can someone settle the LCD dot pitch confusion?

[tkim]

ok, i just thought dp was dp...smaller the better. however, everyone keeps on saying something else and so know i am friggin confused. here's something off ben's site that someone posted

"#1 - To answer one of your questions, pitch is a completely irrelevant measurement on an LCD monitor. It is simply the width of the screen (in millimeters) divided by the horzontal resolution (in pixels). Better to look at the screen size and the resolution when selecting an LCD monitor, not the "pitch." "

is this right? if not can someone settle this please??!!!??? thanks dudes!

 

[tkim]

bump^^

 

[gsaldivar]

"...[dot] pitch is a completely irrelevant measurement on an LCD monitor..."

This is a correct statement.

"Dot pitch" used to be a measurement of display sharpness, but doesn't really apply to LCD screens.

This definition of "dot pitch" might help you to understand *why* this measurement can't be applied to LCD screens:

"...The dot pitch specification for a display monitor tells you how sharp the displayed image can be. The dot pitch is measured in millimeters (mm) and a smaller number means a sharper image. In desk top monitors, common dot pitches are .31mm, .28mm, .27mm, .26mm, and .25mm. Personal computer users will usually want a .28mm or finer. Some large monitors for presentation use may have a larger dot pitch (.48mm, for example). Think of the dot specified by the dot pitch as the smallest physical visual component on the display. A pixel is the smallest programmable visual element and maps to the dot if the display is set to its highest resolution. When set to lower resolutions, a pixel encompasses multiple dots.

Technically, in a cathode ray tube (CRT) display with a shadow mask, the dot pitch is the distance between the holes in the shadow mask, measured in millimeters (mm). The shadow mask is a metal screen filled with holes through which the three electron beams pass that focus to a single point on the tube's phosphor surface. In CRTs that use an aperture grill (a slotted form of mask), such as Sony's Trinitron flat-screen technology, the dot pitch is the difference between adjacent slots that pass through an electron beam of the same color...."

 

[Gosharkss]

All LCD monitors are fixed resolution devices because the pixel pitch multiplied by the resolution defines the screen size of the LCD monitor. LCD monitors use a matrix of cells so the pixels are in a fixed location and therefore define the native resolution of the monitor.

Pixel pitch is like the dot pitch on a CRT, the closer together the pixels the less blocky diagonal lines look. Tighter pixel pitch is usually preferred.

Even though the two technologies are difficult to compare, the basic premise that smaller dot pitch and pixel pitch for a given resolution would be better. A better comparison is the difference between an 18.1? (pixel pitch = .28) and a 17.4? (pixel pitch = .27). Will you see the difference, some people will other will not, it comes down to personal choice. All else equal, I would always take a monitor with tighter dot / pixel pitch.

 

[CZroe]

Compare a 1024x768 display to a 1600x1200 display in the same line of notebooks (Toshiba Satellite S501 and Sattellite S601) and you'll notice:
You can see the lines that make up the squares in each display, meaning they take up a measurable & visible area of the screen. The 1024x768 display is MULTITUDES clearer and brighter, despite the lower resolution! This is because the lines (Distance between pixels) remain just as large, while there are now many times more lines to make up a higher pixel count. This dulls the entire display! Tis is the only thing wrong with their P4-M s607 line, because you can't choose a lower resolution display (1600x1200 is too high for a 15.1" viewable screen anyway).