Who uses 1280x1024?

[davidg]

<< Wouldn't it be better if pixels were SQUARE rather than rectangular anyway? >>



They are square on a 4:3 screen running a 4:3 resolution!



<< Perhaps its because my monitor is a bit "WIDE". >>



Wider? That would be going in the other direction. A 5:4 screen is taller than a 4:3 screen.



<< I actually just tried 1280x1024 and compared it to 1280x960 and 1280x960 looks HORRIBLY deformed. Circles become ovals and Squares become Rectangles.

1280x1024 is definitally the better resolution on my monitors. (NEC Multisync 70's) >>



You've got to have that the wrong way. Have you actually measured what you're observing - have you taken a ruler to your monitor to verify what you see?



<< I use 1280x1024@75hz and it looks fine on my viewsonic A90f and yes I tired the 1280x960 or whatever and they both look the same. I just have more space with 1280x1024. >>



Think about it for a minute - they can't be the same. With 1280x1024 you're squeezing more scan lines into the same physical area. Each horizontal line, then, has to be smaller vertically, or they won't all fit. That compresses the image vertically.

Try this: draw a perfect square in an image editor - Microsoft Paint will work. Then measure each side with a ruler, make marks on a piece of paper, whatever. See if the sides of the square are equal in 1280x1024.

 

[spanky]

i run the res and my image is not squashed. well... it was sorta when i first set the res, but i just adjusted the height and width of the pic on the monitor and everything is fine.

 

[Doh!]

I'm glad this was brought up since I've been running at 1280x1024 for the past several years. I just tried 1280x960 & it looks much more comfortable & proportional to the fonts and images. I think I will stick with 1280x960 until I get a better monitor that can do 85hz at 1600x1200.

 

[AA0]

I used 1024x768 for years, and just recently moved up a notch. I first tried 1280x960 but it looked all wrong, squashed, so I moved up to 1280x1024 and it was fine, not squashed at all. Maybe the drivers adjust for it.

 

[worth]

Changing from 1600x1200 to 1280x1024 will not make the pixels flat instead of square.

 

[Akira13]

I never realized that I was running at 5:4 instead of 4:3... I tried switching to 1280x960, but it looks strange. I guess I'll just stay where I am.

 

[davidg]

<< Maybe the drivers adjust for it. >>



No, sorry. If it did, you'd see noticible artifacting from interpolating or aliasing (depending on just how it tried to adjust).



<< Changing from 1600x1200 to 1280x1024 will not make the pixels flat instead of square. >>



Yes it will. Did you try the test I described?

And, I did find out that some high-end CRTs (some Sony's at least) are 5:4. I sure wish they would pick a standard and stick to it!

 

[Huma]

my god. some of you people running 5:4 ratios are freaks.

being a graphics/video type of guy, I can spot non 4:3 res pretty easy (since it looks stupid and distorted). I tried 1280x1024 and couldn't stand the distortion (yes, you f*ckwads, it is distorted on a 4:3 monitor).

You'll notice video is almost always encoded at 4:3 (eg 1280x960, 1024x768) or 16:9, 2.35:1. Watching at 5:4 makes it look all retarded. It would help if d!ck for brain video card manufacturers (ATI) would support 1280x960 properly. LCDs are usually made at 1280x1024 though, but resizing video to fullscreen will still fugly it up if your aspect ratio isn't locked.

I run a modded res of 1440x1080 on my 19"/Gf2. Resolutions divisble by 8 are king (a video/graphics thing).

 

[GozerHozer]

I have been using 1280x1024@85HZ 32bit on my Sony 21" Trinitron for 4 Years now, I I also play all my games with this setting.

For all you who say size doesn't matter... well it DOES....

 

[gimlids]

I knew there was something fishy about that resolution, but I've been too lazy to see what the ratio was. Some newer cards let you do 1280 x 960, which I used a little before I found out that 1280 x 1024 is in fact not 4:3, because it felt better. 1280 x 960 is 4:3.

 

[davidg]

<< I have been using 1280x1024@85HZ 32bit on my Sony 21" Trinitron for 4 Years now, I I also play all my games with this setting.

For all you who say size doesn't matter... well it DOES.... >>

 

[davidg]

[Argh! That simultaneous login & reply bit is annoying!]

IMO, proper aspect matters more than size.

I'm also troubled by the lack of good resolutions between 1024x768 and 1600x1200. I've had to use tweakers and registry hacks just to get 1152x864 on my Radeon!

