is 1152*864 a "proper" resolution?

[magomago]

Self explanatory? I've decided to move up to this from 1024*768 because I get more "real estate" so I'm wondering if it is...Thanks

 

[brettjrob]

I don't hear of many people using it, but I personally find it to be the best choice on my 19" CRT and use it all the time with no problems. 1024x768 is too blocky on 19" and larger, while 1280x1024 will further increase my eyesight problems.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Yep, it's 4:3.

 

[Jeff7]

Standard resolutions, as far as I know, are a 4:3 ratio:
640x480
800x600
1024x768
Now's the weird area - 1280x960 is 4:3, but I see 1280x1024 used more often, which is 5:4.

But 1152x864 does follow the 4:3 ratio.

 

[magomago]

nice - I'm on my 17 inch moniter....

what is problem with 5:4? I've never understood the difference?

 

[Twista]

yep i use it. I use it because i can get more refresh rate settings and my taskbar is way longer so i can get more programs on the taskbar,

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: magomago
nice - I'm on my 17 inch moniter....

what is problem with 5:4? I've never understood the difference?

It's a different ratio, and that's bad on most monitors (which are 4:3), because everything will be distorted.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: magomago
nice - I'm on my 17 inch moniter....

what is problem with 5:4? I've never understood the difference?

Some f'ing moron decided 1280x1024 to be the standard res between 1024x768 and 1600x1200. Whoever it was must have failed math because its 5:4 not 4:3. It results in a minorly distorted picture, to most people. Personally I like 1600x1200.

 

[Idoxash]

I've tested out 1280x1024 and 1280x960 on my 19inch mon and both looks the same but the x1024 just gave a lill bit more space on the mon. I would run mines at 1600x but i like a lill more hz then 70.

--IDD--

 

[Afro000Dude]

Some LCD's use a 5:4 ratio.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: magomago
nice - I'm on my 17 inch moniter....

what is problem with 5:4? I've never understood the difference?

Some f'ing moron decided 1280x1024 to be the standard res between 1024x768 and 1600x1200. Whoever it was must have failed math because its 5:4 not 4:3. It results in a minorly distorted picture, to most people. Personally I like 1600x1200.

It's only distorted if you are using a 4:3 native monitor that does not support 5:4 and go to this 5:4 res, or vv. Flat Panels are the big ones that are using this 5:4, and while overall it isn't *that* big of a deal, I am still highly against it. The real problem is for those of us using 4:3 monitors playing games that offer 1024x768, 1240x1024, and 1600x1200 on a good graphics card. The first res is a waste of money, the second is nasty distortion, and the third is sometimes too much strain w/ all details cranked up. 1280x960 is the golden res for me.

 

[LukFilm]

Originally posted by: Afro000Dude
Some LCD's use a 5:4 ratio.

17'', 18'' and 19'' to be exact.

 

[Sid59]

i use 1152x864 .. just seems natural to me.

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: Sid59
i use 1152x864 .. just seems natural to me.

 

[MiExStacY]

i use it all the time if the game support that res because 1280x1024 the game might get a lil slow down and 1024x768 the game is perfect but dosnt look as good as 1152x864.plus way more clearer imo

 

[TheCorm]

I used 1152 x 864 on my 17" CRT for a while but found things were too small...when I changed to a 17" TFT I wanted to go back to it but stuck at 1024 x 768...monitor won't display that res

 

[Confused]

1152x864 is a 4:3 resolution

I use 1280x1024 on my 19" CRT, and it just looks "right", whereas 1280x960 (the "proper" resolution) just doesn't look "right"

Of course if I can get 1400x1050 on my CRT at home then i'll be happy, cos it's what I use on my laptop, and i love it


Confused

 

[Wiktor]

I also use 1152x864 because that's the last res. that has 100Hz refresh rate. Of course compared to laptop lcd 1400x1050 it seems kind of low and blurry, but the size of fonts and space is just right

 

[Booty]

I've always wondered why the LCD monitors are using 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960. Anyone know if there's a particular reason for this?

I used to run 1280x1024, but then I read a thread about 4:3 vs. 5:4 aspect ratios... the 5:4 ratio started to look odd and annoy me, even though it never bothered me before that point.

