Monitor effective size

Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology

You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology

Thread images: 8

Anonymous

Monitor effective size 2016-01-23 18:36:03 Post No. 52580898

[Report] Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]

Monitor effective size 2016-01-23 18:36:03 Post No. 52580898

[Report] Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]

I'd like to buy this product: http://www.acer.com/ac/en/GB/content/model/UM.HX3EE.001

Is there a way to know what are the dimensions (in centimeters) of the height and weight of the display?

>>

Measure it

>>

>>52580913

I don't have it. I'm planning to buy it.

So there's no way other than measure it, right?

>>

>>52580898

from reichelt.de

>viewable screen size; 69 cm. viewable screen size; 27 Inch.

>>

>>52580898

59.77cm × 33.62cm (23.53" × 13.24")

also learn math.

>>

>>52580941

no, you can enlarge your penis, cut it 2x the sizes of the length. tape them together in a rectangle and there you have it

>>

>>52580898

DPI too low.

Either go 23" 1080p or 27" 1440p.

>>

>>52581355

learn math? I know the pitagora's theorem, man.

But I just have "d". How am I supposed to calc it?

>>

>>52581429

16/9 or 4/3

You have all the information you need.

>>

>>52581429

You also have a ratio of 16:9.

>>

>>52581429

by not being stupid as fuck maybe

your question is like "how do i use google"

>>

>>52581429

> learn math

It says right there.

>>

>>52581444

Okay, I didn't take that into account. Thank you!

>>52581441

You could have been less "offensive", no?

>>

To everyone who says learn math:

I didn't take into account the ratio.

OK?

>>52581501

I don't.

>>

>>52581429

trigonometry nigga, sohcahtoa and all that sheeeit

>>

>>52581507

If you really, actually, don't have an arts degree, you're an more of an embarrassment than is possible to put across in words. It would be slightly permissible if you did.

>>

>>52581507

>I know math, I just don't know how to use it!

>>

>>52581429

retard

>>

>>52581530

clap clap.

>>

>>52581405

where did you read the DPI info?

>>

>>52581485

>You could have been less "offensive", no?

It's not offensive. It's didactic.

>>

>>52580898

OK, if you promise to stop being a nigger in the future, I'll tell you how to do it.

Go here: sven.de/dpi

Put in 1920, 1080, 27 and get the dimensions and DPI.

>>

>>52581587

First of all, I'm a glorious intellectual and not some retarded pleb.

Second, I didn't read it, I calculated it like you were supposed to do if you knew math.

>>

Ok. I'll post my calcs, since you claim I'm a retard.

|c=27

-|c^2=a^2+b^2 => b=sqrt(c^2-a^2)

|a=b*9/16

a=sqrt(c^2-a^2)*9/16 => a^2=(c^2-a^2)*(9/16)^2 => a^2=c^2*(9/16)^2-a^2**(9/16)^2 =>

=> a^2+a^2*(9/16)^2=c^2*(9/16)^2 => a^2 [1+(9/16)^2]=c^2*(9/16)^2 =>

=> a^2 = c^2*(9/16)^2 / ([1+(9/16)^2]) => a = c*(9/16)/(sqrt(1+(9/16)^2))

a = 27*(9/16)/(sqrt(1+(9/16)^2)) = 13.2370534701 =>

=> b=sqrt(27^2-13.2370534701^2) = 23.5325395024

>>

>>52581811

have a cookie.

>>

>>52581704

Also: since you're a glorious intellectual, you should know that those are properly called PPI, not DPI, since monitors don't have points but pixels (yes, I've googled it and I'm learning...but...you're a glorious intellectual!).

>>

>>52581593

Are you this didactic in bed too, anon? T-teach me a lesson senpai.

>>

>>52580898

...Am I missing something here? It literally has the specs in the link posted

>>

>>52580898

idiot

>>52582538

ikr

>>

>>52582613

Actually that's the size of the entire monitor (w/o the stand), so the frame too. That's why it's larger.

And thanks for the "idiot" -.-

>>

>>52582408

nice meme

>>52582613

more of a retard than OP. it was tough but you sure did it.

>>

>>52582507

Are you a guy with a feminine penis?

>>

Since I'm gonna use this monitor to read and rarely watch videos, are 81.59 PPI good enough?