 

[whalen]

I have a Samsung SyncMaster 955DF @ 1280X1024, and it doesnt looks distorted. Infact, the manufacture even recommends this setting...

 

[davidg]

<< I have a Samsung SyncMaster 955DF @ 1280X1024, and it doesnt looks distorted. Infact, the manufacture even recommends this setting... >>



Curious.

Then it must be distorted at, say, 1024x768. Right? I'd hate to be stuck at 1280x1024 for everything I do!

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I'm no photo editor, but i definitely noticed that images looked squashed at 1280X1024. I now use 1280X960 and am very pleased with the image. It is excellent.

 

[BFG10K]

1280 x 1024 distorts the image and makes everything look fatter than it should and I always use 1280 x 960 which is the correct 4:3 ratio.

Unfortunately a lot of games (especially Quake3 based ones) only offer this resolution between 1152 and 1600 so I'm forced to sometimes use it.

 

[jaybittle]

I used to run at 12x10, but I can't anymore.. the text is way to fuzzy at 12x10 or 12x960, enough to cause really bad eyestrain.. I've had to drop back to 11x8 for the meanwhile, until I can figure out what I want to do with this monitor.. It's an Iiyama, and a really good one at that, but the text is just a little too fuzzy.. Tried dropping the frequency but that didn't work very well..

Could be a video card, so I am going to wait until my Ti4400 comes in and see if it gets better/worse..

cheers,
--jb

 

[MrCoyote]

The easiest way to look for distortion is to scan in a 4x6 picture. Look at the screen and compare it to the picture. 1280x1024 is wrong and should never have been implemented.

Look, and start with 640 by 480 and multiply:

640*2= 1280
480*2= 960

So 1280x960 is the correct mode for all computer monitors built in today's time.
Why manufacturers don't support it, I don't know.

 

[ADxS]

I guess everyone here is North American.

PAL is 5:4. Nothing strange about it.

 

[Peter]

No it isn't. Sez a German. PAL is 768x576 50 Hz interlaced, which is exactly 4:3.

I'm using 1280x960 on 1st monitor and 768x576 100 Hz interlaced on 2nd one, guess what it's for.

nb, TFT displays with 1280x1024 resolution have correct aspect ratio. CRTs, even those old
workstation monitors specifically made for this resolution, don't. I recently tweaked such an old beast
to do 1376x1032 instead, using a handmade display mode with slightly higher pixel clock to keep the
horizontal scan rate constant for this fixed frequency thing. This is where you start loving Linux ...
need a weird custom resolution? Well write down what it's supposed to be like, and there you go.

regards, Peter

 

[LethalWolfe]

<< And as to where 4:3 came from? That's an easy one to answer - all standard definition TV sets are 4:3 aspect ratio. After all, the monitor is just a hybridised television... >>



Actually 4:3 came from film. When TV was introduced filmmakers saw TV as low-brow, scum of the earth entertainment, and they started shooting in wider formats to differenciate<sp?> themselves from TV.


Lethal

 

[Ciber]

1280x1024 IS a correct resolution on most lcd's over 15 inches because they are 5:4 aspect ratio screens, that is why you see 1280x1024 on all new drivers and games. could you imagine if no on was able to run their lcd at native res? i can tell you any res other than native looks like total crap pretty much on any lcd. i use 1280x1024 on my 17 inch 5:4 ratio lcd and everything looks perfect , the little icons here are perfectly round etc.

 

[davidg]

The question, then, is: Why are LCD's 5:4?

 

[Ciber]

im guessing lcd's use 5:4 because it's taller than 4:3. since they are mostly used for text and reading documents etc, a taller screen would mean more text on the screen and less scrolling.... i could be totally wrong though....hehe

 

[Peter]

It's rather that 1280x1024, for whatever reason, was the next step after 1024x768 in the PC world. Everyone else (yes there was an "everyone else" back then) used 1152x864 or 1280x960.

That resolution with its non-CRT-fitting aspect ratio was forced down every PC user's throat ... and that was YEARS before anyone even thought of flat panel displays that large. About at the same time, display drivers with customizable resolutions started to vanish. That all together created another case of "the standard sucks, but there's no alternative".

Now, with 1280x1024-pixel TFTs getting popular, we finally get square pixels and correct aspect ratio from this resolution because TFTs can be built to any shape and aspect ratio. And yes of course, more Y resolution means less scrolling. That's why Portrait monitors and TFTs are so popular in the publishing business.

regards, Peter