What resolution has the same ratio as 1024x768?

[Schadenfroh]

title says it all, need the next step up from 1024x768 that will look the same, cept more detail. i like the current ratio of 1024x768, which resultion is a step up, but still has the same ratio?

 

[ponyo]

1152x864 or 1280x960. Most people use 1280x960.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Naustica
1152x864 or 1280x960. Most people use 1280x960.

both are the same ratio and will look the same as 1024x768, cept higher detail?

 

[ponyo]

1280x960 I'm positive. 1152x864 I'm not 100% sure but I think that's right too.

Edit: I just checked my math and 1152x864 is correct also.

 

[TStep]

4:3 ratio ---- divide the 1028 by 4, divide the 768 by 3, will get the same resultant

1152x864 is 4:3
1280x960 is 4:3

1280x1024 is 5:4

 

[shuttleboi]

1028 x 768 has a 4:3 ratio. Other common resolutions with the same persepective are:

1152 x 864
1280 x 960 (but see below)
1600 x 1200

Note that almost all monitors can display the more popular 1280 x 1024, which is a different ratio. However, you should not get any perspective distortion unless you specifically have software that "stretches" images to fill the screen.

 

[gururu]

Schadenfroh needs to study his ratios....LOL

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: gururu
Schadenfroh needs to study his ratios....LOL

im good at video cards, i suck at monitors

 

[Goi]

You can also do 1440x1080

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: Goi
You can also do 1440x1080

I think it is 1400x1050 well my laptop is anyways SXGA+. I wonder why this isn't used more? the more common res of 1280x1024/960 and 1600x1200 is quite a leap. I would think there would be some sort of middle ground.

 

[Goi]

1400x1050 and 1440s1080 are both 4:3 resolutions and would work just fine on most CRTs that support high enough resolutions. It's not a VESA standard resolution though, but nothing's stopping you from either editing the monitor inf files or getting PowerStrip to do it for you.

 

[KevinH]

Here's a nagging question I've had. The same aspect ratio is 12:9 but why do just about all LCD's as well as reviews use 1280x1024.

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: KevinH
Here's a nagging question I've had. The same aspect ratio is 12:9 but why do just about all LCD's as well as reviews use 1280x1024.

CRT's use 4:3 and
LCD's use 5:4

CRT = 1280x960
LCD = 1280x1024 Just and example though.

Though I'm not sure why some larger LCD's use 1600x1200 as that isn't a 5:4 resolution.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: gururu
Schadenfroh needs to study his ratios....LOL

Give him a break, hee atendad publick skools

 

[Confused]

Originally posted by: JBT
Though I'm not sure why some larger LCD's use 1600x1200 as that isn't a 5:4 resolution.

Because the larger LCD monitors have a 4:3 aspect ratio.


Confused

 

[Peter]

CRTs always are 4:3, resolutions that don't match that appear squished. LCDs always use square pixels, with the width and height fitting the native resolution.

E.g. 1280x1024 LCD panels are 5:4, while on a (4:3) CRT this resolution doesn't look right. Most graphics cards offer 1280x960 which does.

I'm sure Schadenfroh can do simple math

 

[JeffreyY]

Hmm... Can you explain why 1280x1024 doesn't look right? I've been using 1280x1024 for a while, but after reading this I'm thinking about switching to 1280x960.

 

[Peter]

Would you mind reading the thread? The tube you're looking at has a width:height ratio of 4:3, on which you're displaying 1280x1024 displays (a 5:4 ratio). Thus, pixels aren't square, everything appears squished.

 

[oldman420]

You will have to adjust your screen size on the monitor but 1280 x 960 works everything is tiny though. And im stuck at 60 hz too at that resolution.

 

[JeffreyY]

Originally posted by: Peter
Would you mind reading the thread? The tube you're looking at has a width:height ratio of 4:3, on which you're displaying 1280x1024 displays (a 5:4 ratio). Thus, pixels aren't square, everything appears squished.

Sure, the pixels are not square... but how many of you can actually actually see this. I certainly can't. An extra 64 pixels isn't even 10% of the screen space. Maybe if you had a wallpaper that was 1280x960, and it got stretched, then yeah, it wouldn't look right. Other than that... is it really that much of a difference? From my past experience with monitors, 1280x1024 seems to be the more widely available resolution (isn't it true that 1280x1024 usually has a higher max refresh rate than 1280x960?)

 

[Steve]

Just to add to things, I recently finished a call from a customer who complained that his new 9200SE gave a distorted image. Turns out he was running his CRT at 1280x768 (5:3)

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JeffreyY

Originally posted by: Peter
Would you mind reading the thread? The tube you're looking at has a width:height ratio of 4:3, on which you're displaying 1280x1024 displays (a 5:4 ratio). Thus, pixels aren't square, everything appears squished.

Sure, the pixels are not square... but how many of you can actually actually see this. I certainly can't. An extra 64 pixels isn't even 10% of the screen space. Maybe if you had a wallpaper that was 1280x960, and it got stretched, then yeah, it wouldn't look right. Other than that... is it really that much of a difference? From my past experience with monitors, 1280x1024 seems to be the more widely available resolution (isn't it true that 1280x1024 usually has a higher max refresh rate than 1280x960?)

Nope, the refresh rate will always be higher with less pixels. As for the squishing, that goes text, games, and everything else just as much as it does for a wallpaper.

 

[SonicIce]

Figure this out out:

Why do CRT's today have a native resolution of 1280x1024 if they have a 4:3 aspect ratio?

 

[Steve]

What CRTs have this native resolution?

 

[JeffCY]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Nope, the refresh rate will always be higher with less pixels.

I think you better get your facts straight... refresh rate is not always higher with less pixels. More standard resolutions have higher refresh rates. For example, take any tool that detects maximum refresh rates (like this) and compare the refresh rates and resolutions. In the screen shot on this page you can already see... 320x240 is the lowest resolution, yet it does not have the highest refresh rate.

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
As for the squishing, that goes text, games, and everything else just as much as it does for a wallpaper.

And regarding the squishing, sure I can understand that concept that things get squished. But take text for example. So say originally your text is 10 pixels high. If you use 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960, you get an extra 60 pixels (<10% increase). Ok, so let's round up, and say it increases the number of pixels by 10%. Your text is now 11 pixels high instead of 10 pixels high. Does it really appear that distorted? My argument is simply that a 6% increase in length for most things you display on your monitor is not a noticeable difference for me, with the exception of maybe a wallpaper displaying a person's body/face.