resolution & pixels ... xtremely confused :( :( :(

[rahulkothari]

the screen is made up of pixels, max resolution is equal to max no of pixels (hor and ver), is it correct ?

if i change my resolution from 1024*768 to say some 320*240 then only 320 pixels should be lit up instead of 1024 right i.e. it should light up first pixel leave 2 pixels , then light up fourth pixel again leave 2 , then seventh and so on .(sorry abt my weak math) while in 1024 res, all 1024 pixels r lit up. is it this ways ?

i searched and read abt "pixels and resolution" on pcguide.com but couldnt find my ans. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
-Mahatma Gandhi

[Ghost_Hacker]

Your almost right. Screens are made up of dots refered to as dot pitch. Depending on your resolution a pixel could equal one dot (max) or a pixel could be made up of many dots (lower resolution)

Hope this helps http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Whyzman]

Someone once said, "That if you truly understand something you would be able to explain it to someone else so they would be able to understand."

Well, I wish I could say it were so for my understanding of screen resolution! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/frown.gif However, I'll take a shot at your pixel question. It is my understanding that rather than pixels "not lighting up" when using a lesser resolution...the pixels are combined making essentially larger pixels. Thus, a single red pixel under high resolution would result in a grouping of say 3 red pixels under lower resolution.

That's why "jaggies" are more evident using a lesser resolution.

Ghost, why is it that under intense magnification we see squares rather than dots?

------------------
May all your dealings in life be win/win!


Whyzman
----------------------
Reserved for Punishing Humor...A Pessimist's blood is always B-negative!

[kayofcircles]

Yes, please Ghost..an explanation in baby words and less than 14 pages? http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I think I understand pixels and resolution and RBG and CMYK...but monitors? Not at all. Are the "dots" square?

[geebee76]

Before GH returns, I'll attempt an answer to this one. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/eek.gif

The display on your monitor is made with lots of little dots. These dots are physical and cannot be altered. Each of these dots has a red, green and blue(RGB), phosphor blob on it. An electron gun is fired at these coloured phosphors, which make them light up. The dot pitch is the distance between each phosphor of the same colour. The lower the distance the finer the detail that can be achieved.
A monitor with a dot pitch of 0.25 contains about 1600 dots per square cm. A monitor with a high dot pitch will look grainy.

As GH stated, when you have your monitor set at maximum resolution then each dot is representing a pixel. When your monitor is set at a lower resolution, then a group of dots represent the same pixel. The lower resolution will give a more blocky or jaggie appearance because of the "more square" pixel.

When you select 24 bit true colour, you are in effect using 8 bits for each of the 3 colours. Each colour can then be one of 256 different values. The electron gun illuminates the phosphors by varying degrees to achieve these different values. 256 x 256 x 256 = 16.7 million colours.

Hope this helps http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

If I have made a mistake, can someone please inform me, otherwise I will live the rest of my life with my head full of useless knowledge. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
You are making progress if each mistake is a new one!

Sig from Here (http://www.oneliners-and-proverbs.com/)

geebee76@hotmail.com

[This message has been edited by geebee76 (edited 04-06-2002).]

[Paul Komski]

The big breakthrough of Apple's displays and the VGA standard on the PC side was square pixels. Until then, pixels were either taller than they were wide -- or vice versa. That pretty much came to an end in 1987 with VGA and the first Mac color display. Henceforth, pixels were square. (http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question401.htm&url=http://lowendmac.net/tech/dotpitch.shtml)

[rahulkothari]

thx paul .... all this time i was thinking pixels on my present monitor (manufactured after 1987 http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif were round instead of square.

------------------
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
-Mahatma Gandhi

[This message has been edited by rahulkothari (edited 04-07-2002).]

[kayofcircles]

geebee..WOW. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I am MOST impressed. Didn't understand some of it, but not sure I care...lol. Every time my husband explains electricity to me, I listen carefully to his explanation, and then end up right back at the "it's that magic stuff that comes out of the wall, right?" level of comprehension.

