Why 1366x768?

Forums › Home Theatre (incl HTPC) › Why 1366x768?

stevenz

2782 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 120

Topic # 12524 21-Mar-2007 18:35

I haven't seen a decent explanation of why LCDs use such unusual resolutions, particularly with the TVs when I would have thought the ideal resolution would have been 1280x720 so that they conform to standard 720p / 16:9 resolution. Why is it that almost all widescreen LCDs use 16:10 aspect ratios or off-res's, usually 1366x768 instead of 1280x720 and 1920x1200 instead of 1920x1080. I don't understand why they would opt for additional scaling requirements if they weren't necessary.

I know 1280x720 monitors exist, so why aren't they all that res if they're not going to be bumped right up to 1080p res?

By the same token, why are non-widescreen LCD monitors not 4:3 (1280x1024 instead of 1280x768)?

I've never found a good reason for this, so if anyone can give me a decent explanation, it'd be appreciated.

sbiddle

26647 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6151

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 64576 21-Mar-2007 21:48

It's umm.. just because it works that way! :-)

I recall reading somewhere the whole 1366x768 thing was because of overscan which is of course present in any TV signal but can be a real issue if you're run a TV on a screen.

My new 50" Pioneer Plasma does 1280x720 or 768 absolutely perfectly via VGA and that's the native resolution of the panel. Trying to get pictures set up on some of the 1366x768 screens without black borders can be a real problem and requires all means of experimenting! To make matters worse many panels also won't accept VGA inputs with resolutions anywhere near that, many will only take 1024x768 on a 16:9 panel and of course 1024x768 isn't 16:9!

timmmay

13997 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2498

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 64589 21-Mar-2007 23:16

Minor aside: I've just been assued by Noel Leeming (who contacted the Sony rep) that their current 32" LCD will do a 1:1 pixel mapping on the VGA or HDMI cable, at the native resolution. Either way, you have a 14 day right of return. Seems like a good place to buy.

There's an interesting thread on the following forum about Samsung TVs that explains a lot

http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showtopic=44664&view=getnewpost

[Moderator edit (bradstewart): Hyperlinked the hyperlink thingee]

AWS Certified Solution Architect Professional, Sysop Administrator Associate, and Developer Associate
TOGAF certified enterprise architect
Professional photographer

richms

21244 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4273

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 64591 21-Mar-2007 23:42

16:10 is a PC thing.

And 1280x1024 is a hangover from the days of CRTs where that res was chosen instead of the more logical 1280x960. I guess pushing both numbers over 1000 is some marketing thing. There were a few 1280x960 LCD's made in a 4:3, and the 1280x1024 panels are 5:4 so you still get square pixels.

Tv res's are not usually to bothered with square pixels, infact there are 1024x1024 plasmas around in 16:9 - but getting a PC to behave on non-square pixels is impossible so you end up with everything distorted. Also some screens have triangular pixel triads, not in RGB stripes so an exact mapping is impossible, and this means that any cleartype stuff will not work.

Richard rich.ms

stevenz

2782 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 120

Reply # 64604 22-Mar-2007 07:07

sbiddle: It's umm.. just because it works that way! :-)

I recall reading somewhere the whole 1366x768 thing was because of overscan which is of course present in any TV signal but can be a real issue if you're run a TV on a screen.

I guess that does make sense. Assuming roughly 6% overscan you end up with 1280x720-ish of actual display. My Bravia LCD will nicely fit the whole picture onto the screen via the VGA or HDMI inputs, but anything from the TV is probably losing a little to overscan. The cheapish 32" Philips thing in the lounge suffers from about 10% overscan loss regardless of input mode (which I really should see if I can fix...)

My 26" V-series Sony LCD does 1:1 mapping at the native res, not sure if the S series does. Works well with the Xbox360 (which supports 1360x768 output) or the Mac.

timmmay

13997 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2498

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 64611 22-Mar-2007 08:08

stevenz:
My 26" V-series Sony LCD does 1:1 mapping at the native res, not sure if the S series does. Works well with the Xbox360 (which supports 1360x768 output) or the Mac.

