Talk:SXGA

message: AFAIK the vast majority of SXGA LCD panels are 5:4 (certainly all the ones we have in our office, and the one I have at home are). The rectangular pixel thing was only a problem with CRTs and some early LCDs (which caused circles to appear elliptical.) Blorg 11:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: 17" LCD monitors have a native resolution that is 1024x768, which is XGA, not SXGA. 19" LCD's do have 1280x1024 as their native resolution which is SXGA. 70.111.218.254 22:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not 100% accurate. 17" LCDs often are 1280x1024 too. 15" would probably be most 1024x768. --Swaaye 22:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native resolutions 

message: "Apple Computer referred to displays with this resolution as "two-page displays", because they could be used to display two A4 pages side-by-side at a resolution of 72 dots per inch. Sony manufactured a 17" CRT monitor with a 5:4 aspect ratio designed for this resolution. It was sold under the Apple brand name."
According to ISO 216 A4 is 210x297mm and has an aspect ratio of 1/√2 so two A4 pages would be 420x297mm and have an aspect ratio of 2/√2 = √2 = 1.4 rather than the 5:4=1.25 of SXGA. To test this yourself, hold up a piece of A4 paper to a 17in monitor and note that it takes up more than half the screen. Did I do my math incorrectly, or is the "two page display" a rumor? Sameerpadala 05:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Math is correct as far as i checked, but an SXGA-Display at about 72 Dots per Inch (i.e. a Pointsize of ca. 353 µm) provides an Area of about 451 mm × 361 mm, if my Math is correct too. That should be enough for those two Pages and still leave plenty of Room for Menus etc. (and it should also work for US-Letter). Christoph Päper 11:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Two page display" question 

message: The calculation used to calculate the memory misses a segment.
Since it assumes an 8-bit color depth one must also calculate the memory used by the palette:
(2^8)*(Bits per primairy color*3).
While this flaw may be minor it could potentially make the assumption regarding availability of the RAM chips required unfounded.
77.60.168.163 21:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the primitive color-rendition technology of the day, 8 bits = several bits for each channel, leaving very little room for actual colors. It's already included. Sagittarian Milky Way 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The RAMDAC (part of the video chipset) stores the palette information, not main video memory.  See the article there.  88.104.215.84 (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  memory calculation missing part 

message: Although it's true that most so-called "fullscreen" LCDs manufactured today are 1280x1024, is there any evidence that this is the "true" SXGA? It seems to me that resolutions of that scale existed back when everyone was using CRTs, and I don't recall any 5:4 CRTs ever being made. Wouldn't 1280x960 be most logically the first, and therefore true, SXGA? Someone with a high-resolution 4:3 CRT should dust off their old Quake II or Half-Life CD and see what's on the list of available resolutions. 71.116.111.36 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  My first machine supporting this resolution was from about 1992 - still have the manuals.  That was definitely 1280x1024 with a 4:3 CRT display. Historically there has been no great attachment to the idea of a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio - nowadays it is often overlooked that such a ratio is not essential and does not necessarily introduce distortion.  Witness the differing resolutions available on CGA and EGA, some of which are considerably removed from the 4:3 aspect ratio of the monitors to display them.  Distortion was not present because the software knew the aspect ratio was not 1:1 and drew the screen accordingly.  Looking at the article as it stands this point needs mentioning, or at least the overly simplistic stuff about distorted screens needs removing.  I'll try to do that now. CrispMuncher (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll admit that, in theory, that certainly seems to make sense. However, it seems to me that every time I've seen someone running a 1280x1024 desktop on a 4:3 monitor, all of the letters would look a bit too tall and thin (which, in retrospect, was probably caused by software that couldn't handle nonsquare pixels). I've also been doing a bit of the game research that I had discussed. Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force offers 1280x960; Star Trek: Elite Force II, Quake III Arena, American McGee's Alice, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and Far Cry offer 1280x1024; Aliens vs. Predator 2 and F.E.A.R. offer nothing between 1152x864 and 1600x1200. I also see 512x384 and 960x720 on a few lists; what's up with those? 71.116.111.36 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Update: All of the Unreal Tournament games offer 1280x1024. UT2k4 and UT3 also offer some 8:5 widescreen options, and 2k4 in particular offers 1024x640, which is missing from that chart thingie. 71.116.111.36 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1280x1024 vs. 1280x960