[Ghost_Hacker]

uhhhh.........What geebee said..... http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[bassman]

GeeBee, that was beautiful http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Here is a little trick that might help some to differentiate between a dot (when you think of dot-pitch) and a pixel.
Take a glass of water over by your TV or monitor. Dip your finger in and get a small drop on the tip. Flick this small drop of water on the screen (don't worry, a small drop of water will not cause any hazard, just don't try to pour the whole glass on the screen http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/eek.gif )
With the monitor on, look closely at the drop of water. Do you see those tiny dots magnified in the water? Those are tiny holes punched thru a very fine piece of metal. Those are the dots refered to in the dot-pitch. On a decent monitor, measured diaginaly, those dots will be .26mm to .27mm apart. That is what sets the image quality of your monitor (not the resolution).
Now, a pixel is made up of several of these depending on your resolution settings. Since these dots are on a grid pattern, all pixels will ultimately appear square.
So, the dot-pitch is predefined and allows for the max amount of pixels per inch, the resolution is veriable and defines how many pixels per inch.

This one is getting interesting http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
A real Christian is one who can give his pet parrot to the town gossip.
Frank's Place (http://dreamwater.net/tech/frankscomp/)

[kayofcircles]

Not so fast, Ghost! What I need to understand is this. Okay, when you have a pic of 100 ppi, it prints at 100 ppi. So if 500 pixels wide, you get 5 inches. So, one would think that it would appear onscreen at 5 inches, but it doesn't. Measured screen "size" and a smidge over 5 inches at my 800x600..so thought maybe was like Paint resolution of (think) 96 ppi. My question is..is it always that 96 on everyone's monitor, or is it just my monitor with my 800x600, or is it dependent on size of monitor plus current screen resolution (but not the "resolution" I am asking about). I have managed to grasp the concept that on my lower 800x600, the pic is gonna to appear "bigger" than on someone else's (same size) monitor set at the higher 1024x768...but? http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/confused.gif

[mjc]

Kay,

Right, not every 100 ppi is really 100 ppi, it will be somewhere in the neighborhood though, like 96 or something. When you put it to paper you are actually dealing with something that is uniform (the size of the paper). A 17" monitor can vary greatly in the viewable area and that is going to affect the exact number of pixels per inch at any given resolution. Plus whether or not you have the exact inf file for your monitor, your video card drivers etc...all of those will go into the final determination of ppi and how much control you have over it...I have seen some utilities that place a line on the screen and ask you to measure it then it will set the ppi for you (Mozilla has this feature).

Another way to look at it is that the dots are fixed and unchanging, they are a physical characteristic of the monitor, pixels (being groups of dots) on the other hand are relative and can change according to software settings.

------------------
mjc
Links list:Computer Links (http://www.dreamwater.org/tech/mjc/index.htm)

Celts are the men that heaven made mad, For all their battles are merry and their songs are all sad.

[rahulkothari]

Those are tiny holes punched thru a very fine piece of metal ... u mean "shadow mask"

a pixel is made up of several of these depending on your resolution settings .... but i read in a book that the holes have a 1-to-1 correspondence with the pixel (which is made up of 3 tiny dots)

and finally, is "shadow mask" used in the present day monitors ?

------------------
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
-Mahatma Gandhi

[Whyzman]

Inside each "dot" (hole) there are three (3) different color phosphors...primary color kinda thing...that can "shine" through the hole.

"Shadow Mask" is one type of "grill"...there are others...Sony for example uses another.

------------------
May all your dealings in life be win/win!


Whyzman
----------------------
Reserved for Punishing Humor...A Pessimist's blood is always B-negative!

[mjc]

Shadow mask and aperature grill are both used in modern monitors...

And a triad (group of three color dots) can have a 1 to 1 relationship with a pixel or a pixel can be a group of triads.....it doesn't have to be 1 to 1.

------------------
mjc
Links list:Computer Links (http://www.dreamwater.org/tech/mjc/index.htm)

Celts are the men that heaven made mad, For all their battles are merry and their songs are all sad.

[Whyzman]

Each triad has a 1:1 relationship with each hole in the grill.

The confusion begins with the "generic" use of the word "pixel" which as mjc pointed out can be one dot (hole) in the grill, or a number of the holes grouped together...functioning as one. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

------------------
May all your dealings in life be win/win!


Whyzman
----------------------
Reserved for Punishing Humor...A Pessimist's blood is always B-negative!

