PDA

View Full Version : *gets on the soapbox*


Valkyrien
01-12-2003, 04:57 PM
ok, time to make a stand.

*rant on*

I see all these people talk about using 1280x1024 resolution. I assume that the vast majority of these people are running standard-dimension monitors, and as such need to point out the following: 1280x1024 is INCORRECT. On a standard 4:3 monitor, everything is squished if you run that high vertically. 1280x960 is correct, as you can see by resizing a 1024x768 document in photoshop.

*rant off*

MCronin
01-12-2003, 07:32 PM
I like 1400x1050 myself.

GregHess
01-12-2003, 09:36 PM
Valk,

If people are running LCD's their forced to adhere to a 1280x1024 resolution...unless they want to run the pixels at a ratio other then 1:1. (Which results in massive sharpness and quality loss)

Valkyrien
01-13-2003, 05:28 AM
well, this is why I say "standard CRT" ;) I realize that LCDs are different matters, but i hear people talking about running 1280x1024 on standard CRTs all the time:)

Gyan
01-13-2003, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by Valkyrien
well, this is why I say "standard CRT" ;) I realize that LCDs are different matters, but i hear people talking about running 1280x1024 on standard CRTs all the time:)

Read this thread (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=67909965&m=4660982545) over at Ars Technica Openforum.

elvis
01-13-2003, 06:19 AM
well, i just read about a zillion ars threads on that subject, which only leaves one question:

who the hell came up with a 5:4 resolution instead of a 4:3? and why?

i'd honestly never thought about it until now.

elvis
01-13-2003, 06:22 AM
this (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=67909965&m=4660982545) thread linked to this (http://www.guiportal.com/articles/1280x1024.html) website which said the following:

But the resolution of 1280x1024 is completely different. 1280:1024=1.25 Why does this resolution exist? What is the reason that manufacturers of screens and video boards include such a resolution in their products? Because 10 years ago there were some models of computer monitors included in Silicon Graphics workstations that had almost quad (1.25) physical proportions. Yes, they were less rectangular. They were looked almost quad and this resolution fits them perfect. But not today's monitors. Damn tradition.

there you go.

dvornik
01-13-2003, 07:42 AM
If you're really anal about it (like I am sometimes) draw a circle or a square in illustrator and make it fit to a real circle or square using your monitor controls or videocard controls. 1280x960 is too damn low, 1600x1200 is too high for many monitors and some cards (don't want to get into another Quadro fight).

elvis
01-13-2003, 07:43 AM
mmm... 21" SGI flatpanels.....

GregHess
01-13-2003, 11:22 AM
"17-19" TFT panels have a 5:4 ratio screen, so 1280x1024 is correct. Obviously CRT monitors are 4:3, so 1280x1024 looks stretched, unless like Phlaegel suggests, you've got used to it."

Sweet. I didn't know the LCD's were 5:4 ratio. :)

*Feels better*

Thanks for the links guys.

MCronin
01-13-2003, 02:11 PM
Actually I think the reason we have the 1280 x 1024 resolution has more to do with lazy programers than some odd monitor SGI had 10 years ago. SGI probably built such a monitor, if it even existed, to match what programmers were doing. 1024, 1K, seems like it would be much easier and neater to address a line of pixels as 1K. If you had 1024 pixels per line it's a piece of cake to break them down into nice managable groups and neatly arrange them in memory in a very logical fashion without wasting a bit of memory. It's easy for programmers to then look at a block of memory and know exactly where the display buffer starts and ends, and where each line of the display starts and ends. They weren't thinking of artists, they probably realized (rightly so), that most computers were used for business and no one would notice that the aspect ratio was slghtly off.

kwshipman
01-13-2003, 06:08 PM
Thanks guys, I tried to switdh from 1028 to 960, and my scroll bars disapeared:D

Then it also moved my refresh rate to 60 and I almost had a seizer.

CGTalk Moderation
01-14-2006, 04:02 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.