pixel aspect ratio for display screens made in china

Have you ever come across a picture that looks beautiful on your phone but appears stretched on your computer screen? This is where aspect ratio comes in. To avoid pictures with stretched, choppy, distorted, squeezed and shrunk appearance, you need to work out your aspect ratio situation.

In the past, there were only a few options but today with a wide range of displays, there are different aspect ratios with each catering to a different type of display.In order to take the best picture, you’ll need to understand what it actually is.

Aspect ratio is the relationship between width and height. To explain it further, it’s a proportional relationship between height and width of something. This does not determine the size of the object, but it’s ratio and shape. It’s written with a colon between two number, eg. a:b.

Aspect ratios usually represent anything related to images. Though it does not change regardless of what units the height and width are measured in, the medium of the image does have an impact. For instance, the image on the computer will have a different aspect ratio than the one on the phone. It’s important to be aware of the fact that aspect ratios don’t represent the size of the image but the relationship between height and width.

The first number on the aspect ratio represents the horizontal part of the image and the second number represents the vertical side. However, this is only when the ratio is written as two numbers separated by a colon. When written in decimals, this formula is not followed.

Pixel aspect ratio is the relationship between the width and height of the pixel. Essentially it’s a proportion of pixels that create an image. Usually, Pixels are of 1:1 ratio which means they are square shipped. However, pixels can be of rectangular shape as well which would have a ratio of 4:3. This is usually in the cases where the picture is optimized for a certain display.Display aspect ratio

The proportional relationship between the height and width of a display is known as Display Aspect Ratio. It generally refers to the proportion of the image based on what screens it’s being presented on. Since each display has different ratios, the images need to be optimized to match the ratio of the display. When the ratio of the image does not match with the fixed ratio of the device, it appears distorted.Storage aspect ratio

Storage aspect ratio refers to the aspect ratio of digital video files. It represents the proportion of width to height of video frame size. Each frame of the video should have a consistent ratio. For the widescreen videos, the formula mostly is usually SAR x PAR = DAR.

It’s important for photographers and videographers to calculate the size. Since each display has a certain aspect ratio and cameras too have fixed aspect ratio, the images need to be optimized at times to match up with the screen.

Aspect ratios are independent of the size of the image. Regardless of what the size of the image is, it’s actually a ratio of the height and width of the image. When it is represented with a colon in between numbers, the first number represents the width and the second represents the height.

To calculate the aspect ratio, you first need to divide the height of the image with the width of the image. Then multiply it with the preferred width. The result will be the new height in pixels. There are also aspect ratios calculators online that give you a reliableWhy are Aspect ratios important?

Aspect ratios affect how you take your picture and how your final image will look like. Since multiple devices can have different aspect ratios, the image will need to match with it. The photographers and the videographers would need to optimize the aspect ratio of an image to match the display.

However, it’s only possible when the aspect ratios are taken into account while capturing. For example, when you take a photo with 4:3 aspect ratio and try to fit all the elements of the scene into it, you will not be able to crop the image into wider aspect ratios laeter. If you do actually want to go for a wider aspect ratio, you would need to cut the element of the scene.

Same goes for wide aspect ratios. If you capture the image in a very wide aspect ratio, it would be highly difficult for you to crop the image without cropping out sides. This is why it’s crucial for you to understand the aspect ratio before capturing images. The best option would be to go for a ratio where you would have more options later to optimize.What are some of the common aspect ratios?

A 1:1 image is the one in which the height and the width of the image are equal. In simpler words, it’s a square. Though it’s not popular on digital platforms, it’s usually found on social media. Initially, Instagram made this popular. Since every image would have to accommodate 1:1, it became popular. For other digital platforms and television, it’s not the best choice. Some of the other areas it’s used are print photographs and phone screens.5:4

This aspect ratio is highly popular in film cameras with medium and large formats. It’s also really common when 8×10 and 16×20 images are being printed. For standard photography, and art photos, 5:4 is a commonly used aspect ratio.3:2

Most full frame digital cameras use 3:2 aspect ratio. This aspect ratio is the most common ratio found in the sensors of digital cameras and smartphone cameras. It’s the most popular ratio used in photography. Advanced cameras with smaller APS-C crop sensors also use this ratio. This ratio was made popular by 35mm films.4:3

4:3 ratio is usually used on cameras that have small sensors. For example, compact cameras or smartphone cameras have small sensors so they use 4:3 aspect ratio. Similarly, Micro-four-third cameras also use this ratio. These cameras are highly advanced, similar to DSLR but have a smaller and more compact size.16:9

The 16:9 aspect ratio offers a panoramic format. The images captured with this ratio are wider as compared to other ratios. This is quite common in cinemas and in computer displays. Since it’s a wide ratio, it’s not as common in photography. However, landscape photographers prefer using this ratio as it can capture a wider scene. It’s also used for cinematics in filmmaking. It’s also highly popular on television.

Optimizing aspect ratios is highly crucial. Since each device has a different aspect ratio, photographers, videographers and software developers creating content for different devices need to optimize the ratio to match the device. For this reason, tools that can adjust the aspect ratio prove to be the creator’s best friend.

Post production softwares like photoshop, lightroom and capture one can help you in adjusting the aspect ratio of your image. There are even some softwares online that can change the aspect ratio of your image with just a single click.

16:9 and 4:3 are two of the most popular aspect ratios used in the world. Yet it’s important to understand which aspect ratio is best for you. Different aspect ratios serve different image types. This is why you need to understand the fundamentals of the aspect ratios to choose the best one.

For videos, 16:9 usually serves the best. Since it produces a frame with width that is 78% more than its height, the images produced are widescreen. For this reason, this aspect ratio works best for videos where you need to capture a wider area and have more elements in one frame. It’s also good for images that need to capture a higher width.

4:3 works best for photography. As it offers a higher resolution, the photos that would have to be printed should be taken with 4:3 aspect ratio. It also works best with pictures in which you need to capture a narrow scene.

The bottom line is, understanding the fundamentals of aspect ratios is highly important. Without knowing what it is, and how it works, your images will most likely turn out choppy or stretched. Each aspect ratio works well for different types of images and displays. To capture the best image, try to find out which one will work the best for your image type. Happy capturing!