[rahulkothari]

thx for all the hlp guys, ... back to my first question:-

if i change my resolution from 1024*768 to say some 320*240 then only 320 pixels should be lit up instead of 1024 right i.e. it should light up first pixel leave 2 pixels , then light up fourth pixel again leave 2 , then seventh and so on .(sorry abt my weak math) while in 1024 res, all 1024 pixels r lit up. is it this ways ?

i prepared a small model of a screen of maximum 6*5 resolution:- a letter "L" is displayed in 3 diff resolutions ,does the "resolution" thing work this ways? (forget the aspect ratio)

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/c600c2bd/bc/technical+things/pixel.gif?bcyAQA9ADH50gGKr

if u can't see the image ,plz plz plz click here :-


------------------
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
-Mahatma Gandhi



[This message has been edited by rahulkothari (edited 04-07-2002).]

[Whyzman]

I suspect our "black" letter (L) would turn gray using an algorithm as you described.

With black and white text, the "groupings" of the individual triad holes, or perhaps we could call them elemental pixels, would need to become larger...and curves would become jagged.

In your coarsest resolution example the original "elemental" pixel showing black would need to join hands with the pixels surrounding to fill the space.

------------------
May all your dealings in life be win/win!


Whyzman
----------------------
Reserved for Punishing Humor...A Pessimist's blood is always B-negative!

[Paul Komski]

Hope THIS LINK (http://desktoppub.about.com/library/weekly/aa101800c.htm) helps understanding. This whole area confuses most of the people most of the time!! And I'm certainly not immune! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

rahulkothari It would have been better if you had just had two examples with the same aspect ratio. Say 6/6 and 3/3 In a 6/6 resolution there would be 36 possible "dots" and "pixels"(the maximum); in a 3/3 there would be 9 possible "pixels"; in other words each of these "pixels" would be a quadrant of 4 smaller "dots". Each quadrant would either have all 4 as black or as white (or as the same color); there would only be 3x3 = 9 possible pixels.


------------------
Take nice care of yourselves - Paul
"For a Pandora's box upgrade to IE6 (IEsicks that is)"



[This message has been edited by Paul Komski (edited 04-07-2002).]

[rahulkothari]

wait wait wait ... assume the above diagram to be of a monochrome monitor ... that can display only black and white, not even gray (assume only 1 bit for each pixel 1-white 0-black) and hence there is no question of dots in the pixel (no 3 dots for RGB in 1 pixel , only a standalone pixel).

now how would u explain the 3*3 resolution u just mentioned ? now as there are no dots , there would be no grouping ???

and regarding the link:- it was good , but i already understand that part very well. i only do not understand how these pixels r plotted on screen, grouping and stuff. and hey does 1 pixel always has to be 1 pixel or can it be a group of pixels (i.e. 6 pixel making 1 big pixel as in grouping ... forget abt the dots) it would be more clear if v would start with monochrome 1 bit monitor.

------------------
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
-Mahatma Gandhi

[Whyzman]

I'll leave you guys to work on the 3X3 example... http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

But, in answer to the pixel "grouping" that's exactly what is going on. The elemental pixel (one dot one phosphor...using your monochrome example) is also called a pixel when refering to a group of elemental pixels. That's where it becomes confusing. The term is used specifically for the "elemental" pixel, and then generically for different sized groupings of the elemental pixels....as you mentioned "a big pixel!" http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

If you used your example of the letter L and produced it by filling in squares on 1/8 inch graph paper...let this depict the finest resolution any particular screen can produce.

In my example your letter L would then consist of a string of elemental pixels. The line width of our letter would be the diameter of one aperture hole...yep, would be pretty tough to see! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/eek.gif

If then, we lower the resolution making the squares on the graph paper, say, 1/4 inch (with the elemental pixel aperture size fixed) we would need to redefine a "pixel's" size to produce the same line.

As on paper, the image on screen would grow...correct?

------------------
May all your dealings in life be win/win!


Whyzman
----------------------
Reserved for Punishing Humor...A Pessimist's blood is always B-negative!

[bassman]

Rahulkothari,
I think you are trying to assume to much here. As pointed out by Whyzman, if your letter L were only 1 dot wide (rationalizing that the finest resolution was 1 dot = 1 pixel), then you would not even be able to see it.
I think something is being missed here. At the highest resolution possible, 1 pixel is still made up of several dots (apertures).
A single triad (dot) only produces a single component of the pixel (red, green, blue). In B&W, you have a state of On or Off. No triads. In Monochrome, you have a single color (Mono) and again a state of On or Off.

http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
A real Christian is one who can give his pet parrot to the town gossip.
Frank's Place (http://dreamwater.net/tech/frankscomp/)

[Ghost_Hacker]

OK the thing to remember is that "pixels" are created, they are draw on the screen by the video card. (that's why with more video memory you get better resolution as long as your monitor can support it.) Unlike dot pitch which is real and unchanging, pixels are made on the fly. So it's not a case of them being turned on or turned off but of them being draw or not being draw. Your monitor's "dots" are used by the video card to create pixels to display at different resolutions. If pixels where "real" you wouldn't be able to change resolution.


