Screen resolution question

[mango]

I posted a question a couple weeks ago about why there aren't any 32" 1080P displays. Then, in September's issue of Consumer Reports I read that the new laptops from Sony and Toshiba with Blu-Ray and HD DVD players have 1920x1200, aka WUXGA, resolution. What does this mean? How does this protocol relate to the 1920x1080P designation in the television display market? Is this apples and oranges?

 

[MDS]

The resolution refers to the number of pixels ('picture element') on the screen. Each pixel is actually a triad of 3 dots - red, blue, and green. 1920 x 1200 means there are 1920 pixels on each horizontal line and 1200 pixels on each vertical line. This is the same for TVs and computer monitors but only the computer industry makes up names for the resolutions (eg. 640 x 480 is 'VGA').

1920 x 1200 is a greater resolution than 1920 x 1080. The 'p' designates progressive scan and is not related to the resolution - it refers to how the image is drawn. A progressive scan display draws every line in sequence as opposed to an interlaced display which draws all the even lines first and then all the odd lines. A CRT TV is interlaced but all 'high-def' TVs are progressive and there are no computer monitors of any kind in existence any more that are interlaced.

The aspect ratio of a display is the ratio of width to height. 1920 x 1080 is an aspect ratio of 16:9 (1.78:1) - the preferred ratio for viewing movies. 1920 x 1200 is an aspect ratio of 16:10 - a bit wider. Incidentally movies are filmed at aspect ratios ranging from 1.78:1 to 2.35:1.

Because there are a fixed number of pixels on the screen, the display must scale any image that does not match its native resolution. A typical widescreen format of a movie is already in a 16:9 aspect ratio and won't need to be scaled on a display that is 1920 x 1080 whereas it will have to be scaled on a display that is 1920 x 1200.

Sony often uses 'strange' resolutions like 1366 x 768, which is a bit wider AND taller than 1280 x 720 (which would be '720p'). On such a display, every single image will have to be scaled up to fit a picture with fewer pixels onto the display with a larger number of pixels.

 

[mango]

Thanks for putting things in perspective MDS. I have a somewhat vague understanding of this subject, and every time I read a well presented description, I feel like I have a better understanding of it. Your answer does beg a few questions in my mind: 1) Is 1200P going to be the new "holy grail" after 1080P?
2) I originally thought one of the reasons there were no 32" 1080P displays was that it was difficult to fit them on a smaller screen. The fact that computer displays are being produced with 1200 vertical lines of pixels disputes that assertion, right?
3) Why can't companies that make displays just get together and normalize these resolution issues into one simple protocol that makes the most sense to avoid scaling altogether?