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

Behind this invention is a question that has obsessed Chinese-language font designers for 40 years: Just how small can Chinese digital fonts get before they become illegible, or worse, aesthetically unappealing?

When visual and technical developers first attempted to create a Chinese-language interface for computer operating systems, they were faced with a dual challenge. The first, coding the thousands of Chinese characters that make up the written language, was straightforward. The second, rendering them legibly on the era’s primitive computer screens, was more complicated.

Electronic displays are composed of a matrix of dots called pixels. In the 1980s, the typical computer monitor had a low pixel density, meaning there were fewer pixels, and each pixel dedicated to character display took up a correspondingly larger percentage of the screen. Struggling to balance legibility and economy, designers wondered how the flicks and flourishes of Chinese characters could possibly be displayed using just a handful of dots.

Their first thought was to reconstruct characters using a combination of straight and slanted lines. According to the historian Tom Mullaney, in 1981, the Graphic Arts Research Foundation in Massachusetts published a prototype of a Chinese-language word processing system called Sinotype III. The typeface rendered characters as a series of horizontal, vertical, and diagonal lines in a 16-by-16 dot matrix typeface — that is, a 16-by-16-pixel square. It was a historic achievement, but Sinotype III’s designers had seemingly no experience working with Chinese-language fonts, and their attempts to replicate the smooth lines of Chinese ideograms within a blocky grid of pixels left much to be desired, aesthetically speaking.

A photo of a monitor displaying the Sinotype III font. From the Louis Rosenblum Collection, Stanford University Library Special Collections via Tom Mullaney and MIT Technology Review

While the Graphic Arts Research Foundation was working on Sinotype III, the Chinese government was also awakening to the potential of electronic screens. At the National Printing Conference of 1978, the Chinese government listed Chinese-language word processing and electronic publishing as key scientific research initiatives, setting in motion the development of a homegrown Chinese-language dot matrix typeface.

The first order of business was simplifying strokes. Taking one of their own print fonts, Songti No. 2, as a template, the Printing Technology Research Institute’s designers drew “pixels” on grid paper using chopsticks dipped in ink. Eventually, the designers concluded that a 16-by-16-pixel grid was the minimum resolution needed to accurately render the vast majority of Chinese characters. This was enough to display 99% of the most common Chinese characters, including complex characters like ying, or “to win,” which is composed of 17 strokes.

Unsatisfied with merely replicating characters, the institute’s designers also sought to push the aesthetic boundaries of the dot matrix format. Even within the constraints of a 16-by-16 grid, they wanted to find a way to reproduce the appearance of the delicate Songti typeface, which is characterized by thin horizontal strokes and thick vertical strokes, both with serif-like embellishments at their ends.

Different stroke widths were impossible to represent at such a low resolution, but the embellishments were accomplished through several clever tricks. By adding one extra dot above the second-to-last pixel from the right on important strokes, the institute’s designers discovered they could create a triangular shape that resembled a serif. By adding a small cross shape in the corner of hengzhe — horizontal strokes with long, bent hooks at the end — they were able to simulate the calligraphic effect of dunbi, or the thickness that results when the calligrapher allows their brush to momentarily linger on the page. Similar methods allowed them to render the curved shape and flares characteristic of the pie and na brushstrokes — downward flicks to the left and right, respectively.

The new typeface wasn’t perfect. The 16-by-16 grid could accommodate a maximum of eight horizontal strokes, accounting for the need to leave a one-pixel space between each. For the small number of commonly used characters with more than eight horizontal strokes, the designers had no choice but to merge lines together.

Nevertheless, the final product, known as GB/T 5199, was hailed as a triumph. Declared the national standard for digital typefaces in 1985, modified versions of GB/T 5199 remain in widespread use on LED displays today.

This trend was driven in part by a growing realization among designers that 16-point fonts were not appropriate for all contexts. When Windows 3.2 became the first Microsoft operating system to support Chinese input in 1994, the developers were frustrated by the need to use size 16 fonts instead of the 12-point fonts favored for less complex Latin scripts. As a result, Chinese text appeared disproportionately large next to the system’s other design elements.

By the end of the 1990s, new vectorial rendering technologies and higher resolution monitors freed designers from the dot matrix and made it possible to display characters clearly even at smaller font sizes. Dot matrix typefaces soon fell into disuse. Today, high-definition displays like Apple’s “Retina” system offer readers an experience similar to print media, rendering even Songti’s details legible at small font sizes.

Yet, dot matrix typefaces haven’t disappeared completely, thanks in part to continued commercial demand for cheap, durable LED screens. These signs, which can be found everywhere from storefront windows to bus lines, offer the perfect niche for dot matrix fonts.

Some designers, driven by a mixture of nostalgia and curiosity, have even tried reviving the dot matrix format, including shrinking dot matrix fonts even further. In 2020, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the trolleybus system in the southern city of Guangzhou, the design group Toursline produced a new LED display system for buses that used a seven-pixel font I designed, which allowed the city’s buses to display more information without the need to scroll.

So, the next time you visit a meticulously formatted Chinese-language website on your phone or high-resolution monitor — or place a bet at a sports lottery — don’t forget the work done by generations of designers and developers to make what you see possible. It’s easy to take things like programmable bus displays for granted, but every character on every LED board in China can be traced back to a stack of grid paper, some inky chopsticks, and the small group of pioneers who brought Chinese into the digital age. Where it goes from here is up to us.

A higher resolution might not be worth it for you. The resolution that you need depends on three factors: the size of your television, how close you sit to it, and what kind of footage you are watching.

The human eye of a person with 20/20 vision (6/6 in Europe) can only distinguish detail 1/60 of a degree apart. This means that at a certain distance, for a specific size, you will not be able to see the full resolution of a screen. The chart plots that distance for different screen sizes at the four main resolutions (480p, 720p, 1080p and Ultra HD).

Using this data, if you are siting eight feet away from your television, you will not see a difference between 720p and 1080p for a television under 40″ in size. Similarly, the new Ultra HD resolution is only worth it if you have a television bigger than 60″ and are sitting relatively close to it.

