Why 1280x1024?

[Zucarita9000]

And not 1280x960? Most 19" CRTs have an optimum resolution of 1280x1024, wich isn't a standard 1.33:1 aspect (or 4:3). All Apple displays have a 1280x960 resolution, so I was wondering why is different in Windows. Things look stretched. Who the hell came up with the idea to make 1280x1024 the standard instead of 1280x960??

 

[Gosharkss]

This is what I remember about the 1280 x 1024 standard.

It all goes back to the days when IBM and Brooktree where manufacturing RAMDACs for video cards and they where competing. The Ramdac is the chip (often embedded) in the graphics chip that has driven the resolution standards. The Ramdac is the chip that converts the parallel digital signals from the memory chips to the analog serial bit stream (video).

Note: Ever notice that all resolutions are divisible by 8? Since computers and memory chips use hexadecimal (Base 16) logic, the resolutions must be divisible by 8. Also most CRT?s are 4:3 aspect ratio. When the resolutions where calculated this was a factor.

History:
Ramdacs are very difficult chips to design and as video speeds increased over the years the complexity also increased. The chipmakers designed the Ramdacs to meet certain resolutions. One of the first standards I remember was 135Mhz. OK I?m dating myself. As chip technology improved frequencies progressed to 170Mhz, 220Mhz, 250Mhz and today we can find Ramdacs that run 320Mhz up to 360Mhz. Many names, pixel clock, dot clock, video rate, and video bandwidth commonly call these frequencies.

The chipmakers realized they could mass-produce 135Mhz chips economically and reliably with good yields. Then the marketing guys got involved. They said what is the maximum resolution a 135Mhz Ramdac can produce at a reasonable refresh rate. The answer is 1280 x 1024 at 75Hz, great in those days. The next step was 170Mhz. To get 85Hz at 1280 x 1024 you need a 157.5Mhz pixel clock, and 162Mhz to get 1600 x 1200 at 60Hz, 170Mhz fit the bill nicely. All of these resolutions and refresh rate standards can be traced back to the designers of the Ramdacs on the video controller boards. How do I know? I used to design video cards.

 

[rbV5]

I think because its the default native resolution for a LCD panel.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Yeah um, 1280x1024 isn't stretched at all, not if your hardware is setup properly.

 

[rbV5]

Yeah um, 1280x1024 isn't stretched at all, not if your hardware is setup properly.

And your hardware won't be setup "properly" using anything but a 5:4 aspect ratio display at that particular resolution.

 

[MangoX]

Even thought 1280x960 is a 4:3 ratio, things look alot more stretched vertically compared to 1280x1024

 

[Zucarita9000]

Well, I've been toying around with my monitor's calibration tools and tried to make thing look proportioned. Altough now I'm not using the entire visible area (I had to squiz from the sides), icons and buttons do look better. It was really hard to get a good proportioned display (ViewSonic A90f). The "flat" CRT can be tricky.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

1280x1024 is teh win

 

[Spicedaddy]

Originally posted by: AznBoi36
Even thought 1280x960 is a 4:3 ratio, things look alot more stretched vertically compared to 1280x1024

That's because you're used to the squished image 1280x1024 produces. Run 1024x768 for a week, then switch to 1280x1024 and you'll see it's screwed up.

 

[Doh!]

1280x960 is much nicer, especially if you're accustomed to the standard 4:3 display size.

 

[Jeff7181]

I've been switching back and forth between 1024x768 and 1280x1024 and I see no distortion or stretching... I do see stretching when I switch to 1280x960

 

[Idoxash]

I never notice any oddness with 1280x960 on my old falt crt mon but then a friend of mines that also has a falt crt at the time would have bad probs with the image... It's odd, eh!

--Idoxash

 

[Clauzii]

Today the RAMDACs are actually up to 400MHz - Matrox Parhelia among others use this...

 

[Zucarita9000]

I've been trying to fix this problem I'm having with my new monitor. I can't seem to get a perfectly proportioned image, and being this a flat crt it should be easy, right?? This is how I see the image. It's a bit over exagerated, but you get the idea.
I've already send an email to ViewSonic local tech support offices, but they won't respond until monday.

 

[BFG10K]

All Apple displays have a 1280x960 resolution, so I was wondering why is different in Windows.

It's nothing to do with "Windows", it's a combination of historical reasons and the fact that it's a native resolution of most LCDs, which use 5:4 instead of 4:3.

Yes, you should be using 1280 x 960 on CRTs, not 1280 x 1024.

 

[Zucarita9000]

From ViewSonic tech support:

"There is not an adjustment on the horizontal axis on the monitor. With the flat screen monitors, you may experience some dipping or bowing in the screen. The specification is up to 2 mm. If the dipping or bowing is more than 2 mm, the monitor is considered defective and would need to be serviced. "

This means that the "Realistically proportioned images with no distortion" advertising trick is not really true.... I've sent my monitor to the local support office, so I'll see in a few days if they give me a new one or not...

 

[kylef]

Actually, this is a very interesting thread, one which is currently an unresolved topic for video application support.

I adopted 1280 by 1024 because it was the only video mode between 1024x768 and 1600x1200 that my video card supported two years ago when I got my 21" crt. I'm now accustomed to it.

But recently I've been running two IDENTICAL 19" NEC MultiSync FE991 monitors side-by-side at different resolutions, 1280x1024 and 1024x768 (separate but identical Intel video cards). Anyone can absolutely tell the difference in aspect ratio. Fonts are more vertically "squashed" on the 1280 by 1024 monitor.

This difference in aspect ratio opens significant issues with viewing pictures and videos (not to mention fonts and icon design). Rendering applications (this applies to both photo-viewing/editing tools as well as video players) should be aspect-ratio aware when presenting material to the end-user. But in more than 90% of cases, the application does NOT attempt to learn the aspect ratio of the display and correct for it.

You can check this out if you happen to have two monitors that operate at different aspect ratios, hooked into the SAME video card, set to span a desktop across the two monitors. Start playing a video, and drag the application from one monitor to the other. (it is quite possible that this will fail anyway because some video drivers do not implement dual-monitor overlay support) If the video becomes vertically scaled during the transition, then your player does NOT account for this aspect ratio change, and it SHOULD.

The current release of Windows Media Player, for instance, does not account for aspect ratio changes (although I have it on good authority that this functionality is being actively investigated).

The same should be true for picture viewing as well. Any (visual) media content where aspect ratio should be preserved should be rendered in such a way that accounts for the aspect ratio of the particular user's display. Currently this is NOT done, and hence many people refuse to run 1280x1024 resolution because most content developers design for 4:3 aspect ratio only. It will only display correctly (for the time being) on a 4:3 aspect ratio display. Which means 1280x960, not 1280x1024.

 

[Zucarita9000]

Ok, but what if you set the monitor to use 1280x1024, and then use the display's controls to squeez the image horizontally until the image is proportioned? In this case, you'll be using a 5:4 aspect "converted" to 4:3 (the same way anamorphic lenses work in a cinema projector).
You may loose some of the viewable area of the monitor, though...

 

[Peter]

kylef, good point ... XFree86 display system (as seen in Linux) is aware of the physical display size, and does use separate dot-per-inch values for X and Y.
While I don't know whether Windows can do that (I don't think so though), certainly video scaler hardware doesn't.