Template talk:Monitor resolutions

Additional Resolutions

Should the following be merged into the current monitor resolution table?

Computer Standard	Resolution	Ratio	Ratio (Decimal)	Pixels
SXGA- (succeeds XGA+)	1280×960	4:3	1.3333	1.2M

QXGA	2048×1536	4:3	1.3333	3.1M
WQXGA	2560×1600	16:10	1.6	4.1M
QSXGA	2560×2048	5:4	1.25	5.2M
WQSXGA	3200×2048	25:16	1.5625	6.6M
QUXGA	3200×2400	4:3	1.3333	7.7M
WQUXGA	3840×2400	16:10	1.6	9.2M

HXGA	4096×3072	4:3	1.3333	12.6M
WHXGA	5120×3200	16:10	1.6	16.4M
HSXGA	5120×4096	5:4	1.25	21M
WHSXGA	6400×4096	25:16	1.5625	26M
HUXGA	6400×4800	4:3	1.3333	31M
WHUXGA	7680×4800	16:10	1.6	37M

-Ice Ardor (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible percentages

In this chart we show a negative percentage as a comparison value between two whole integers. It's mathematical nonsense. It should be fixed, I will look at this later and try to correct when I have some time. —fudoreaper (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily nonsense. Depends on how exactly you're reading the table; specifically, which resolution (the one in the row or the one in the column) you're taking the percentage of. For instance, for WXGA and WUXGA, the -120% means that the difference from WUXGA to WXGA is -120% of WXGA's pixel count; the - sign means that WUXGA is larger. It's perhaps a bit unintuitive, but not nonsense.

If consensus is that this should be changed, then the fix is to simply flip the percentages across the diagonal, preserving the signs. So the -120% for WXGA and WUXGA would become -54%, meaning that WXGA (the row) = WUXGA (the column) - 54% of WUXGA. And across the diagonal would be +120%, meaning that WUXGA (the row) = WXGA (the column) + 120% of WXGA. Now that I'm typing it out, that does make more sense.

Another option is to show the percentage of the two resolutions, not the difference between them. So WXGA would be 46% of WUXGA, and WUXGA would be 220% of WXGA. Then the signs wouldn't be needed at all. Indrek (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Relative_change_and_difference -> (x - xr)/xr -> x/xr - 1 -> cannot be less than -1. Someone completely misunderstood how to calculate those. 69.70.84.26 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fixed using a spreadsheet to insure validity.184.163.250.6 (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work on this. The chart looks reasonable and understandable to me now. Good work! —fudoreaper (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]