Once seen as exotic,televisions and computer monitors, and is also the international standard image format for UHD, HDTV, Full HD, and SD digital television. It has replaced the "fullscreen" 4:3 aspect ratio.

16:9 (1.77:1) (spoken as "sixteen by nine," "sixteen to nine," or simply "sixteen-nine") is the international standard format of Ultra HD, non-HD digital widescreen television and analog widescreen television systems PALplusWide-aspect Clear-vision.Hi-Vision originally started with a 5:3 (1.66:1) ratio but converted when the international standards group introduced a wider ratio of 16 to 9. Many digital video cameras have the capability to record in 16:9, and 16:9 is the only widescreen aspect ratio natively supported by the Ultra HD Blu-ray standard. It is also the native aspect ratio of Ultra HD Blu-ray discs, but Ultra HD Blu-ray producers can also choose to show even wider ratios such as 2.00:1 and 2.40:1 within the 16:9 Ultra HD Blu-ray frame by hard matting or adding black bars within the image itself.

Derivation of the 16:9 aspect ratioThe main figure shows 4:3, 2.00:1, and 2.40:1 rectangles with the same area A, and 16:9 rectangles that covers (black) or is common to (grey) them. The calculation considers the extreme rectangles, where m and n are multipliers to maintain their respective aspect ratios and areas.

Dr. Kerns H. Powers, a member of the SMPTE Working Group on High-Definition Electronic Production, first proposed the 16:9 (1.77:1) aspect ratio in 1984,6:1 ratio), 1.85:1 (the American "flat" ratio) and 2.35:1 (the CinemaScope/Panavision) ratio for anamorphic widescreen.

Powers cut out rectangles with equal areas, shaped to match each of the popular aspect ratios. When overlapped with their center points aligned, he found that all of those aspect ratio rectangles fit within an outer rectangle with an aspect ratio of 1.77:1 and all of them also covered a smaller common inner rectangle with the same aspect ratio 1.77:1.geometric mean of the extreme aspect ratios, 4:3 and 2.35:1, 47

While 16:9 (1.77:1) was initially selected as a compromise format, the subsequent popularity of HDTV broadcast has solidified 16:9 as perhaps the most common video aspect ratio in use.3:1) and 2.40:1 video is now recorded using a "shoot and protect" technique7:1) inner rectangle to facilitate HD broadcastopen matte.

In 1993, the European Union instituted the 16:9 Action Plan,PALplus (compatible with regular PAL broadcasts) and also in HD-MAC (an early HD format). The Community fund for the 16:9 Action Plan amounted to €228,000,000.

Over a long period in the late 2000s and early 2010s, the computer industry switched from 4:3 to 16:9 as the most common aspect ratio for monitors and laptops. A 2008 report by DisplaySearch cited a number of reasons for this shift, including the ability for PC and monitor manufacturers to expand their product ranges by offering products with wider screens and higher resolutions, helping consumers to more easily adopt such products and "stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market".

In 2011, Bennie Budler, product manager of IT products at Samsung South Africa, confirmed that monitors capable of 1920 × 1200 resolutions are not being manufactured anymore. "It is all about reducing manufacturing costs. The new 16:9 aspect ratio panels are more cost-effective to manufacture locally than the previous 16:10 panels".

16:9 is the only widescreen aspect ratio natively supported by the DVD format. An anamorphic PAL region DVD video frame has a maximum resolution of 720 × 576p, but a video player software will stretch this to 1024 × 576p.

Producers can also choose to show even wider ratios such as 1.85:1 and 2.4:1 within the 16:9 DVD frame by hard matting or adding black bars within the image itself. Some films which were made in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, such as the U.S.-Italian co-production Kenneth Branagh"s 7:1 HDTV screen and have been issued as an enhanced version on DVD without the black bars. Also many digital video cameras have the capability to record in 16:9.

In Europe, 16:9 is the standard broadcast format for most digital SD TV channels and all HD broadcasts. Some countries adopted the format for analogue television, first by using the PALplus standard (now obsolete) and then by simply using WSS on normal PAL broadcasts.

Japan pioneered its analogue HDTV system (MUSE) in 16:9 format, which started in the 1980s. There were also analog NTSC-compatible widescreen broadcasts using the Clear-Vision system. Currently all main channels have digital terrestrial television channels in 16:9. Many satellite broadcast channels are being broadcast in 16:9 as well.

channels that are originally broadcasting in 4:3 on analog terrestrial, but upscaled or stretched to 16:9 for digital terrestrial television, cable and satellite

3D character with a retro TV and a modern widescreen TV. Isolated on white background.Does anyone still remember the days when there was just one standard screen aspect ratio that everyone used for their television and computer monitors? It feels like eons ago, and some of the youngsters out there may not have been around yet. But trust us when we say those days did exist. And a few of your loyal friends at Azar Pixel remember them well.

Before flat-screen TVs, 4:3 was that standard aspect ratio. After all, it was based on the shape of a classic 35 mm strip of film, which was the mass-produced film of choice on the market at the time. Once widescreen film took hold in the 1950s, aspect ratios began to change. But that was only the beginning. The 4:3 ratio still exists, yet so do 16:9, 16:10, 5:4, 2:1, and more. The possibilities are endless — but to the untrained consumer, it’s also endless confusion.

Thankfully, you know a guy! While we pride ourselves on being your LED digital display experts for repair, design, sales, and service, we also have a passion for educating our clients.

The term “aspect ratio” refers to the relationship between an image’s width and height. It is written as two numbers separated by a colon. If the first number is the largest (16:9), the image will be horizontal. The image will be more vertical if the second number in the ratio is larger (4:5).

Until about 2003, most computer monitors had a 4:3 aspect ratio, though some had 5:4. Over the next three years, computer monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios became more common — first in laptops and later in stand-alone monitors.

The primary reason for the move to 16:9 was production efficiency. Since display panels for TVs use the 16:9 aspect ratio, it was more efficient for display manufacturers to produce computer display panels in the same aspect ratio. However, there was criticism over the lack of vertical screen real estate compared to 16:10 displays of the same screen diagonal. Productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, were better suited for 16:10.

