1280x1024 = BS resolution?

[Helical]

Hello all - I'm a graphic designer and have used the pretty-typical resolution of 1280x1024 for many years now and have never thought twice about it. However I was looking at a portrait photo recently on a coworker's computer with a 1024x768 res and the face appeared vertically stretched to me. However, it looked fine on my computer, leading me to the earth-shattering realization (hehe) that 1280x1024 is NOT a 4:3 aspect ratio a la 640x480, 800x600, 1600x1200 etc... and that 1280x960 should be used instead. But it's not even fully supported in hardware (max refresh = 75 in x960, 85 in 1024!), all games use x1024, and who typically uses that wack resolution x960 anyway?! But why does x1024 even exist? Why doesn't everything appear vertically squashed to my presumably-keen eyes? Why haven't I noticed, known, or had a problem after YEARS of design work on multiple platforms / screens til now? Why, why?!

 

[Kingofcomputer]

17" LCD with 1280x1024 resolution is a bad boy.
When you set the output to 640x480, 800x600, or 1024x768, it's scaled, better say it loses aspect ratio to stretch to 1280x1024.

 

[rbV5]

and who typically uses that wack resolution x960 anyway?

I use 1280X960 when using my 19" monitor.

 

[Helical]

I use a 19" CRT which is much more suitable for graphic (and gaming hehe) purposes... clearly onscreen items (tool palettes etc) at 1024x768 are too large for the screen size, and waaay too small at 1600x1200. 1024x1280 / 960 is the optimum resolution, yet I have to step down to 75Hz to use the "proper" AR resolution, and I can -really- feel it as opposed to 85Hz in x1024.

I was asking more if there was a historical reason for 1024 existing and not 960 until fairly recently. Anyone?

 

[WarSong]

I used to use 1280x1024 until I read a previous thread on here about it. After that I switched to 1152x864 (since i don't get 1280x960 as an option) and, after awhile of getting used to how it looked, I'm much happier.

 

[ProviaFan]

I've always been used to true 4:3 resolutions on 4:3 monitors, so when I tried 1280x1024 on my new 19 inch CRT, it looked absolutely awful. Going up to 1600x1200 (in Windows) helped; although I prefer 1400x1050 due to better refresh rates and slightly larger text / images on-screen, that resolution is available only in Linux with XFree86 (yet another reason to love that OS, I guess ).

Note that LCDs which use 1280x1024 (a 5:4 resolution) are built with a 5:4 aspect ratio. Thus, you need to use 1280x1024 on LCDs that support it for things to look right, while on a CRT you need to use 1280x960.

And for Helical's refresh rate problems, I suggest that he consider RefreshForce; perhaps it will help his 75Hz problem.

 

[glugglug]

If you can do 1280x1024 @ 85Hz I can pretty much guarantee you can do 1280x960 @ 90Hz.

Just get powerstrip. The limit you see is stupid windows drivers, not a hardware limitation. or maybe try 1440x1080 or higher with the same aspect ratio. (Personally I find that too low res, but if you use 1280x1024....)

 

[Helical]

And for Helical's refresh rate problems, I suggest that he consider RefreshForce; perhaps it will help his 75Hz problem.

Thanks, that app looks very useful... unfortunately, the computer I'm most concerned about, mine at work, is a Mac. And yes, I know FULL-WELL how much Apple sucks - probably more than most since I use it every day!

And thanks for your post Warsong, I'll have to try and find that thread.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Helical

And for Helical's refresh rate problems, I suggest that he consider RefreshForce; perhaps it will help his 75Hz problem.

Thanks, that app looks very useful... unfortunately, the computer I'm most concerned about, mine at work, is a Mac. And yes, I know FULL-WELL how much Apple sucks - probably more than most since I use it every day!

And thanks for your post Warsong, I'll have to try and find that thread.

Apple only sucks if you're running OS9 or previous on it. A Mac with OSX is a pretty decent machine.

 

[WarSong]

This is the one I was talking about: Link (you have to go down half a page before they talk about it)
but this one might be better: Link