Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
That means Katsunami calculated correctly. He just used "pixel" as a length unit of 1/216th inch. In this case whether he did it on purpose (without saying) or by accident yields the same results. Imagine non square pixels, for example.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
That means Katsunami calculated correctly. He just used "pixel" as a length unit of 1/216th inch. In this case whether he did it on purpose (without saying) or by accident yields the same results. Imagine non square pixels, for example.
|
I don't assume. That 216 px/inch are calculated.
1920 x 1200 is a given spec by the manufacturer -> sqrt((1920 x 1920) + (1200 * 1200)) -> 2264 pixels for the diagonal. (Pythagoras.)
10.5 inch for the diagonal is a given spec by the manufacturer.
2264 px / 10.5 inch = 215.6 px/inch.
And yes, I calculated the 216 px/inch to be able to get the width/height of the display area in inches. Then I calculated the diagonal when taking half the width but keeping the height (as it is with two pages in landscape).
This wouldn't work well with non-square pixels. It can be done, but some adjustment factor is needed because one pixel in width, will not be the same as one pixel in height. I don't take those into account, because for all intents and purposes, non-square pixels aren't used in normal every day devices any more. (As far as I know.)