Kay The default PPI for Windows boxes is 96 for Macs it's 72. Since 72 is the printing standard (or close to it) Macs are used for publishing duties and PCs aren't.

Hope this helps http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif




[This message has been edited by Ghost_Hacker (edited 04-08-2002).]

[kayofcircles]

Ghost: I like your "If pixels were "real" you wouldn't be able to change resolution." They're not real??? I always suspected I was working in a Twilight Zone. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Seriously, thanks for the 96 part..and the 72 on Mac. Never could understand where the 72 stuff came from..now I do, thanks.

Paul: You need to be careful about those links. Went off and read through the article you posted, and checked out some of the message boards over there..I am tempted to run off with the traveling salesman! Sweet talking over there.

Thanks to all. I have learned some things and gotten a little better understanding of this subject, so thank you, rahulkothari, for the question.

[Paul Komski]

rahulkothari: Monochrome; OK. L-shape; OK. Halve the resolution and you will double the SIZE. Your middle diagram SHOULD show the two left-hand columns as black. This would represent the top three pixels of the left hand diagram - each original one represented, now, by four "dots". So where is the rest of the L-shape. Well it can't fit on your mini-screen anymore. So there would be horizontal and vertical scroll bars and you would have to scroll to see all of the L-shape. Alternatively you would need a new screen (with the same dot pitch) that was twice as tall and twice as wide as the original.

kayofcircles LOL Of course there was sweet-talking; you're such a sweet talker yourself. Watch Out!!! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


------------------
Take nice care of yourselves - Paul
"For a Pandora's box upgrade to IE6 (IEsicks that is)"

[Whyzman]

I've been trying to post this since early this morning...ARGH!!

Let's assume that our example's video card is capable of handling every aperture "dot" independently.

Aside: I've "Googled" and read through so many definitions from the experts that I'm seeing double! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/frown.gif http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Some define the dot pitch as the distance between two same colored phosphors, e.g. from the red phosphor in a triad to the adjacent triad's red phosphor. Some say dot pitch is the "dot" or individual aperture hole. Or, "Think of the dot specified by the dot pitch as the smallest physical visual component on the display." (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci211995,00.html) This is confusing! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/frown.gif

Since dot pitch is a measurement and it is not being used to describe the physical diameter of an individual aperture hole, rather, the distance between two holes (or, phosphors) that definition clouds the issue for me.

Dot pitch appears to tell me how close physically (i.e.,in terms of a measurement), adjacent aperture holes or like-kind phosphors exist, but does not focus in on the individual aperture hole, if you will.

Each aperture hole actually does have a physical dimension (a diameter) through which we can see a triad of phosphors...can we agree and call this one hole housing one triad simply a "dot"? http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

Okay, now for the tough part! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

The definition of a PIXEL: (Okay, more like my attempt to understand the definition of a pixel after wading through all the "deep stuff" from the experts! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/tongue.gif

A pixel is: A logical/programmable visual display element. Since the smallest programmable display element on a monitor is an individual "dot," a pixel can map to one dot and control it's function.

One pixel can "equal" one dot. In our monochrome example above, if I was typing really really really tiny letters...the width (diameter) of one "dot," when I hit the period at the end of a sentence it would show up under a microscope as one black "dot!" LOL If I were to use the 1/8" graph paper to map to every single aperture hole "dot" on my screen...one blackened box would represent the period.

If we lower the resolution, represented now by 1/4" transparent graph paper (place it right over the top of the 1/8" so you can see through), the period still needs to look like a period. So, we'd need to program some additional "dots" to blacken to maintain the same aspect ratio. So, where they was one (1) "dot" to display the period, you'd now have a total of four (4) "dots" needing to be blackened.

And thus, as Ghost & Bass alluded to earlier, our Pixel size gets redefined by each new screen resolution.