Azar Pixelis your one-stop LED digital display expert in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, in Texas, and throughout the United States! Our Azar Pixel LED productsare all designed with your needs in mind and assembled in the USA. This guarantees our clients that they will not have to suffer the extended turnaround times and added expense of ordering products from overseas. In addition, our products are providing jobs for Americans, not overseas workers.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

The standard size of television screens was stretching from a 4:3 width to height ratio to one that was much wider. Producers began to make movies that would work for both screens.

Now that display aspect ratios are more standardized, broadcasters and content creators pay close attention to the video aspect ratio or the width to length ratios of their videos.

Professional audio, sharp visuals, perfect lighting, and other cinematic measures of quality are typically considered right off the bat, but aspect ratios are often a secondary conversation.

Today, we are going to break down what exactlyvideo aspect ratiosare, commonly used ratios, and video resolutions, as well as the role they play inlive video streaming.

New to Dacast and interested to try out a feature-packed and budget-friendly professional-grade streaming platform? Sign up for a 14-day trial and test out all of our features for free. No credit card is required.

The numbers that appear in the ratio are not necessarily representative of the height and width in terms of pixels (px). It is just theratio between width and height.

For example, a video with a 16:9 aspect ratio would not be 16 px wide and 9 px tall. You wouldn’t be able to see a video that small. One resolution that has an aspect ratio of 16:9 is 1920 px by 1080 px.

By multiplying the width times the height, you get the number of square pixels on the screen. The higher the number the better in terms of video quality.

There may be times when opting for lower quality is the way to go. A lower-quality video would be of benefit if you’re in need of smaller file sizes. In these instances, you would record your video at the highest HD streaming quality anduse encoding softwareto make lower-resolution copies of the video.

There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to video aspect ratios. Aspect ratios are typically chosen based on where the video will be posted, how it will be viewed, and what purpose it serves.

Videos used for social media will vary from movies or trailers that are shown in theaters. There are standard aspect ratios for modern televisions, but broadcasters are free to use the aspect ratio that works best with their content and audience.

A video with a 16:9 aspect ratio is a wide rectangle. It is also often referred to as “1.71:1” which is the most simplified form of the ratio, mathematically speaking.

Today, you’re likely to use the 16:9 aspect ratio for most of your video creation and streaming since the 16:9 ratio is considered the international standard format for television, cinema, and major online streaming setups and platforms.

16:9 is the default setting on mostvideo capture devices, both professional-grade and consumer-grade. It also is the most common size forvideo players.

There are a few reasons that 16:9 has become the norm. Screens of this size provide higher resolution than those with aspect ratios of 16:10, which used to be considered the international standard.

It is also more cost-effective to create screens that are compatible with this ratio as opposed to their predecessors. The standardization of both televisions and computer monitors saved producers time and money in the research arena.

Before 16:10 and 16:9, the 4:3 aspect ratio was standard for traditional television and computer monitors. The reason for the switch was the birth of HDTV. The 16:10 and 16:9 aspect ratios allow for greater resolutions than 4:3 do.

This aspect ratio was still used for Apple iPads until their release of the 2018 iPad Pro. The 4:3 aspect ratio is being phased out, so it is not very common.

You are likely to find videos with this aspect ratio in special theaters, museums, theme parks, and the like. They are designed to give more immersive experiences to the viewers.

For example, the optimal measure for an Instagram story is 1080 px by 1920 px, which means its ratio is 9:16. The same goes for other popular apps that have “story” features, including Facebook and Snapchat.

Most cameras with video capabilities come with a variety of aspect ratio settings. This allows you to decide which aspect ratio you’d like your video to have before you record it.

If you are trying to tell the aspect ratio of a video that has already been filmed, you can access additional information for the file. On Macs, the information button is a small “i” in a circle. On PCs, you right-click a file and click “Properties.”

The reason that it is so popular is that it is the standard for high definition televisions and popular streaming platforms like Dacast, Brightcove, Youtube, TikTok, or Netflix.

A 16:9 ratio is typically seen as optimal because it is capable of the highest resolution. It is also easy to capture this aspect ratio on almost all devices.

While it’s totally possible to change the aspect ratio of your video after it has been filmed, it is not always recommended. This is because both methods have their downfalls.

Whether your goal is to make the video taller or wider, cropping could cut important people or objects out of the frame. You may be forced to choose which parts of the frame are the most important and lose the rest.

Depending on where you’re broadcasting the video, your content may be edited automatically. For example, the aspect ratio of YouTube videos is 16:9 aspect ratio as the platform adds white padding around all videos to make them fit. However, other social media platforms will crop your videos to fit their set aspect ratio.

Live broadcasts are tricky in the sense that you have to figure out the logistics before you film since your audience consumes the content as it’s created.

The video aspect ratio you choose for your stream must followvideo streaming protocol, which demands two things: universal playback and small file size.

With the 16:9 aspect ratio, you can cross off both. There is a wide range of resolutions that you can choose from, so you are able to find the optimal resolution where the desired quality and file size meet.

Essentially any streaming device including computers, televisions, mobile devices, and HTML5video playerscan play videos with a 16:9 aspect ratio, so universal playback is also guaranteed.

When youbroadcast live, it is very important that you make sure that the video aspect ratio of your recording equipment is compatible with the streaming platform of your choice. You don’t want anything important to be cut out, especially since you won’t have the chance to reshoot the content.

Aspect ratios—the ratio between the width and length of your video—are certainly something to consider when producing video content to broadcast to your audience.

While the compatibility of the video aspect ratio and yourvideo hosting platformor streaming service is of great importance, you have to keep the user experience in mind.

Whether you choose a standard 16:9 aspect ratio for content to be streamed on a laptop or a 9:16 ratio to be streamed on a cell phone, make sure it presents clearly without untasteful cropping so that your audience has the best experience.

Check out our other blog posts for more comparisons between these different platforms. For the best broadcasting tips and exclusive offers, join our LinkedIn group.

Deciding how large a videowall should be is more than a matter of determining how many display devices are required to fill a space on a wall. The manner in which the videowall will be used, the types and quantity of information to be presented, and the size and shape of the room should be considered before selecting the quantity and type of display. A videowall in a public setting for digital signage will have far different physical requirements than a videowall in a command and control center.

