| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3
Comments:
<0> angsty!
<1> gary!!!
<2> hello
<3> hello adidas\\\
<1> hey adidas
<2> is this good? www.ionet.com/temp/oula/index.html
<4> hey percy
<5> hey
<6> hey
<5> what's up
<6> oh just relaxing.. doing some icon sketches and enjoy the quiet night
<7> the quiet swedish night
<6> mm
<8> aaaagghhhh my cats are crazed
<9> hello
<7> hey rubber
<9> ei rubik
<9> whats happening on the north
<7> just had a bunch of beers
<7> so im rather wobbly
<7> how bout you?
<9> heh
<9> i'm currently trying to write a condoloscene message for a good old friend of mine.. his mom just p***ed away earlier today
<9> but see, i haven't even talked to him for ages .. sounds very .."eh?" for me to just send a message like that out of nowhere
<7> ah i was just at a freinds place whos dad p***ed away
<7> rubber well i think hed appreciate it
<9> i dunno what's wrong with 2006.. two cousins of mine p***ed away and a handful number of others that i know quite well
<7> a cousin of mine p***ed away
<7> what do you think it is?
<9> well, i mean, it's perfectly understood that as we grow older we would get more death news/year ratio.. but it's disheartening nevertheless
<7> yes they seem to come in waves
<7> im reading up on rfid tech
<9> on what topic
<7> well hacking
<7> various things you can do with unlocked rfid cards
<9> hm. like putting rfid tags on every single little things you owned so you could use a centralised database to look for something
<7> things everybody should know about
<7> us is instituting rfid p***ports soon
<9> yeah .. heard about it @ slashdot couple of months back
<10> if anyone here has a 20" 1680x1050 LCD, would you mind measuring it and telling me exactly how high it is? (just the screen, not the bezel)
<7> i don't have one
<10> then you need not measure it. :-)
<7> ok i won't then
<10> hmmm. if I asked in #math they could probably figure out how high it would be!
<9> rubik, would the term 'busking' commonly used in .ca ?
<7> yes it is
<7> ok so how high is one pixel
<7> then anyone braindead high school student with a cheap calculator could figure it
<9> well.. depends on the monitor viewable size and the resolution
<9> and wheter you have that 1:1 widrh:height pixel ratio or 1:1.6
<7> you know the size and resolution
<7> 20" 1680x1050 LCD
<9> 20" is the size of the monitor or the viewable area of the monitor
<10> computer monitor pixels are always square, I belive (a 1:1 ratio). TVs aren't, but that's another story
<10> rubberturtle: on an LCD they are the same thing
<9> hm. maybe. but there's always the grey area of the edge of the monitor..
<10> unfortunately it's been a while since I was a braindead high school student. my geometry is rusty ;-)
<9> um. when you say 20" is that diagonal or the width of the monitor?
<10> monitors are always measred by their diagonal size
<10> measured*
<9> challenging. gimme asec to make some wild guess
<9> square root of ( (1680x)*(1680x) + (1050x)*(1050x*)) = 20 inch. find x for the width of a pixel
<7> pixel and good luck and good night
<10> heh... that would be another way. look on a monitor's spec sheet for the dot pitch then multiply it by 1050
<9> well.. i get 0.010095217[,,,] inch per pixel
<10> 10.599978 inches. that doesn't sound right.
<9> and i tested it out to get the width of the monitor, and it came out around 16.9 inch .. so that sounds ok
<9> hm
<9> i dunno then..
<9> that's the problem with software engineers :) we don't calculate things numerically
<10> the people in #math sort of helped... but I don't understand their answer :< and I'm embarr***ed to tell them :P
<9> what do you want to find out anyway? the height of a monitor?
<10> yeah
<10> <qed> (16x)^2 + (10x)^2 = 20^2 => 256x^2 + 100x^2 = 400 => 356x^2 = 400 => x = sqrt(400/356)
<10> <qed> thus the height is 10*sqrt(400/356)
<9> well, i'm on the same path as him, but why did he use 16x and 10x? we were talking about 1680 and 1050
<10> because that's a 16:10 ratio
<9> so if you want to get the result, (using his calculation), you still have to make x times 100 to get the width of a pixel
<10> I think he's working out the size of the screen, not the size of the pixels
<10> number of pixels is irrelevant
<9> and you get, 0.0105... which is quite close to mine
<10> I think yours *was* close, just not quite right
<9> you get 11.129 for the height
<9> (if using his calc.)
<10> ok...
<10> still sounds a little low, but closer to what I'd expect
<9> heh. better still, find out the make of the monitor
<9> then google it for its website, and find the right model/make, then get the spec :)
<10> all monitors with the same specs should be identically sized (or close enough to identical)
<9> no way
<10> CRT, no. LCD, yes
<10> remember, I'm talking about the screen size nly, not the bezel
<9> and that's the problem
<10> why is that a problem?
<9> imo, no matter crt nor lcd, the bezel is different from makers
<10> huh?
<10> the bezel is completely irrelevant
<10> I *only* need to find the size of the screen itself
<9> the standard size for monitor is , 17", 19", 20", 21" , etc.. that includes the bezel
<10> no it doesn't
<9> strange. that's what i thought.