The physical "dots" have not changed as they are fixed by the "holes" in the aperture grill. We keep redefining our "Pixel" from it's 1:1 mapping, where 1 dot is called a pixel, to "bouquets of dots" we also call a pixel. Yikes!

It appears that we're all pretty much saying the same thing, it's the definition of terms where we perhaps differ.

Comments please...I'm trying to get a handle on this myself as well as answer rahulkothari's original question. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
May all your dealings in life be win/win!


Whyzman
----------------------
Reserved for Punishing Humor...A Pessimist's blood is always B-negative!

[bassman]

Whyzman, looks like you are getting it. The dot pitch is monitor quality, the resolution comes from Vid card quality. They work hand in hand, but are different. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
A real Christian is one who can give his pet parrot to the town gossip.
Frank's Place (http://dreamwater.net/tech/frankscomp/)

[rahulkothari]

i think i m getting close... see the second pictuer below...is it correct whyzman ?

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/c600c2bd/bc/technical+things/pixel2.gif?bcBytA9A1zK4bFdP


furthermore i have tried to recreate one of the shadow mask pictures in my textbook with some more info added such as the dot-pitch , the magnified view etc. (pardon my imperfectness in the drawing)

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/c600c2bd/bc/technical+things/shadow+mask+crt.gif?bcBytA9AOKtVCkNd

u guys r really hlpful. doin gr8 work. keep it up.

one more thing. i, along with my classmates have developed a software named "digital circuit simulator" which is an OPEN-SOURCE software licensed under GNU-gpl for out college project. i wanna upload it to some free ftp:// site so dat students can download and make max use of it. also as its am open-source software , its always open to further development (although no one would want to as its least optimised) plz tell me if u know of any such site, coz i feel our efforts r going to waste as no one is able to make use of it.
at present i mail the entire s/w (2 mails of 1.5 mb each) as i get the requests but many dont understand the unzipping procedure. apart from that only students of my coll r able to do so coz many do not know abt it at all. u may visit http://dcsim.8m.com wherein all the details abt the s/w are given. plz tell me if u know of any free ftp:// site. thx in adv.

------------------
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
-Mahatma Gandhi

[Whyzman]

Can't spend enough time this evening to go over this, however, this is how I understand what the video card's algorithm would produce with the decreased resolution in your example.
http://members.aol.com/whyzman/pixel2.gif

------------------
May all your dealings in life be win/win!


Whyzman
----------------------
Reserved for Punishing Humor...A Pessimist's blood is always B-negative!

[bassman]

Whyzman, Thats getting closer. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

Rahulkothari Think of it this way, at max resolution, it would color 4 triads to create 1 pixel. At lower resolution, it would color 16 triads to make 1 pixel. At lower resolution it would color 64 triads to make 1 pixel.
It would not skip triads in effort to stretch the picture out. This would make a very blurry and faded image.

When you see an image that has been enlarged, you start seeing a square blocky effect. The corners you see represent the square area of 1 pixel.

How about this:
1024x768- drawing a picture with colored sand.
800x600- drawing a picture with kids building blocks.
600x400- drawing a picture with small cardboard boxes.

Is that making it clearer http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
A real Christian is one who can give his pet parrot to the town gossip.
Frank's Place (http://dreamwater.net/tech/frankscomp/)

[Whyzman]

Exactamo Bass!!!
It would not skip triads in effort to stretch the picture out. This would make a very blurry and faded image.

Actually, since we're keeping with the monochrome example, if we began to subtract "dots" rather than increase their number, at lesser resolution...would we not begin to see gray text rather than crisp black text?

Bass, I think we might be on to something! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
May all your dealings in life be win/win!


Whyzman
----------------------
Reserved for Punishing Humor...A Pessimist's blood is always B-negative!

[Paul Komski]

Actually, since we're keeping with the monochrome example, if we began to subtract "dots" rather than increase their number, at lesser resolution...would we not begin to see gray text rather than crisp black text?

HeHeHe - that's only sort of correct. I don't know if we want to go down this road... http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif but...
Without resampling the image (and staying with Monochrome/1Bit depth ) you would only be able to change whole pixels (the whole discrete 2x2 groupings of "dots" in the low resolution example) from black to white and not the individual dots within the groupings.