When specifying a videowall system, a design engineer has the flexibility to define a specific layout for the displays. Videowalls two screens high by four screens wide, three screens high by four screens wide, or four screens high by four screens wide are common. However, each of these arrangements results in a different overall aspect ratio, which is defined by the layout of the screens as well as the aspect ratio of the individual display devices, which could be 4:3, 5:4, 16:9, or 16:10. Videowalls may also have creative shapes with no defined aspect ratio.

What is the “best” shape or aspect ratio for a videowall? If the objective is to make the videowall as large as possible, then its shape will be driven by the layout of the room. A shallow, wide room with a low ceiling will likely necessitate a short, wide videowall. Other room characteristics may result in a videowall shape closer to a square. But room layout is not the only important factor when determining the height and width of a videowall. The size and aspect ratio of the source content and their intended arrangements on the videowall will also influence its shape and design.

A good first step is to determine the types and resolutions of input sources to the videowall, and how many of them must be displayed together. Discussing this with the end user, and deciding how source windows should be arranged on the videowall, will help determine the best overall screen arrangement.

It will also be beneficial to sketch three or four storyboards with various window layouts. Be sure to maintain each source’s original aspect ratio when designing these layouts. While many videowall processors will allow images to be stretched, zoomed, or cropped to fill a window of any shape, the end user may find it distracting if content is not represented in their native aspect ratios. See Figure 2-10.

When creating sample window layouts, it is also important to consider which sources should be shown at native resolution, those which may be downscaled or reduced in size, and content that should be upscaled or enlarged. Having an idea of scaling requirements for the source content will help you determine relative sizes for the source windows on the videowall. The nature of the source content will be a determinant of how legible it may be when scaled. High resolution imagery may be reasonably legible when downscaled. Content can often be displayed in small windows as “thumbnails” to save space while being adequately discernible, and then upscaled or enlarged upon user control for closer examination.

While videowall processors allow images or graphics to be reduced in size, text or symbols may not remain legible if downscaled, or even when shown at native resolution. In this case, upscaling may be necessary, possibly leading to use of larger window sizes that may require enlarging the videowall. This topic is covered in detail in Font Size and Legibility for Videowall Content.

Once you are confident that your sample window layouts meet end user expectations, you can be sure that you have a good idea of the overall shape for the videowall, determined by the layout of the room and the source content to be presented. You should also estimate the physical and pixel dimensions for the videowall. Additional considerations, including pixel density and individual display or projected image size, will help you finalize the actual dimensions and configuration of the videowall.

A videowall should be capable of delivering the highest quality images possible to all viewers in the environment. In addition to brightness and contrast, pixel resolution is another contributing factor to image quality. Viewers tend to perceive images with good resolution as sharp, detailed, and above all, free of visible pixel structure. The ability to see pixels on-screen is dependent on the viewing distance from the display, the native resolution of the display, and the content being presented, among other factors. Pixel structure is more likely to be noticeable in content with text, shapes, lines, and fine graphic details, than in fullmotion video.

The resolution of a videowall can be defined by the total number of horizontal and vertical pixels in the display array. It can also be described by the pixel density, or the number of pixels per unit area. Pixel density is determined by the individual display unit, in terms of its native resolution as well as screen dimensions. Pixel density remains constant, regardless of the size or layout of the videowall.

The ideal pixel density for a videowall can be determined based on the distance for viewers closest to the screens, so they do not see visible pixel structure. A unit of angular measurement, known as an “arc minute,” is used to describe how much of a viewer’s vision is occupied by an object. An arc minute is equal to 1/60th of a degree, with 360° comprising a complete circle. The theoretical limit of human visual acuity, or the ability to discriminate an individual object or between objects in space, is approximately one arc minute or 0.0167°. For video, this means that below this limit, a person should not be able to resolve individual pixels. See Figure 2-11.

LCD panels generally deliver more than sufficient pixel density for close viewing distances, including the largest models. Pixel density will likely be an important consideration when projecting large images.

The sidebar provides detailed information on calculating pixel density. At a close viewing distance of 10 feet (3 m), the pixel density would need to be at least 28 PPI, or pixels per inch, to avoid visible pixel structure. As points of comparison, a 50 inch (107 cm) 1080p LCD panel has a pixel density of 44 PPI, while a 70 inch (178 cm) WXGA projection cube has a pixel density of 22 PPI. If the end user demands that multiple high resolution sources be displayed pixel-for-pixel, then it may be necessary to increase the pixel density beyond the minimum. LCD panels generally deliver more than sufficient pixel density for close viewing distances, including the largest models at 70 inches. Pixel density will likely be an important consideration when projecting large images. Table 2-4lists some recommended minimum pixel densities at various viewing distances.

Together with these suggested guidelines, be sure that the final videowall design and configuration satisfies eye and head tilt considerations, as discussed in "Environmental Considerations & Human Factors".

The minimum pixel density for a videowall, based on the viewing distance and the visual acuity limit of 1 arc minute, can easily be calculated.All that is needed is a tape measure and a scientific calculator, or a mobile device running a scientific calculator app.Ensure the calculator is set to degrees, rather than radians.

Begin by measuring, or estimating the distance from the videowall to the viewing position closest to the wall.Then, this basic trigonometric formula can be used to calculate pixel pitch, or the physical separation between two pixels

where the viewing distance and pixel pitch are specified in inches.Pixel density, in PPI or pixels per inch, is then simply the inverse of pixel pitch:

The "native resolution" is written in a monitor"s specifications, but what exactly does it mean? What happens if images are displayed at a resolution other than the "native resolution"? In particular, you can"t help wondering what happens when an image is displayed in a resolution with a different aspect ratio.

The "number of pixels", or put another way "the number of points that light up", in an LCD screen is decided, and this "number of pixels" is the "native resolution." For example, this means that a monitor with a native resolution of "1920 × 1200" lights up, or turns off, 1920 horizontal rows (dots) and 1200 vertical rows (dots) of pixels to display images.

Then what happens if an image is displayed in a different resolution from the "native resolution," and in particular what happens if that resolution has a different aspect ratio to the "native resolution"? Let"s consider a case where a "1280 × 1024" (horizontal : vertical = 5:4) image is displayed on an LCD monitor with a native resolution of "1920 × 1200" (horizontal : vertical = 16:10).