>>

>>52583210

Otherwise, as suggested, I should go for a 27" 1440p, with 108.79 PPI. Does it change a lot?

>>

>>52583210

not for reading

better for videos

At first I thought you were trolling but this is retard week-end so clearly a genuine question.

>>

>>52583109

I'm what ever you want me to be papi

>>

>>52583363

Not for reading but yes for videos. Are you serious?

>>

>>

>>52583420

What?

Can you just answer in a clear way, please?

>>

>>52583391

do you play tribes?

>>

>>52583460

Sorry about that, I'm fapping right now. Once I finish and clean my fingers I'll be more explicit.

>>

>>52583466

No, but I like to play.

>>

>>52583391

pics

>>

>>52583509

Come on, seriously!:)

>>

>>52583825

Detailed questions get detailed answers.

>>

>>52583933

So a 27" 1440p would be good for reading and watching some video (not pretending an excellent quality, of course) ?

>>

>>52584084

4K for reading. Everything <4K is pleb-tier in 2016 and going forward.

>>

>>52584084

27" 1080p has big pixels. So big that text looks a bit blocky.

23" 1080p has the same number of pixels but they are smaller so text is more crisp.

27" 1400p has more pixels and they are even smaller which makes it better for reading.

Of course if pixels are too small text will be unreadable and you have to change the resolution in the OS to something less than the actual resolution of the display, and the OS must have support for scaling (win10 does this ok. not great but ok). This is true for let's say a 23" 4k monitor.

23" 1080p or 27" 1400p are just about right. Pixels are not too big and not too small.

All of the above work well for video.

The best thing to do is to go into a store and look at a 27" monitor with 1080p and one with 1440p and see the difference and decide which you like more.

>>

>>52584183

I think it's too much. I now have a 141 PPI and it's fine. A 27" (16:9) 4K would have about 200 PPI.

>>

>>52584350

Thank you for the reply.

Just one thing: why would the text be unreadable if the pixels are too small? Shouldn't it be always better?

Excuse-me, I'm just trying to learn.

>>

>>52584350

You forget workspace that comes with higher resolution.

>>

>>52584362

>I think it's too much

>>

>>52584467

If pixels are very very small and the desktop resolution is set to the maximum (native) resolution of the display then the text will be very small.

The characters will be too small to read, unless your eyeballs are very close to the monitor.

>>52584470

never forget

High resolution also means more stuff (windows) can fit on your desktop but if pixels are too small everything will be very small so DPI is important.

You need to increase display size in tandem with the number of pixels

or use a different resolution than the native resolution (if you have lots of pixels and small display)

or you're screwed (if you have a small number of pixels on a large display) .

>>

>>52584624

Ok. Clear now. Thank you! :)

>>

>>52581429

The monitor is 27" inches so this must be true:

h^2+w^2=729

We know the aspect ratio of the monitor and therefore:

w/16=h/9

Isolate h:

h=9w/16=.5625w

We can substitute that in into Pythagorean.

w^2+(.5625w)^2=729 which simplifies to 1.316w^2=729"

729/1.316=~554=w^2, square root that to get w = 23.53"

23.53/16=h/9, therefore height = 13.24"

>>

>>52584999

>tries to explain math

>uses stupid units instead of metric

way to go retard

>>

>>52585063

The monitor is already displayed advertised in imperial units. Converting everything to metric would just add more calculations.

>>

>>52580898

cool op. it is well known that 5^2 = 4^2 + 3^2 is.

4^2 = 16

3^2 = 9

guess which ratio the monitor has. 16:9.

we know that 5^2 which usually is 25 is now replaced with 68.6 cm as it says in the description. we know divide 68.6 through 25 and get 2.744.

now we 16 * 2.744 and 9 * 2.744 and get 43.904 and 24.696 cm for length and height. just to see if thats correct

b = 43.904 cm

a = 24.969 cm

d = 68.6 cm

>>

>>52584999

>>52587002

You guys are both idiots.

Let x be the unit 16 and 9 are multiplied by to get final dimensions:

(16x)^2+(9x)^2=729 simplifies to 337x^2=729

x^2=729/337=2.1632

x=sqrt(2.1632)=1.4708

16x=23.53

9x=13.237

Thread images: 8

Thread DB ID: 475356

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.

If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's