<10> for LCDs the measurement is the size of the panel, which is equal to display area. for CRTs it's the size of the tube (excluding the bezel), and usually the viewable area is listed as well
<9> never heard about it, and i never purchased any lcd monitors even tho i used it before, so i never actually pay notice this
<9> lemme recalculate this thing again :) it's sorta a fun thing to do for me at this point :)
<10> I'm about to purchase my first LCD and I want to plan ahead for when I have three screens in the future. I'd like them all to be as close as possible to the same height, and also the same number of pixels vertically. I might do this by buying 1400x1050 20" screens, or by buying two more like the one I'm planning on getting. not sure yet. I might even just buy three completely new screens when I'm rich.
<10> the problem with three screens is it results in an extremely elongated display area, and with widescreen monitors this becomes even worse
<10> unless, of course, they pivot. three widescreen displays pivoted 90 degrees would be great! :)
<9> so you might ended up getting three different monitors from different makers ?
<9> that alone would ruin the aesthetics of the display :)
<10> well, if this one I'm looking at pivots I may well end up getting two more the same
<10> I was going to get a 20" widescreen (I'd have preferred a 4:3, but the only one I can find that does 1600x1200 is hundreds of dollars more than the widescreens), then I found this new 22" widescreen (same res as the 20").
<10> I'm also still waiting for NVIDIA or ATi to bring out a card that actally supports three monitors. I can't possibly be the only one who sees the potential for gaming on triple screens
<9> hm. with the left and right angled at 50 degree toward the centre, and you're sitting in the middle with swivling chair
<10> wouldn't really need to swivel, just glancing left and right would be sufficient
<9> i wonder why the vr goggle never 'finished'
<9> i remember testing magic carpet (back on 94 or 96 iirc) using a prototype vr goggle
<10> it would result in a display approximately 35" wide including the inner bezels. the Dell 24" widescreen is narrow enough to comfortably view without moving your head, and if the flanking screens were angled inwards I think they'd still be viewable without strain
<10> also the stuff on the very edges wouldn't really be important
<10> vr is an interesting idea, but it has major drawbacks
<9> if they managed to do it, it would be cheaper than buying a 3(or more monitors) to create the 'surroundfulness'
<9> not to mention the vertical movement
<10> having the POV adjust to match your head movement is all well and good, but it's not that useful. you still can't actually walk around
<10> they do have headsets, but they're NOT cheap. they cost thousands of dollars for a monochrome 1024x768 set.
<10> or a few hundred for ones that are... 320x240 or thereabouts
<10> (full colour)
<9> yeap.. i was using the 320x240 variants prototype for the magic carpet i was talking about earlier
<9> it was fun for 5 minutes then i got sick
<9> 320x240 is nowhere near 'natural' representation
<10> if I had a choice between goggles at 320x240 or 3 screens at a combined res of 3150*1680 for the same price, I know what I'd choose :P
<10> even if the goggles were 1024x768, still not really enough
<9> if it was 1024, i would consider it
<10> plus, I tried one of those headsets once. the design was terrible. it could not be adjusted to fit your head properly, so light kept leaking in and ruining it
<9> yeah.. as i said before.. it's a shame they couldn't finish 'making' it properly
<9> i wonder how you represent a 3rd person pov using a headset.. that would look awkward i sppose
<10> I did see a rather interesting device on TV recently. it's a large spherical metal cage which rolls in all directions without moving away from its stand. you can use it to 'walk' through a VR world
<10> main problem is it costs several hundred thousand dollars
<9> heh. yeah i've seen it.. i was doing uni at that time and i took a unrelated cl*** of virtual reality and augmented reality and our group was prototyping something like that, then the teacher pointed out that it was already made :)
<10> nice
<9> i'm very interested in how developers (and gamers) would use the wii controller
<9> and we'll see if it would evolve the gaming paradigm
<10> oooh! I saw something else as well... a very large touchscreen (or rather a touch-sensitive overlay that can be used on any flatscreen) which records multiple contact points, and it's EXTREMELY cheap. like $100 for a 50" overlay.
<9> is it one of the big tablet variant?
<10> you could, for example, put it over an LCD or plasma TV and play a two person game on it with a single overlay
<9> oh. you said overlay.. no wonder it's cheap :)
<9> because i saw mitsubishi's flat panel with tablet functionality and that ain't nowhere close to 100$ :)
<10> yeah, when I was watching the presentation I was thinking "great, if you're a millionaire", then when it said the price my jaw hit the floor
<9> anyway.. good luck with your pixelcounting quest. i'm off. later
<10> it's very simple really, two sheets of perspex with some sort of light (lasers?) shining between them in a grid pattern, and sensors reading the light at the other end. when you apply pressure it blocks some of the light by flexing the perspex, and the sensors read the pattern of blocking
<10> thanks :)
<11> morning
Return to
#photoshop
or
Go to some related
logs:
#india
#india
Akshe Khana
dj krish
#worldchat
#php
#india
#allnitecafe
zbouba.com
what is my hwid
|
|