In normal display (same magnification) the image with a resolution of 1280 × 1024 is displayed with that number of pixels. In other words, 1280 horizontal rows and 1024 vertical rows of pixels are used to display it. At that time 640 horizontal rows (1920 – 1280 = 640) and 176 vertical rows (1200 – 1024 = 176) are not lit up so black areas are created at the top, bottom, left and right.

An enlarged display means that the image to be displayed is enlarged while preserving its "5:4" aspect ratio. In this case the vertical 1200/1024 is enlarged 1.171875 times, so the image is displayed using 1500 horizontal rows (1280 × 1.171875 = 1500) and 1200 vertical rows of pixels. By doing this the image is not distorted but black areas are produced at the left and right since 420 horizontal pixels (1920 – 1500 = 420) are not lit up. The image is also slightly fuzzier than in normal mode since it has been enlarged.

With full-screen display the horizontal 1280 rows of pixels are displayed as 1920 rows, and the vertical 1024 rows of pixels are displayed as 1200 rows. This means that the image"s aspect ratio, which should be 5:4, has been changed to 16:10. As a result, a circle, for example, is displayed as a horizontally elongated oval. The image is also slightly fuzzier than in normal mode since it has been enlarged.

As we have explained, when something like full-screen display or enlarged display is used to display an image on an LCD at a resolution other than the recommended one, it can be necessary, for example, to use two pixels to display data that should be shown with one dot. Naturally this leads to a loss of sharpness. Since such deterioration in image quality cannot be avoided, of course the best thing is to display an image at the "native resolution" for the LCD monitor.

The shift to high pixel density displays, which started with smartphones and tablets, has spread to the world of PC display monitors. 4K displays for PCs hit the shelves in 2014, and an understanding of pixel density has become important for selecting products, along with screen size and resolution. Our theme this time is the shift to high pixel density displays, including trends in the latest technology.

Looking at the market trends in LCD monitors for PCs, in the latter half of the 2000s, the transition from square to wide screens took off all at once, and currently, the trend has been towards larger screens and higher resolutions.

As of 2014, the best selling LCD is the 23" model supporting 1920 x 1080 pixel (full HD) display, but 4K displays that boast of four times that resolution are on rapid rise, and there is a new trend of converting to high resolution (increasing pixel density) without enlarging the screen size

Note: This is a translation from Japanese of the ITmedia article "ITmedia LCD Monitor Course III: Confused about HiDPI and Retina display? Understanding pixel density, an essential element in choosing displays in the age of 4K" published on December 11, 2014. Copyright 2014 ITmedia Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Over the next several years, it is predicted that 4K will replace full HD as the mainstream resolution. 4K, of course, represents 4,000 and refers to a horizontal pixel count of around that number. There are currently two standards for 4K resolution, namely "DCI 4K" and "UHD 4K.

DCI 4K is twice the 2048 x 1080 pixel resolution of projectors (4096 x 2160/approx. 17:9) and is the 4K resolution of the film industry. UHD 4K (also called UHDTV 4K), on the other hand, is the 4K resolution of the television industry defined by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). It has twice the horizontal resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixel full HD (3840 x 2160/16:9).

4K displays for current PCs are primarily UHD 4K resolution like 4K televisions. However, there are a few products out there that have adopted the DCI 4K standard, such as the ColorEdge CG318-4K color management monitor for video production to be released by EIZO in the spring of 2015.

4K is a high resolution with twice the vertical and horizontal pixel count of full HD and refers to resolutions featuring a horizontal pixel count of around 4 million. The photograph is of EIZO"s ColorEdge CG318-4K. It supports 4096 x 2160 pixel/approx. 17:9 display, which surpasses the 3840 x 2160 pixel/16:9 (UHD 4K) display often used in 4K displays for PCs. Note the difference in horizontal resolution.

At the same time, the 4K display environment is still in a transition period, so there are several things that should be noted, the first of which is the refresh rate issue.

The only interface for 4K displays currently on the market that is capable of 4K 60 Hz display is DisplayPort 1.2, which has a 21.6 Gbps bandwidth. That’s because 4K 60 Hz transmission requires a bandwidth of 16 Gbps (3840 x 2160 pixel, 32-bit color, 60 Hz). This is well above the bandwidth supported by DisplayPort 1.1 (10.8 Gbps), HDMI 1.4a (10.2 Gbps) and DVI Dual Link (7.4 Gbps). For that reason it should be noted that currently, when connected via DVI-D or HDMI, 4K display only works at 30 Hz.

However, as far as HDMI goes, the bandwidth of the new HDMI 2.0 standard (HDMI 2.0 Level A) has been expanded to 18 Gbps, and new displays capable of 4K 60 Hz display with HDMI 2.0 input have been announced. As the video output components of PCs (GPU) and other devices begin supporting HDMI 2.0, the situation will gradually improve.

From left to right: DVI-D, HDMI and DisplayPort video input terminals. 4K 60 Hz display requires connection via DisplayPort 1.2. Dual Link DVI-D and the current HDMI 1.4a only support 4K display at 30 Hz.

If the display is connected via DisplayPort 1.2, the setting can be changed to 4K 60 Hz display in the OS settings. The above image shows the setting for 4K 60 Hz with EIZO"s FlexScan EV3237 31.5" 4K display.

The HDMI 2.0 Level B standard is capable of transmitting 4K 60Hz signals over the HDMI 1.4 transmission bandwidth, but the color depth is YUV 4:2:0, and colors bleed, so it is not suited to displays. We’ll have to wait for the spread of HDMI 2.0 Level A for proper 4K 60Hz display via HDMI.

Moreover, there are cases where the 60 Hz transmission system of the 4K display creates problems even if DisplayPort 1.2 is used. Although not widely known, there are two transmission systems used to support 60 Hz display with the currently available 4K displays, namely MST (Multi Stream Transport) and SST (Single Stream Transport).

In the MST system, the OS recognizes 4K as a two-screen 1920 x 2160 pixel display, so a GPU driver is required to combine the output onto one screen. Depending on the version of the GPU and driver used, there were problems such as with the rendering timing on the left and right sides of the screen or not working in a multi-display environment.

