Talk:Graphics display resolution
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Threads older than 365 days may be archived by .
Computer–graphics merge proposalEdit
I understand that the issues overlap, but if VGA (as in the IBM PC standard/card) can both have it's own page - and at the same time have a segment in this article called "Video Graphics Array" which explains supported resolutions - why not for Extended Graphics Array (XGA)?
The merged section here called "Extended Graphics Array" is a complete FUBAR mess at it stands right now, with sections containing both information about the IBM PC standard/graphics card and tables and sections about resolutions.
It should be split up so Extended Graphics Array does not redirect here, has it's own page regarding the standard origin and IBM PC card - and a much slimmer section here with tables and notes on the resolutions going under this name.
Another improvement would be cross-linking the freestanding technical/origin/IBM hardwardare info pages for VGA, XGA etc.. with their respective resolution info here.
So top of VGA here has link:
"See Video Graphics Array for the IBM standard concerning their PC graphics cards."
and under XGA resolutions:
"Extended Graphics Array for the IBM standard concerning their PC graphics cards."
This faulty merger/redirect had me quite upset, I was reading about the IBM and following the story behind MGA, CGA, VGA, XGA... boom - totally different content - not relevant at all. Who asked for resolution specifications/tables...? Not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I can't be sure this wasn't me a few months ago, but I don't remember doing it and the writing style seems different (maybe I was drunk?), and I've just run into the same problem whilst trying to link another article to one about the XGA card (which was an actual thing, following on from the 8514/A, as was the XGA-2), and, whilst doing due diligence to make sure it didn't go to a disambiguation page with other terms using the same acronym, ended up here. Disappointing, and indeed annoying. I can link to the 8514 article (which is itself mistitled, as it talks about the 8514/A... the "8514" is a monitor, not a graphics card), but that doesn't have any relevant subsections for what I was actually trying to link so someone following it would still be slightly wrongfooted until they got the gist of the entire article. Plus it does rather seem like there must have been a separate page for it at some point (a la VGA) which has been zapped, or at least merged in/redirected to this one instead of into the 8514 article which would be the correct approach. All that and the 8514 link here is quite well hidden within the XGA section body text, and that still bangs on at length about the hardware itself instead of being, as per the rest of the page in general, about the resolutions alone. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I note that the Hyper Extended Graphics Array (HXGA) section doesn't have a single source. Are there any references for these names? It appears that it has been there since the page was created (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graphics_display_resolution&oldid=379274038), but as far as I can tell they are basically just made up... GlenwingKyros (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think 60 days is sufficient, I will be removing this section in a week or so due to lack of verifiability. GlenwingKyros (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- The only reference to HXGA in an actual physical device I managed to find was this, and that's a camera. For displays, HXGA seems to be an entirely theoretical family of resolutions, probably achieved by stacking multiple lower-resolution displays, and I've no objections to removing that section. Indrek (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
How many colors can be displayed simultaneously in SXGA?Edit
How many colors can be displayed simultaneously in 1280×1024 Super Extended Graphics Array? — Preceding comment signature by an anonymous user: 2403:6200:8937:17B8:E825:6F1:3239:3736 (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- As many as your graphics card (and monitor, and cable standard) has the memory, bandwidth, DAC width and physical display depth for.
- If you're after a concrete example, 4MB of VRAM is sufficient to provide 24-bit colour (3 bytes/pixel x 1280 x 1024 = 3.75MB), and 100MHz of video / memory bandwidth (assuming at least a 24, preferably 32-bit or wider datapath = 300~400MB/s) is just enough to scrape a 60Hz progressive scan (at 62.5kHz line rate) with typical blanking margins. Though a lot of early 1280x1024 LCDs wouldn't have been able to show that with full fidelity as they, like a lot of early LCD TVs based on the same technology, could only physically produce an 18-bit colour depth (6 bits / 64 levels per R/G/B channel = 262,144 total, sufficient for VGA-grade and typical 256- or hi-color modes but not truecolor), maybe with a bit of hardware-generated temporal and spatial dithering to give an imperfect impression of 1 or 2 extra bits/channel.
- If you've only got 1MB to play with, you're stuck with a 4bpp / 16-colour mode. Or if you have a suitably fancy graphics card (say, an early CAD-focussed model) you might get 6bpp/64 colours, or 3bpp/8 colours with 512kB (and/or lower memory bandwidths that force a tradeoff between resolution and colour depth, TTL signalling that limits total colour range to 2/8/16/64 rather than the infinite range possible with analogue, a very early flatpanel that can only produce 8/512/4096 colours, etc). 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)