 

[bcterps]

Originally posted by: Wiktor
I also use 1152x864 because that's the last res. that has 100Hz refresh rate. Of course compared to laptop lcd 1400x1050 it seems kind of low and blurry, but the size of fonts and space is just right

Isn't 100Hz a bit overkill? Can you really tell the difference between 85Hz and 100Hz? I used to run my monitor at 100Hz, just cause it could, but there was no noticeable difference, even after using it for extended periods of time. I figure I would just put less strain on my monitor and run it at 85Hz.

 

[figgypower]

Originally posted by: benchiu
Isn't 100Hz a bit overkill? Can you really tell the difference between 85Hz and 100Hz? I used to run my monitor at 100Hz, just cause it could, but there was no noticeable difference, even after using it for extended periods of time. I figure I would just put less strain on my monitor and run it at 85Hz.

I can pretty easily tell the difference, and I need at least 100Hz on a CRT monitor or my eyes just don't like the flicker... preferably I'm just on an LCD monitor though. Much better on my eyes.

 

[brettjrob]

I can definitely tell the difference between 100Hz and 85Hz, although 85 doesn't really bother my eyes. Moving through WinXP definitely seems more smooth with 100, but I don't want to put any unnecessary strain on the monitor so I settle with 85Hz.

 

[NTB]

Originally posted by: TheCorm
I used 1152 x 864 on my 17" CRT for a while but found things were too small...when I changed to a 17" TFT I wanted to go back to it but stuck at 1024 x 768...monitor won't display that res

17"TFT = 17" LCD screen, right? isn't 1024x768 awful blurry? The standard resolution for a monitor this size is 1280x1024. That's what I run mine at.

Nate

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Some f'ing moron decided 1280x1024 to be the standard res between 1024x768 and 1600x1200. Whoever it was must have failed math because its 5:4 not 4:3. It results in a minorly distorted picture, to most people. Personally I like 1600x1200.

Thoughts (CRT related):
1) 5:4 is just a 6% distortion from 4:3.
2) Very few people run their monitor at factory default settings with the large black region between the image and the plastic boarder.
3) Instead most people stretch their monitor settings to fill the glass with little to no black regions.
4) As soon as you stretch it you are distored anyways: easilly approaching or surpassing the 6% distortion that the 5:4 resolution causes.
5) Thus you are arguing about a minor detail when many people have larger distortion problems caused by themselves.
6) Or if you want you can stretch your monitor to fit fully in one direction and use 5:4 resolution so that it is flawless (no distortion at all) - this gives you more resolution (enough to finally fit a whole Word page at 100% zoom on the screen at once or several extra lines of Excel thus needing less scrolling and being much more productive) for more info on the screen AND gives you a nearly full monitor without much black region.
7) Thus I use an undistorted 5:4 resolution on a 4:3 monitor.

 

[fkloster]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Some f'ing moron decided 1280x1024 to be the standard res between 1024x768 and 1600x1200. Whoever it was must have failed math because its 5:4 not 4:3. It results in a minorly distorted picture, to most people. Personally I like 1600x1200.

Thoughts (CRT related):
1) 5:4 is just a 6% distortion from 4:3.
2) Very few people run their monitor at factory default settings with the large black region between the image and the plastic boarder.
3) Instead most people stretch their monitor settings to fill the glass with little to no black regions.
4) As soon as you stretch it you are distored anyways: easilly approaching or surpassing the 6% distortion that the 5:4 resolution causes.
5) Thus you are arguing about a minor detail when many people have larger distortion problems caused by themselves.
6) Or if you want you can stretch your monitor to fit fully in one direction and use 5:4 resolution so that it is flawless (no distortion at all) - this gives you more resolution (enough to finally fit a whole Word page at 100% zoom on the screen at once or several extra lines of Excel thus needing less scrolling and being much more productive) for more info on the screen AND gives you a nearly full monitor without much black region.
7) Thus I use an undistorted 5:4 resolution on a 4:3 monitor.

Hilarious and very true A lot of crying about distortion going on when we are the ones who are distorted