The two examples above represent the SAME file or bitmap - only displayed DIFFERENTLY. To attempt to create a grey letter L in the above example could only produce a broken B/W L-shaped line (it might look a little grey but it wouldn't be convincing). A more truely grey letter L could be made with the same number of pixels but they would need an 8bit color depth; so although the bitmap would be the same size (containing the same number of pixels) the file size would be much larger.

The alternative way of creating "grey" by (half-toning or dithering a monochrome image etc) would require the pixels in the above example to be first increased in number (since the width of the letter L is only one pixel wide to start with; in both the above examples).

Let us say that the image size, monochrome nature and screen resolution are unchanged but the image is resampled to contain 2 to 4 times as many pixels in both directions; this would make the bitmap and file size from (2x2=)4 to (4x4=)16 times larger. But since the width of the L would now be 2 to 4 pixels wide, they could now be "repainted" to be a mosaic of black and white that would resemble a truer grey.

I think this Beginners Guide to Bitmaps (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/dataformats/bitmaps/) is pretty good reading and not for true novices either - despite it's name!! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Take nice care of yourselves - Paul
"For a Pandora's box upgrade to IE6 (IEsicks that is)"

[rond36]

An easy way to explain this is to picture your monitor's screen as a tile floor. One tile=one pixel. Lets say the floor is 15m X 10m, using 10 cm tiles you would need 150 tiles on a long side and 100 tiles on a short side for a resolution of 150 X 100 you would use 15,000 tiles. You are given 16 boxes of different colored tiles (8 bit) and told to draw a picture of a building using these tiles. You could draw a fairly good likeness of a building with some detail but would need to square off some of the round features, and substitute colors for the ones you don't have. Now lets say you are told to tile the same floor using 1 cm tiles you would need 1,500 tiles on a long side and 1,000 tiles on a short side for a resolution of 1500 X 1000 you would use 1,500,000 tiles. You are given 16 million boxes of different colored tiles (32 bit) and told to draw the same building at the same scale as the previous building. You can put in more detail, make rounded details look rounded, and match your colors better. It would be harder and take more time to draw the second picture than the first one but it would look allot better(this is why when you change to a higher resolution the max refresh rate goes down). When you change the screen resolution the image is drawn with the same number of pixels but the pixels are smaller so the image becomes smaller. Dot pitch has nothing to do with screen resolution

------------------
How to Use the Fdisk Tool and the Format Tool to Partition or Repartition a Hard Disk (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q255867)
WindowsBBS.com (http://www.WindowsBBS.com/index.php?referrerid=115) Is back online, check it out

[Paul Komski]

rond36 it's a nice and useful analogy BUT ...

Your example could be confusing because it contains two operations:-
(1) First you "Resampled" by creating a greater NUMBER of tiles (even if they were smaller).
(2) Then you increased the resolution such that the screen size of the image would remain constant.

If you had just increased the resolution on its own you would then have the same number of tiles (the pixels) but they would now be much smaller (1cm instead of 10cm). Your new tiled image using small-tiles wouldn't cover the floor any more - (and if it was on a screen the image would be a small one sitting in the top left corner of the screen).

Sometimes it helps to reduce things to the limit rather than get more elaborate. Consider a 1x1 monochrome pixel image file. Leaving the headers aside, this whole file is just one bit in size - or just one black or white coloured tile to lay. Changing the resolution doesn't affect this file at all but it does change the size of the display. High resolution and the tile is small (a very very small spot on screen); lower the resolution and the tile gets bigger (a very small spot on screen). To cover the floor with one tile (or fill the screen with this image) the resolution would have to be the smallest conceivable - a 1x1 resolution on a square screen). http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

To complete the tile(pixel) analogy it would be perhaps better to take the one tile(pixel) and not place it on the floor as something physical but to do what a monitor (sort of) does and project its shadow onto the floor instead. By moving the tile between the projector and the floor the size of the shadow will change; this changing size being a manifestation of the changing resolution; the underlying image-file (of a 1x1 tile(pixel)) remaining constant in all of this.
------------------
Take nice care of yourselves - Paul
"For a Pandora's box upgrade to IE6 (IEsicks that is)"

[This message has been edited by Paul Komski (edited 04-10-2002).]

[Whyzman]

Holy smoke! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Gone for a couple of days and the sky is gray! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/tongue.gif

In my example, I wanted to raise the question of gray being introduced due to rahulkothari's concept of skipping blackened pixels and thereby introducing white into the equation. In the black text example in question I don't see that white would be introduced.

