1280x1024 makes no sense to me

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Petros, Apr 20, 2004.

  1. Petros

    Petros Thief IV

    Messages:
    3,038
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    I was reading a forum where people were in an uproar about wether or not 1280x1024 is a proper screen resolution. I submit that it is not.

    Your average monitor has a 4:3 aspect ratio, but then you run it at a 4:3.2 resolution, so everything is squashed taller when you cram it into a narrower screen to fit. It's like playing a widescreen movie on a TV and stretching it to fit the screen.

    Does 1280x1024 not make any sense to anyone else?

    Try playing NBA 2004 at 1280x1024 and see what I mean. The players all look anorexic...
     
  2. Electronic Punk

    Electronic Punk Administrator Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    18,590
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Aren't basketball players completely out of proportion anyway ? :)
     
  3. Lee

    Lee OSNN Proxy

    What does ''Unwonted'' mean?
     
  4. Petros

    Petros Thief IV

    Messages:
    3,038
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest

    Out of the ordinary. A little odd... ;)
     
  5. SPeedY_B

    SPeedY_B I may actually be insane.

    Messages:
    15,800
    Location:
    Midlands, England
    1280x1024 isn't a standard 4:3 resolution, 1280x960 is the correct resolution when comparing to 1024x768 / 800x600 / 640x480 / 1600x1200 and so on. But at the end of the day, not all monitors are 4:3, some newer TFT's (mainly 17") are built to 5:4 and utilise 1280x1024 as their native resolution.

    My display is widescreen, and uses 16:10 1680x1050 as its native resolution, and as you can imagine, 4:3 looks **** and stretched. For most people though, the monitor they stare at all day will likely be 4:3 and therefore 1280x1024 is incorrect.
     
  6. Lee

    Lee OSNN Proxy

    Well ''Unwonted'', my tft goes to a max of 1024x768 pixels, I find that even too big.

    I have yet to have the pleasure of viewing anything smaller, than this resolution.

    Maybe in a few years when I can afford to, I will be able to see 1280x1024!
     
  7. onimkron

    onimkron OSNN Senior Addict

    Messages:
    414
    I never really noticed any difference, I usually use 1280x1024 for 19" montiors, whenever I see one. I've never tried it for games though, since I don't think my computer could cope with games at that res :)

    Most desktop wallpapers seem to be 1280x1024 as well- guess it's a more popular choice?
     
  8. Xie

    Xie - geek - Subscribed User Folding Team

    Messages:
    5,275
    Location:
    NY, USA
    I run 1024x768 .. anything larger just seems odd to me .. though if I had a larger monitor (running a 19") or a widescreen then I could probably cope better w/ higher resolution.
     
  9. indyjones

    indyjones OSNN.net Adventurer

    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    England
    I have a 19" and use 1280*960
     
  10. Geffy

    Geffy Moderator Folding Team

    Messages:
    7,805
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I have a 17" TFT at 1280x1024, and everything looks fine to me, granted though most games now support it to some degree or another, and the fact that I work more at my PC than game probably helps as well. Regardless really your eyes will translate everything into something comfortable at the same time it is turning everything the other way up.
     
  11. Kendrilanthis

    Kendrilanthis OSNN Junior Addict

    Messages:
    25
    I use 1280x1024 when I game or whatever and I find everything looks perfectly fine and it is easy on my eyes. Nothing looks off to me....
     
  12. homesick1337

    homesick1337 Computer Lover

    Messages:
    129
    Location:
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    I have a 21 inch and anything smaller then 2048x1536 looks odd to me and to ugly. I love the quality and can't go back. Now if only more games would support my resolution...
     
  13. pipdipchip

    pipdipchip OSNN Junior Addict

    Messages:
    11
    I'm not expert at screens but I think you're thinking of that res as if it were a TV image. Of course, on TV the res is already set and if you change it, it may look funny. On a computer however, you don't have to move a certain object bigger and just add to it. For example, thing of your taskbar. If your res is a little wider than taller, all your computer or Windows in this case has to do is increase the task bar space. Right?
     
  14. Admiral Michael

    Admiral Michael Michaelsoft Systems CEO Folding Team

    I have a Samsung 17inch CRT (see sig) and I run 1152x864. I like it, not sure what ratio that is tho.
     
  15. SPeedY_B

    SPeedY_B I may actually be insane.

    Messages:
    15,800
    Location:
    Midlands, England
    Wrong, screen items don't adapt, they're a set size of pixels.

    Admiral Michael, 17" CRT is likely to be 4:3, the res you're using is 4:3, so if everything looks fine, hoorah :)
     
  16. Graebob

    Graebob Generally Random

    Messages:
    241
    Location:
    Middlesbrough, UK
    I have a sh*tbox 15" Axion monitor running 1024x768 in full FUZZY VISION(tm). What do you expect for a monitor that only cost £10? :D
     
  17. Abbadon2001

    Abbadon2001 OSNN Addict

    Messages:
    119
    Location:
    UK, Leicestershire
    Same for me, wonder who suggested that one to me.... :rolleyes:
     
  18. indyjones

    indyjones OSNN.net Adventurer

    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    England
    Heheh you do listern from time to time then :p
     
  19. generalleoff

    generalleoff I Use MS Paint

    Messages:
    15
    Location:
    United States
    The reselutions I prefer to use include:

    640x480 (NTSC 4:3, HDTV 4:3)
    576x768 (PAL 4:3)
    800x600 (Res I drop to when watching movies that are larger then PAL or NTSC but smaller then my primary reselution 4:3)
    1024x768 (Primary running reselution My desktop is at this most of the time 4:3)
    1280x960 (HDTV 4:3)
    1440x1080 (HDTV 4:3)
    848x480 (HDTV 16:9 Note: Not a true 16:9 aspect but is accept by HDTV spec)
    1280x720 (HDTV 16:9)
    1920x1080 (HDTV 16:9)

    1280x1024 is a very populer re****ion but it definitly is not a valid 4:3 (1280/1024=1.25) aspect however as was stated before in thsi thread not everything is a 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio. the most common is 4:3 but it;s not uncomon to find screens with a 5:4 or a 16:10 aspect along with 4:3 and 16:9

    Some examples of 5:4 aspects are 640x512, 720x576, 800x640, 960x768, 1200x960, and of cource 1280x1024.

