1280 x 1024 is a weird resolution

[yukichigai]

1280x1024 is a weird resolution. A very weird resolution. Why? Because the aspect ratio isn't right. Seriously, do the math:

1600 x 1200: 1600 / 1200 = (/100) 16 / 12 = (/4) 4 / 3 = 3:4 AR (Normal)
1280 x 1024: 1280 / 1024 = (/256) 5 / 4 = 4:5 AR (Abnormal, or Abby Normal if you preffer)

The question I have to ask is why exactly does Dell make monitors with that aspect ratio? I can't think of any advantage it would provide, nor can I think of any applications which require it. At the very least I know it makes my backgrounds either "squished" or "letterboxed".

Very curious.

 

[SynthDude2001]

The question I have to ask is why exactly does Dell make monitors with that aspect ratio?

Because everyone else who makes a 17" or 19" LCD does the exact same thing.

 

[GeekDrew]

I know that it does letterbox traditional wallpapers... but I'm used to it so much that it now seems odd when I'm using any resolution other than 1280x1024.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

The question I have to ask is why exactly does Dell make monitors with that aspect ratio?

Because everyone else who makes a 17" or 19" LCD does the exact same thing.

Really? Wow, didn't know that.

It still begs the question, "why?"

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

The question I have to ask is why exactly does Dell make monitors with that aspect ratio?

Becuase they do not have a choice. They do not manufacture the tft panels themselves, they simply purchase them from Samsung, LG, etc. and assemble them.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

The question I have to ask is why exactly does Dell make monitors with that aspect ratio?

Because everyone else who makes a 17" or 19" LCD does the exact same thing.

Really? Wow, didn't know that.

It still begs the question, "why?"

Yep, AFAIK all (or nearly all) 17"/19" desktop LCD monitors are 1280x1024 native (and are physically 5:4). I'm not sure how it became the standard though.

 

[Mani]

It's SXGA, a VESA approved standard video timing. It was a standard res because it fell nicely between 1024x768 and 1600x1200 in the days of CRT, and so LCD fabs laid out their 17 and 19" glass around it.

 

[lokiju]

1280x1024 came around from Mac monitors and made it's way on over to PC users, at least thats what I remember reading/hearing.

 

[Merlyn3D]

w00t for 1400x1050 on my thinkpad! I think it's the perfect resolution for this 15" screen. Everything looks like it should.

 

[Mani]

A lot of decisions around LCD monitor resolutions are made around glass yields (basically manufacturability) as well. That probably played a big part in the decision for LCD manufacturers.

This is the reason why 16:9 Plasma panels are mostly either rectangular 1024x768 pixels or the even more funky 1024x1024.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Mani
It's SXGA, a VESA approved standard video timing. It was a standard res because it fell nicely between 1024x768 and 1600x1200 in the days of CRT, and so LCD fabs laid out their 17 and 19" glass around it.

too bad they never had another 4:3 ratio in there though... 1400x1050 looked so good on a 19" monitor (back when you could simply add one video timing line to nvidia's drivers). 1280x1024 is just wasted on anything larger than a 17" monitor, imho.

 

[Viper GTS]

Are 1280x1024 panels actually 5:4 in physical dimensions?

Never bothered to check, I just assumed they were 4:3.

And yes it is a PITA, I hate 1280x1024 with a passion.

Viper GTS

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Mani
It's SXGA, a VESA approved standard video timing. It was a standard res because it fell nicely between 1024x768 and 1600x1200 in the days of CRT, and so LCD fabs laid out their 17 and 19" glass around it.

Ummm...what was wrong with 1280 x 960?

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Mani
It's SXGA, a VESA approved standard video timing. It was a standard res because it fell nicely between 1024x768 and 1600x1200 in the days of CRT, and so LCD fabs laid out their 17 and 19" glass around it.

Ummm...what was wrong with 1280 x 960?

I could be way off but IIRC the original reason was to make maximum use of a specific amount of memory.

Viper GTS

 

[GreenGhost]

Some Unix workstations of the late eighties started with 24bit color monitors at 1280 x 1024 resolution (they were 19 and then 21 inches). I used an Alliant 19". 17" came a bit later, when they became more affordable (around $15k), like the HP 700 series (712, 735) and the Silicon Graphics (Indigo, Indy). Just the option for color would add several thousand dollars.

Steve Jobs (well NeXT) offered those gorgeous grayscale 17 inchers that came with the Cubes. In the early '90's they offered up to 21", still at 1280x1024. It didn't change much since then.

 

[JBT]

All LCD's that are 17 to 19"s are physically 5:4 and have 1280x1024.
smaller than that and larger than that are either 4:3 or 16:10 physically and have matching resolutions.

It is certainly not just Dell doing this...

 

[mercanucaribe]

CRTs are all 4:3. LCDs though are 5:4. Yes, it's stupid and I hate that damned resolution.

 

[0roo0roo]

cuz at 19" or so its a compromise and they choose more pixels. 1600x1200 would be better but anything above 19" wasnt' realistic or affordable until recently.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
1280x1024 is a weird resolution. A very weird resolution. Why? Because the aspect ratio isn't right. Seriously, do the math:

1600 x 1200: 1600 / 1200 = (/100) 16 / 12 = (/4) 4 / 3 = 3:4 AR (Normal)
1280 x 1024: 1280 / 1024 = (/256) 5 / 4 = 4:5 AR (Abnormal, or Abby Normal if you preffer)

The question I have to ask is why exactly does Dell make monitors with that aspect ratio? I can't think of any advantage it would provide, nor can I think of any applications which require it. At the very least I know it makes my backgrounds either "squished" or "letterboxed".

Very curious.

1024x768 = 786432 pixels
786432 * 32 bits/pixel = 25,165,824

Where did I screw up the math? This usually comes to a number like 32 meg or 16 meg, etc. That's teh why though

 

[SportSC4]

Hey, at least it's better than the staff at your school setting the resolution at 1024x768 on those same monitor and letting the monitors stretch out the image over itself. It gets a nice not-so-sharp look to it.

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: SportSC4
Hey, at least it's better than the staff at your school setting the resolution at 1024x768 on those same monitor and letting the monitors stretch out the image over itself. It gets a nice not-so-sharp look to it.

we do that at my work. I find it annoying but all the employees like it cause its bigger...

 

[LandRover]

Try setting it to 1152x864? That's what I set my 17" Samsung LCD at for 2D, and 1280x1024 for 3D.

 

[Crescent13]

all 17 and 19" monitors have the same resolution. I dunno why.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Mani
It's SXGA, a VESA approved standard video timing. It was a standard res because it fell nicely between 1024x768 and 1600x1200 in the days of CRT, and so LCD fabs laid out their 17 and 19" glass around it.

Ummm...what was wrong with 1280 x 960?

Nothing. VESA tried to push it through but 1280x1024 was already ubiquitous. If you look at VESA's standard timings spec 1280x960 is on there, but noone chose to adopt it. Think about it as a monitor manufacturer - no way the marketing guys will support limiting to 1280x960 when other guys are doing 1280x1024. Most consumers don't care about 5:4 vs 4:3, they just see the number of pixels.

1280x1024 goes back to almost the 70's, and originated from CAD/CAM. One of those things where the industry just had a standard that survived because of its popularity despite being non-optimal. Think VHS vs Beta.

 

[StrangerGuy]

1280x1024 is retarded.

The fact that 17 inch and 19 inch LCDs having the SAME native resolution is even more retarded.