See my post above, Noel Leeming tell me the S model does support 1:1 pixel mapping, ask me in a week when I have one :)

AWS Certified Solution Architect Professional, Sysop Administrator Associate, and Developer Associate
TOGAF certified enterprise architect
Professional photographer

lchiu7

4894 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 97

Trusted

Reply # 64658 22-Mar-2007 11:43

sbiddle: It's umm.. just because it works that way! :-)

I recall reading somewhere the whole 1366x768 thing was because of overscan which is of course present in any TV signal but can be a real issue if you're run a TV on a screen.

My new 50" Pioneer Plasma does 1280x720 or 768 absolutely perfectly via VGA and that's the native resolution of the panel. Trying to get pictures set up on some of the 1366x768 screens without black borders can be a real problem and requires all means of experimenting! To make matters worse many panels also won't accept VGA inputs with resolutions anywhere near that, many will only take 1024x768 on a 16:9 panel and of course 1024x768 isn't 16:9!

My LCoS set if 1366x768. I run my Windows desktop at 1280x720 and feed the output from the video card over DVI to HDMI. I use the Nvidia software to correct for any overscan so the full desktop is viewable.

Interestingly with 16:9 content I think the image is stretched vertically a tad, both from content from the PC and OTA 16:9 content like what is on D1 now (the TV1 widescreen broadcast). Not sure why but I put up with it. Anamorphic 16:9 DVD's seems to display okay though

Larry

System One: Popcorn Hour A200, PS3 SuperSlim, NPVR and Plex Server running on Gigabyte Brix (Windows 10 Pro), Sony BDP-S390 BD player, Pioneer AVR, Raspberry Pi running Kodi and Plex, Panasonic 60" 3D plasma, Google Chromecast

System Two: Popcorn Hour A200 , Oppo BDP-80 BluRay Player with hardware mode to be region free, Vivitek HD1080P 1080P DLP projector with 100" screen. Harman Kardon HK AVR 254 7.1 receiver, Samsung 4K player, Google Chromecast

My Google+ page

https://plus.google.com/+laurencechiu

wgtnbloke

30 posts

Geek

Reply # 64681 22-Mar-2007 13:00

Pardon as I cannot find the answer in the forums.

What is the resolution broadcast by Telstra digital TV and the proposed Freeview?

lchiu7

4894 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 97

Trusted

Reply # 64688 22-Mar-2007 13:24

Resolution is all PAL SD so 576i. Don't get me talking about quality though :-(

My Google+ page

https://plus.google.com/+laurencechiu

stevenz

2782 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 120

Reply # 64689 22-Mar-2007 14:06

I thought freeview was HD, so 720p? If it's still 576i then there doesn't seem much point bothering.

The new Sky satellite has cleaned the signal up a fair bit. Previously it never got better than about 80% signal quality, now it bounces from around 80% to 100% most of the time.

Spyware

1983 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 320

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 64702 22-Mar-2007 15:44

Freeview DVB-S mpeg2 satellite service will be standard definition 16:9 meaning 720 x 576i. Transmission of high definition content via satellite requires another technology called DVB-S2. Current Sky Digital transmissions are 544 x 576i and 720 x 576i with mixed bitrates. Sky will most likely be first to high def via satellite after the issues of mixed polarity transponders on D1 are resolved. The Freeview DVB-T mpeg4 terrestrial service to start in February may have some channels in high definition be it 1280 x 720p or 1920 x 1080i.

Ross

Spark FibreMAX using Mikrotik CCR1009-8G-1S-1S+

Speed Test

stevenz

2782 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 120

Reply # 64705 22-Mar-2007 16:15

Bleh, I just lost the entirety of what little interest I had in freeview then. Guess I'll just have to wait until 2009/2010 until Sky or Telstra start doing proper HD over cable/satellite.

Batman

Mad Scientist
18632 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2368

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 66105 3-Apr-2007 14:10

there's no explanation. as you so pointed out it serves no advantage or purpose, and it's entirely a marketting gimmick or a supreme mistake by the developers