The reason the video signal is purposefully split into two screens for transmission is that the supply of display scalers (video processing chips) that can transmit 4K 60 Hz as a single screen was behind the supply of 4K LCD panels. For that reason, there was no other choice but for the early 4K displays to adopt the MST system.

In contrast, the SST (Single Stream Transport) system can transmit 4K resolution as a single screen, so it is capable of 4K 60 Hz display without internal image synthesis or other processes. It does not have problems resulting from splitting the signal into two screens like MST, but there are some devices with DisplayPort 1.2 that have graphics cards that do not support SST, so the card should be checked at the time of purchase to see if it supports SST. Incidentally, EIZO"s FlexScan EV3237 31.5" 4K display has adopted the SST system.

These kinds of compatibility issues will likely be solved in the not-so-distant future as 4K displays become more popular and support improves on the GPU and driver side. Of course, these limitations only apply to 4K display at 60 Hz, so if you"re satisfied with 30Hz, the current HDMI 1.4a and DVI Dual Link are fully capable of 4K display.

The shift to high resolution displays does not stop with 4K. 27" displays (5120 x 2880 pixel/16:9) that support 5K are already being commercialized. The question is what will the very high resolution of 5K be used for, but there is the advantage that tool bars and other elements can be placed on the screen while displaying 4K content with video editing software.

However, the current DisplayPort 1.2 does not support 5K output, so it should be noted that as of right now 5K displays require special configuration to send video signals via two cables. Although not yet commercialized, the new DisplayPort 1.3 standard announced in September 2014 supports 5K (5120 x 2880 pixel) 60 Hz display and simultaneous two-screen UHD 4K display via daisy chain. Once PCs (GPUs) with DisplayPort 1.3 support hit the shelves, 5K 60 Hz signal output will be possible with a single cable.

DisplayPort 1.3 makes 5K (5120 x 2880 pixel) 60 Hz display possible with a single cable.  *Source: Presentation by VESA (Video Electronics Standards Association), which is the standardization body for PC graphics-related devices.

What"s more, the world of 8K to follow 4K and 5K is almost here. According to an announcement by the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 8K test broadcasts will begin in 2016 and regular broadcasts in 2018. 8K (7680 x 4320 pixel/16:9) compatible display test models have appeared at video-related exhibitions and events, and the move towards ever higher resolution and higher definition will continue at a rapid pace.

As the resolution of displays grows increasingly higher, a new element to consider when choosing a display today is pixel density. Pixel density in displays is a spec indicating the degree of definition, and the value is usually expressed in ppi. Ppi stands for "pixes per inch" (not per square inch). An inch is equal to 2.54 centimeters.

Reducing the distance between pixels (pixel pitch) without changing the screen size of the LCD increases the ppi, and the higher this number, the higher the definition of the display. For example, at 100 ppi, there are 100 pixels per 2.54 centimeters, and at 300 ppi, there are 300 pixels packed within the same width.

Different pixel densities create differences in appearance. The image on top is of an enlarged 10pt font, and the image below is an enlarged thumbnail of a photograph. At 96 ppi, the roughness of the pixels is apparent, but at 192 ppi, the quality is greatly improved. At 384 ppi, the image is smooth, and the pixel grains and jagged edges of diagonal lines are no longer visible.

Today there is a trend of rapidly rising pixel density. Looking at stand-alone displays, the hot topic of late is super high pixel density displays with high resolution of 4K packed into screen sizes of 24-27 inches. At first, this genre only attracted the attention of some high-end consumers, but low-priced products started hitting the shelves one after another in 2014, so the number of regular users showing an interest has increased.

What people need to know before choosing one of these super high pixel density displays is the new way of thinking concerning resolution that has been brought about by rapid increases in pixel density.

When it comes to PC displays, most products have a pixel density of about 96 ppi to match the display density of 96 dpi (dots per inch) which has been the standard for the Windows desktop UI. The standard for the new Start screen and other aspects of the Modern UI of Windows 8 and later is 135 dpi (automatically switching between 100%, 140% and 180% depending on the pixel density of the display device), but the standard for the desktop UI is still 96 dpi.

As such, up until now, PC displays have been designed based on the assumption that the OS and applications would have a fixed display density (96 ppi for Windows). The 96 dpi standard is behind this assumption, and the screen size increased with the higher resolution of LCD panels (increased pixel counts), so it was safe to simply consider that the higher the resolution (pixel count), the larger the work space.

The higher the pixel density of the display, the higher the definition of the OS and applications, but there was no such thing as a display with such high pixel density that it could not be put to practical use, so it did not lead to any major problems. Depending on how high the pixel density, the icons and fonts would appear larger or smaller, but the definition was sufficient for the users to recognize them.

This is the conventional thinking with regards to LCDs. The screen size increased as the resolution of LCD panels became higher, so choosing a display with a higher resolution meant that the amount of information displayed at once was higher and the work space was larger.

On the left is an SXGA 17" square screen (1280 x 1024 pixels), and on the right is a WUXGA 24.1" wide screen (1920 x 1200 pixels). As you can see, the higher resolution and larger screen provided a much larger work space.

By contrast, when it comes to super high pixel density displays of the 4K class, a higher resolution (pixel count) does not necessarily mean a larger work space. In recent years, the display density (dpi) of the Modern UI, OS and applications in Windows 8 and later is designed to be variable rather than fixed. In other words, even at the same screen size, the display density does not have to be fixed. With the scaling function of the OS, the display can be enlarged smoothly.

The biggest advantage of this is that it enables very high definition display. Say, for example, you took a 24" UHD 4K display and enlarged the display so that the work space was equivalent to 24" full HD. UHD 4K (3840 x 2160 pixels) has twice the vertical and horizontal resolution of full HD (1920 x 1080 pixels), so there will be scaling of 200% for the enlarged display.

A single pixel on the OS display that was conventionally displayed using one pixel on the LCD panel is rendered with four pixels (double the aspect ratio), so combined with the OS-side scaling function, it produces a very fine and smooth display.