If possible guys, could we stay with either the (period) example, or the (L) example and not introduce color depth etc., as yet? I'm trying to get a handle on this as it appears rahulkothari is also, and I'm sure are others following the thread. It would be helpful to take baby steps! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

I'd like to ask for a concensus on at least a couple of definitions and then if we could work from there, at least for our example here.

A "dot" = one aperature grill hole, the smallest physical element on our monitors
.
Our video card is capable of controlling each "dot" independently.
A "pixel" thus can = an individual "dot" or multiple "dots".

When introducing a new concept would you please apply it to our example and explain, and or illustrate how it is affecting our given example?

Please, please....avoid analogies or discussing "printing" concepts...I know, I know, this could be a toughie!

I'm still reading up on the subject as we go along here, and I suspect others are wading through this along with me...and some of it is pretty deep! I'm hoping soon I can put on my overshoes and get out of my hip waders. Right now, I'm still sweating in the waders! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/frown.gif http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Actually, I would like to see the example just confine itself to the example of the sentence (period) moving from it as a "dot" pixel and what happens to it at lesser resolutions. Up to you!! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif And, thanks for your help!

------------------
May all your dealings in life be win/win!


Whyzman
----------------------
Reserved for Punishing Humor...A Pessimist's blood is always B-negative!

[This message has been edited by Whyzman (edited 04-10-2002).]

[bassman]

OK Whyzman, me thinks you are more interested in this the Rahulkothari http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif



I think something is being missed here. At the highest resolution possible, 1 pixel is still made up of several dots (apertures).
A single triad (dot) only produces a single component of the pixel (red, green, blue). In B&W, you have a state of On or Off. No triads. In Monochrome, you have a single color (Mono) and again a state of On or Off.



------------------
A real Christian is one who can give his pet parrot to the town gossip.
Frank's Place (http://dreamwater.net/tech/frankscomp/)

[rahulkothari]

first let us clear the definitions:-
with respect to SHADOW MASK crt (not apperture grille)...

one hole in shadow mask = one pixel on screen
one pixel = 3 dots (RGB)

also size of the pixel remains the same, watever the resolution.... i suppose.

In My Example:-
In B&W monitors, with only 1 bit alotted for each pixel, intensity of 1 pixel is either on(black) or off(white). no dots, no triads, no confusion. here we r dealing directly with only 1 pixel with no RGB dots, just black and white. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/cool.gif
and yes, assume the monochrome monitor screen of white color with black text http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/tongue.gif
------------------------------------------------
i think shadow mask aint present in monochrome monitors (these r beam penetration type), kindly clarify my doubt.

.... and if shadow mask is present, then there is only 1 electron gun with only 1 beam passing thru 1 punched hole in shadow mask which has a 1-to-1 correspondence with the pixel (which has only 1 bit alotted and whose intensity is either 1 or 0) http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
-Mahatma Gandhi

[bassman]

OKEE DOKEE gang.
This one has gone on for quite a while, and has been answered. It is now turning into a bit of a debate on what the different items do.



first let us clear the definitions:-
with respect to SHADOW MASK crt (not apperture grille)...
{shadow mask and apperture grill do the same thing (even in B&W and Mono)}

one hole in shadow mask = one pixel on screen
one pixel = 3 dots (RGB)
{incorrect- 1 hole in mask/grill=1 point of light, many points of light=1 pixel. the number of points of light per pixel depends on the resolution settings}

also size of the pixel remains the same, watever the resolution.... i suppose.
{I think this is where the confusion comes in. The size of the pixel does change depending on the resolution settings}


In reference to the original question: The numbers 1024x768, 800x600, 400x300 does not refer to how many pixels are lit. It refers to how many pixels are lit in a given area. The higher the resolution, the more pixels are lit per square inch, the smaller each becomes, the higher intensity the color depth, the finer line in the image edge.

This basic principal works on all CRT displays (color, B&W, Mono(white,orange, or green) and can be applied to LCD displays as well (whole other argument there).
It is a series of lights (whether color, white, orange, green,...) that shine thru openings that create pixels of variable size to make an image display on your screen.

Are we there yet http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
A real Christian is one who can give his pet parrot to the town gossip.
Frank's Place (http://dreamwater.net/tech/frankscomp/)

[Paul Komski]

rahulkothari ...also size of the pixel remains the same, watever the resolution.... i suppose.
Nope. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr. LOL. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif This is the nub of this question and once grasped much will fall into place. If the resolution FALLS the pixel size GROWS; (since images are composed of pixels the image size grows too).

