Digital photo frames comparison


Now I think we all know that the Philips digital frame that has been disc=
ussed here previously is pretty much (one of) the best around at the
moment=
. However the price of that one has been slowly creeping up, to the point
t=
hat the best price I know of at the moment is =A3130. There are new ones
ap=
pearing every day, at different price points, and with different
specificat=
ions... the quandary is, how to compare them...

SWMBO started off looking *just* at the display resolution (640x480, 720x=
480 and so on...), but then I thought, hang on, - that doesn't take into
ac=
count the screen size as well... - to truly do a qualitative comparison,
on=
e would need to work out the number of pixels in a given area - pixels per
=
square inch for example. - Anyone disagree?

First problem, - how to work out the area of any given display? - most pr=
oducts seem to give just one measurement, - this I presume is the diagonal
=
which is traditionally the measurement given for all kinds of screens. OK,
=
from that it is possible to work out the area using Pythagoras' theorem. -
=
Rats, I knew I should have paid attention during O'level maths! -
Although,=
I can honestly say that in the 25 years since I left school this is the FI=
RST time I've ever needed to use anything they were teaching in maths
class=
! - So I'll admit it, whilst I can rattle off the rule "In a right
angled t=
riangle the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of
=
the other two sides." Yadda-yadda... - how in the heck do I use that
to ded=
uce the area of a 5.7 inch display?

Any mathematicians care to help me out?

Cheers

Paul G.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



=20=20=20

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




** Sponsored by http://www.BERBLE.com **
all the Cool Stuff, in one Place=20