RE: Digital photo frames comparison

["Steve Morgan" <smorgo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Erm,

Enter 5 into the diagonal measurement and I get 1.181102 vertical by
1.574803148 horizontal. I'd expect 3 and 4 respectively.

Steve=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx]=20
> On Behalf Of Michael
> Sent: 12 November 2006 11:00
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ukha_d] Digital photo frames comparison
>=20
> Hi Paul
>=20
> (Fell free to skip this bit)
> If you know the diagonal measurement of the screen, then you=20
> use pythag to find the other side lengths as you said. But=20
> you hit a problem when as you don't know both. In order to=20
> get arond this you use the "4:3" ratio. This provides you=20
> with a 3 on the vertical, 4 on the bottom and a 5 as the=20
> diagonal. However as you screen is bigger than this, you have=20
> to scale these up by multiplying them all by x. You can then=20
> substitute your screen diagonial length (lets say we're=20
> talking about a 17" inch monitor) as 5x. So you have 5x =3D
17.=20
> Divide both sides by 5 and your left with your x value. You=20
> then times x by 3 and 4 for the other sides. In order to work=20
> out the number of pixels you then divide the number in each=20
> plane by the monitors side.
> *snaps fingers*
> And your back in the room.=20
>=20
> Now I've put it all into this spreadsheet for you:
> http://www.mhims.co.uk/Screen%20Display%20Calc.xls
>=20
> I'm pretty sure it's right though I have just woken up so I=20
> might have gone wrong somewhere.......
>=20
> It helps if you did your GCSEs last year :-)
>=20
> Michael
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Paul Gordon
>   To: UKHA_D Group
>   Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:04 AM
>   Subject: [ukha_d] Digital photo frames comparison
>=20
>=20
>   Now I think we all know that the Philips digital frame that=20
> has been discussed here previously is pretty much (one of)=20
> the best around at the moment. However the price of that one=20
> has been slowly creeping up, to the point that the best price=20
> I know of at the moment is =A3130. There are new ones appearing=20
> every day, at different price points, and with different=20
> specifications... the quandary is, how to compare them...
>=20
>   SWMBO started off looking *just* at the display resolution=20
> (640x480, 720x480 and so on...), but then I thought, hang on,=20
> - that doesn't take into account the screen size as well... -=20
> to truly do a qualitative comparison, one would need to work=20
> out the number of pixels in a given area - pixels per square=20
> inch for example. - Anyone disagree?
>=20
>   First problem, - how to work out the area of any given=20
> display? - most products seem to give just one measurement, -=20
> this I presume is the diagonal which is traditionally the=20
> measurement given for all kinds of screens. OK, from that it=20
> is possible to work out the area using Pythagoras' theorem. -=20
> Rats, I knew I should have paid attention during O'level=20
> maths! - Although, I can honestly say that in the 25 years=20
> since I left school this is the FIRST time I've ever needed=20
> to use anything they were teaching in maths class! - So I'll=20
> admit it, whilst I can rattle off the rule "In a right angled=20
> triangle the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of=20
> the squares of the other two sides." Yadda-yadda... - how in=20
> the heck do I use that to deduce the area of a 5.7 inch display?
>=20
>   Any mathematicians care to help me out?
>=20
>   Cheers
>=20
>   Paul G.
>=20
>   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20=20=20=20
>=20
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ** Sponsored by http://www.BERBLE.com ** all the Cool
Stuff,=20
> in one Place=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20



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