    Some examples of 16:10 aapects are 576x360, 640x400, 720x450, 768x480, 960x600, 1024x640, and 1280x800

    using a res with an aspect ratio not supported by yer monitor can cuase deforming in the image but this is veary easy to correct by adjusting the controlls on the monitor or adjusting the re****ion with a program called powerstrip (the way I do it).
    0
    Power Strip alows me to use 16:9 aspect ratios on my 13 year old 4:3 Gayeway CrysyalScan with a proper aspect ratio (no deforming and strething). Sure I get black borders but hell it works.

    some simple math for those that want to know varios ways to calculate an aspect ratio:

    First we will asume you know the vertical reselution. 480 for example. If you want to find the corect horavantal reselution for a give aspect ratio you just do this.

    480*4/3=640 valid 4:3 aspect ratio (no fractions)
    480*5/4=600 valid 5:4 aspect
    480*16/9=853.333333333333 there is no true 16:9 aspect for 480 and this res would just be rounded to the nearst whole number.
    480*16/10=768 valid 16:10 aspect

    This math works the same backwards assuming you know the horazantal reselution but not the vertical.

    640/4*3=480

    If you want to find the decimel version of the aspect just do this:

    640/480=1.333333333333 (1.333:1 or 4:3)
    640/512=1.250000000000 (1.250:1 04 5:4)
    640/360=1.777777777778 (1.778:1 or 16:9)
    640/400=1.600000000000 (1.600:1 or 16:10)

    some comon aspect ratios you will run into in movies are:
    1.332 (yes 1.332), 1.444, 1.555, 1.667 (european films in the 60's and 70's mostly), 1.850 (most common), 2.000, 2.200, 2.350 (second most common), 2.780 (only used a few times way back in the day and I may have it wrong here)

    As for windows adjusting to non spec aspects. yes it will. The OS is pixles based so as a result no mater what aspect you pick it will only use that many pixles. it does not acctualy get any bigger or larger it only looks that way at higher and lower reselutions.

    Windows will scale some elements vertical and horazantal though as needed. The task bar only will ever use say 50 vertical pixles but it can stretch horazantal to ajust for a wider screen without distorting it's image.

    However your windows may seem wrong at none standard reselutions and this can give an illusion that the OS is being squeezed when it is now. You can adjust the windows sizes to your liking just by grabing the edges and strething them back out again. also you can adjust your minitors controlls or use power strip to cimpinsate. This is mostly a persived distortion rather then an acctual distortion tohugh and the adjustments made to your controlls or with power strip will infact be wrong but they may look corect to your eyes. Humans tend to see things funny. For most people if they stare at a 1:1 image it will have a illusion of being taller then it is wide when it's really the same on all 4 sides. This is why 4:3 looks square when it is definitly a rectangle.

    Your wallpaper however will only be able to desplay at it;s native aspect ratio and it WILL look distorted on a none standard aspect as it is a fixed aspect ratio image. The same is true for video games.if they are built to be played at a spacific aspect ratio and they arnt given the ability to adjust the image to compinsate (there based on a fixed aspect) for non standard ratios then they will look destorted just like your wallpaper will.

    I guess I should not be using "none standard" sence 4:3 is a standard aspect just not a standard 4:3 aspect. Anyway i'm rambling now and proly starting to error so i'll stop. Hopw this long bit of bad spelling and grammar is usfull to somone :)
     
  20. patrick

    patrick OSNN Addict

    Messages:
    141
    Yup a good read generalleoff.
    Btw I have a 19" and use 1600×1200. I would try and migrate to a higher res but unfortunately anything above 1600 is only supported at 60hz which is absolute torture on the eyes. Even at the moment the best refresh I can get is 75hz.

    Unwonted, I also agree that 1280×1024 is an annoying out-of-proportion resolution, useless for the majority of us with a 4:3 monitor. I could understand it makes sense if you have a 5:4 monitor but it really bugs me when games do not provide the 4:3 equivelant; 1280×960, so you have to jump all the way up to 1600×1200 and if the game does not run smoothly at that res you have to drop all the way back down to 1152×864. 1280×960 is essential to provide in games as it provides a midpoint between the highest resolution and a medium sized resolution with standard ratios.

    I also came across an incident in which myself and a few friends were working on an important powerpoint presentation using two computers, one of which was my own. Upon viewing the work (on my computer) which had been done on the other system I realised something was wrong. Eventually we discovered that the other system was running a non-standard 5:4 resolution (namely the dreaded 1280×1024) and so amazing image distortions were introduced when we tried to view it on a standard 4:3 res. There should be some sort of a warning that the resolution you are running is a non-standard ratio and as such images will be distorted unless you have a non-standard monitor.

    Patrick