Pixels are not "real" and are not "physical" elements on a monitor. They relate only to the underlying software. If that software is a bitmap then each pixel corresponds only to the POSITION it is assigned-to on that map and is in effect dimensionless as regards size; the pixel only has a position and a numerical value equivalent to its color.

Look at your display properties; it says, for example, "Screen Area" 800 by 600 pixels. That particular display can only show 480,000 pixels on it. The actual size of those pixels on the screen will thus depend on the real physical size of the monitor's screen-display. A bigger monitor with the same resolution would have different sized pixels and images on it; even if its dot-pitch etc were identical to those of the smaller monitor.

Since each individual pixel covers a different AREA on the screen (depending on both the monitor's size and its resolution) then the way the area of the pixel relates to the number of physical "dots"/"apertures"/"holes"/"triads"/"other physical elements" underlying it is purely fortuitous.

However many of these "elements" underly each pixel (or if you prefer, the area of each pixel) they must however all be identical in their settings; all set to white, or black or the same shade of gray or the same color.

I hope (and I expect others do too) that this is my last post in this thread! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif


------------------
Take nice care of yourselves - Paul
"For a Pandora's box upgrade to IE6 (IEsicks that is)"

[rahulkothari]

thx everyone for clearing my concepts.

SIZE OF THE PIXEL DOESNT REMAIN SAME

had this thing known to me b4 , this post wouldnt have existed and i wouldnt have troubled u till the extent of Grrrrrr http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif. the pics shown below would help (dumb) ppl http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif like me to grip the whole concept in a much better way.

this time v r playin with "C" :-
>> pics 1 and 3 indicate the size of the pixel(black boxes) at max and min resolutions of 6*6 and 3*3 resp.

>> pics 2 and 4 show how the letter C would look at the above res.

note:- the pixels arent square, they r round, its only for the sake of simplicity that they have been shown as square.

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/c600c2bd/bc/technical+things/pixel3.GIF?bcSE0B9A.S8QKQxx

when i read this sentence "size of the pixel doesnt remain same", i read the entire post backwards and got every word of wat geebee and others said (i.e. y the pixels appear square, dots, grid, triads ... everything) thx once again to paul,yzman,bass,geeb,gh,mjc,rond. and hey kayofcircles thx for thanking me.hope u too understood the whole concept as i did.

http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gifi m a happy man. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
-Mahatma Gandhi

[Paul Komski]

"note:- the pixels arent square, they r round, its only for the sake of simplicity that they have been shown as square."

Pixels ... ARE ... square.

------------------
Take nice care of yourselves - Paul
"For a Pandora's box upgrade to IE6 (IEsicks that is)"

[saphalline]

I realize this post is all well and done now, a little late to add anything extra that would confuse people, but something that I don't think anyone mentioned directly probably would have helped here.

Dot pitch is physical (mentioned), pixels don't stay the same size (mentioned a bit late http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif ), but what about this fact: the computer "sees" images in digital format but one of the main jobs of the video card is to transfer them into analog format.

In other words, when the electron guns in the back of the monitor fire forward, they are essentially firing an image with a "resolution" equal to that of the wavelength of an electron (pretty darn high!). The shadow mask or grille exists to "aim" the analog image from the electrons so that they strike those bands of phosphors effectively (with teamwork) and light them up. The whole reason this is done is because (1) electrons being fired directly into our eyes would fry them, and (2) because each triad of phosphors must be lit individually (ie two pixels can't share the same triad or else the image would have spots of non-uniform lighting). Of course, this causes some darkening (especially noticeable on shadow mask monitors which "block" more streams of electrons than an aperture grille) but it is necessary for a monitor to display images correctly.

If you ever take apart your monitor sometime (NOT recommended) you'll notice that the phosphor screen and the shadow mask/grille aren't right up next to eachother, there has to be some space between them (kind of like an ant farm). Although, for another thread, we could all tackle the problem of explaining how this all works on an LCD monitor http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif!

[rahulkothari]

ok ok ,... pixels r square. thx saphalline for sharing the info with us.

this post has lost its glory,
lets start a brand new story, now my friends.... look out for the graphics adapters post...


------------------
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
-Mahatma Gandhi