EIZO"s FlexScan EV3237 31.5" display supports UHD 4K display. For a large external display, it has high pixel density (approx. 140 ppi) for smooth, very high-definition display. This product has a large 31.5" screen, so it also offers a large work space, but with 23.8" and 28" 4K displays, the display is too fine, so the scaling function of the OS has to be used to enlarge it.

This is the difference in how UHD 4K (left) and full HD (right) appear at the same screen size. The photographs of the icons have been taken at about the same distance from the screen. With UHD 4K (3840 x 2160 pixels), the display is enlarged 200%, and with full HD (1920 x 1080 pixels), the icon is displayed at the same magnification. The size of the icons is roughly the same, but as you can see, the icon is displayed in higher definition with UHD 4K.

It"s difficult to describe, but if you compare the display on smartphones, on which high pixel density display is common, with that of conventional low pixel density PC displays, you"ll be able to see the advantage right away.

Compared to the sharp and smooth display on the smartphone, the display on the PC appears rough, and the pixel grid is visible. Moreover, the diagonal lines may appear jagged, and the rendering of text and icons may have a rough feel. If you use a smartphone or tablet frequently, you might have even felt that something was wrong with the display on your PC.

With the 4K class of super high pixel density displays, the smooth display quality of smartphones can be achieved. And because it"s not on a small screen like that of a smartphone but a precise rendering across the large screen of a PC display, many people are probably surprised at the high picture quality when they actually see it.

In actual usage scenarios, there are various advantages, such as ease of discerning focus and blurring when retouching high pixel photographs without enlarging or shrinking them, improved visibility of text, numbers and fine details of illustrations in design and CAD software, and legibility of fine text and clear distinction between fonts in PDFs, digital books, etc., so it can be expected to contribute to improved work efficiency.

Of course, the enlarged display of the full HD-equivalent work space on the 24" 4K display introduced above is only a single example. If you want a large work space even if the icons and text are a little smaller, you just have to lower the magnification. On the other hand, if you want to have a larger display with improved visibility even if the work space is smaller, you just have to increase the magnification. This flexibility is another thing that gives super high pixel density displays an advantage.

This is the difference in appearance produced by the scaling setting on the FlexScan EV3237 (31.5"/3840 x 2160 pixels/approx. 140 ppi). The image on the left is of normal 100% magnification, and the image on the right is of enlarged 150% magnification.

This is an example of screen display on the FlexScan EV3237 desktop. At 100% magnification, the 3840 x 2160 pixel UHD 4K resolution can be fully utilized, but the pixel density is around 140 ppi, and the pixel pitch is about 0.18 mm, so it appears quite tiny from the normal viewing distance (left). When magnification is set to 150%, the work space becomes smaller, but the visibility of the text and icons is improved (right).

Nevertheless, it should be remembered that there are practical limitations to lowering the magnification rate for scaling to make a larger work space on a super high pixel density display.

For example, if a small screen size like 24" is selected for a 4K display as described above, the scaling magnification rate has to be raised to ensure visibility. As a result, you can"t have a large work space with respect to the actual resolution. By reducing the distance from which the screen is viewed, it may be visible even if you lower the scaling magnification rate a little. However, if you get too close to the display, your eyes and neck will have to make bigger movements during use, which will increase the burden on your body, so this is not recommended.

Of course, the larger the screen size the more room you"ll have for making adjustments to the work space and scaling magnification rate, so if you"re not sure, choose a super high pixel density display that is slightly larger than your current one, and you should be able to create a comfortable environment without trouble (you"ll need to pay attention to the physical space required by the display, though).

On the left is the FlexScan EV3237 (31.5"/3840 x 2160 pixels/approx. 140 ppi), and on the right is the FlexScan EV2436W (24.1"/1920 x 1200 pixels/approx. 94 ppi). When the scaling on the FlexScan EV3237 is set to 150％ magnification, the appearance of the text and icons is about the same as on the FlexScan EV2436W at normal magnification. The appearance is close to the Windows Desktop UI standard of around 96 dpi, so the setting provides a balance between definition and work space. Even at 150％ magnification, taking advantage of the 31.5" wide screen, you can secure a large work space.

Support for the high pixel density display environment in the PC OS is called HiDPI support. Along with support on the OS side, support by applications is also progressing, and the PC software environment surrounding HiDPI has risen to a practical level. This is boosting the spread of super high pixel density displays like 4K.

As far as the Windows OS goes, the display density has been a modifiable setting since Windows XP, but it would sometimes jumble screen layout, and there were almost no applications that supported it, so it was not a practical feature. The scaling magnification function reached a practical level where the screen layout did not break down as of Windows 7.

Moreover, since Windows 8.1, it is possible to apply different display density settings to different displays when multiple displays are connected, and the sense of incongruity experienced in a multi-screen environment with displays of different pixel densities has been reduced (however, the number of setting levels is limited, so the combination of display densities cannot be elaborately customized).

As for Mac OS X, the spread of high pixel density displays (referred to as "Retina displays" by Apple) was promoted earlier than it was by the Windows camp, so optimization of the OS design with variable display density is further along than it is with Windows. OS X Mavericks 10.9.3 and later support HiDPI display by external displays, so it"s easier to combine high pixel density displays made by other companies.

This is the Windows 8.1 scaling magnification rate settings screen. With a UHD 4K display, if you set it to "Extra large - 200%," the icons and text will be displayed at the same size as a full HD display with the same screen size. You can also adjust the text size of certain elements rather than changing the size of everything on the desktop.

When it comes to applications as well, the Microsoft Office 2013 (Windows)/2011 (Mac) office suite, major web browsers and other applications are starting to support HiDPI one right after another. Image editing software Adobe Photoshop Elements offers support as of Ver.13, and Photoshop CC has provisional support for manually setting 200％, so the foundation for full utilization of high pixel density displays has been laid.

As for hardware, lately GPU already has processing performance that could be called overkill for general use, so even PCs that aren"t especially high performance should be able to handle 4K display (although enjoying 4K games and videos on them is going to be a different story). For reference purposes, the status of GPU support for EIZO"s FlexScan EV3237 31.5" 4K display is summarized in the table below.

This trend of high pixel density becoming mainstream took off all at once when Apple began introducing its Retina displays to its products like the iPhone, iPad and iMac in 2010. These highdensity pixel displays are based on t