1280 x 1024 looks weird?

[FearoftheNight]

I hear and notice this resolution 1280x 1024 look weird compared to the other ones such as 800 x 600 ....1024 x 768... 640 x 480....1600 x 1200 ANy input in this regard? Does it look all weird and cramped?

 

[woog315]

If you're talking about 1280x1024 (your topic says 1280x1024, your body says 1024x768), its because 1280x1024 isnt true 4:3 (i.e 640 / 480 = 4/3.... 1024/768= 4/3 etc...) the proper ratio would be 1280x960 (which is a standard res on nvidia's drivers, but for some reason ATI didnt include it in theirs)

 

[BFG10K]

5:4 ratios (ie like 1280 x 1024) only look good on LCDs. CRTs need 4:3 ratios like 1280 x 960 instead.

 

[FearoftheNight]

Why does it look good for LCD and not for CRT? And is tehre a way to force the resolution on all apps?

 

[JZilla]

Because a lcd is a 5:4 monitor running a 5:4 resolution. Normal windows apps shouldn't be a problem. Some games can be run at 1280X1024 and some can't. With recent lcd monitors this shouldn't be a problem. Here you can see RTCW running in 2 different resolutions on a Hitachi 174 (the famous 16ms. monitor).

 

[NYHoustonman]

Yea, I have an LCD, and some older games like Counter-Strike don't support 1280x1024, but most newer ones seem to.

 

[FearoftheNight]

so u just play counterstrike at lower res?

 

[Confused]

I run 1280x1024 on my 19" CRT, it looks better to me than 1280x960!

Plus, the fact that I can stretch it out to fill the width of my monitor, whereas 1280x960 on my monitor leaves about 3/4 of an inch either side, so it looks even worse!


But yeah, 1280x1024 is 5:4 ratio, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, 1600x1200 are all 4:3


Confused

 

[BFG10K]

Why does it look good for LCD and not for CRT?

Pixel shape. CRT pixels are closest to being circular at a 4:3 ratio while LCDs need 5:4 to achieve the same thing.

And is tehre a way to force the resolution on all apps?

No although normally it doesn't matter too much for 3D apps as the resolution is independent to the geometry in the world, although you can still have issues with HUDs/text that doesn't use relative co-ordinates.

The biggest problem is in 2D/desktop mode where non 4:3 ratios used on a CRT squash and distort the image.

 

[FearoftheNight]

so what is to be done about this prob?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Confused
I run 1280x1024 on my 19" CRT, it looks better to me than 1280x960!

That's just because you've become calloused to it. I can't stand to watch DVDs or DivX clips at a 5:4 resolution on a 4:3 output device (aka standard CRT) - the people look squished and fat.

Plus, the fact that I can stretch it out to fill the width of my monitor, whereas 1280x960 on my monitor leaves about 3/4 of an inch either side, so it looks even worse!

Then your monitor is fvcked. Just kidding.

Try using a slightly different refresh rate; usually that makes a difference.

 

[gururu]

1280 x 1024 looks better to me too in UT2K3.

it is just too clean to pass up.

 

[Ferocious]

the proper ratio would be 1280x960 (which is a standard res on nvidia's drivers, but for some reason ATI didnt include it in theirs)

umm I got an ATI card...and I can do 1280x960.

9700 PRO.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Ferocious

the proper ratio would be 1280x960 (which is a standard res on nvidia's drivers, but for some reason ATI didnt include it in theirs)

umm I got an ATI card...and I can do 1280x960.

9700 PRO.

Although the latest ATI cards have that resolution built in, the older ones (such as my Radeon SDR PCI and Radeon VE) don't have 1280x960 as a standard resolution (meaning that I have to add it through Powerstrip or some crappy add-on utility). I wish ATI would allow that res for all of their cards without the need for 3rd party utilities.