What's the deal with the 1280x1024 res?

[Ronin13]

I currently have my desktop set at 1280x1024 on a 19" Sony G420 monitor, and recently became aware that it's not the same 4:3 ratio as 800x600, 1024x768 etc.

Doesn't this mean that the image is being distorted? If so, why is this resolution even available?

I guess I should be running at 1280x960 instead, but I just wondered if the 5:4 ratio 1280x1024 had any uses...

~R

 

[Mavrick007]

Well for one thing, 1280x1024 is not a 4:3 ratio, it's a 5:4 ratio like you stated so it's going to look differently. The 1280x960 is a more correct ratio but if you just calibrate your screen even at 1280x1024, it will be fine. The 1280x1024 is just another resolution and I wouldn't worry about using it over the 1280x960.

 

[ripthesystem]

I use 1280x1024 on my Lacie 19" and it looks great. I can't see any distortion at all.. just make sure the edges fit properly on your screen... and if you like how it looks- then isn't that what really matters

ripthesystem

 

[flexy]

yes...1280x1024 is NO 4:3 ratio.

thats the reason i use powerstrip creating a new custom resolution (1365x1026) which is a perfect 4:3

 

[jeffrey]

I wish they wouldn't test with 1280x1024 because it's not a proper 4:3 ratio. People have posted pictures of the distortion that results from that resolution before. You might not notice it, but it's not a proper aspect ratio. Maybe one day we can get reviews with a 1280x960 display image, that would be nice.

 

[dullard]

<< Doesn't this mean that the image is being distorted? If so, why is this resolution even available?

I guess I should be running at 1280x960 instead, but I just wondered if the 5:4 ratio 1280x1024 had any uses... >>



On a poorly written program, things may be distorted (unless the program was designed for 1280x960 - then all the other resolutions will be the distorted ones).

Think of drawing a circle. If you made a program that had a circle 40 pixels wide and 40 pixels tall (a mathematically correct circle) it will look like an oval on any common resolution. Instead a good programmer will draw a circle 40 pixels wide and 30 pixels tall for a resolution with a 4:3 ratio. This is mathematically an oval but appears like a circle since 4:3 distorts things from a true 1:1 ratio. If you are a lazy programmer you leave the program like that. If you are a good programmer you do an if statement.
  If resolution is 4:3 then draw a circle that is 40 wide and 30 tall.
  else if resolution is 5:4 then draw a circle that is 40 wide and 32 tall.
That way things are never distorted.

In Word or Excel or widows, just use a wider font for the wider ratio. No big deal.

Note: this assumes your monitor is at its default settings and is perfectly calibrated. I know of no one that does that - most people stretch their screen to fill the entire glass - thus it isn't at 4:3 ratio anymore it is more like 4:3.2 ratio or 4:2.9 ratio. So in fact, nearly everyone is distorted at nearly every resolution!

 

[Bulldog7000]

ok, this is my take on it.

It doesn't matter what the rez of the screen is. Fonts and graphics have specified pixel dimensions. Also, the pixels on your monitor change size when you change your aoperating res, BUT they do not change their aspect ratio. Pixels on computer monitors are SQUARE, and they stay SQUARE. So, in turn the aspect ratio of your running resolution is irrelavent. The only time it is relavent is when you take a graphic that was created at say 1024x768 and stretch/scale it to fit your wallpaper/background which is at a different aspect ratio such as 1280x1024.

SO

Ripthesystem, you are right there is NO distortion!

Dullard, what you say about a prgrammer programming a circle, is not entirely acurate. If they were programming for an XBOX to output to a regular TV, which has RECTANGULAR pixels, then they would have to do the aspect ratio compensation. A circle that has a 40 pixel diameter will look the same at any res.

EDIT: TO VERIFY WHAT I JUST SAID, GO INTO MS PAINT AND DRAW A PERFECT CIRCLE (Hold down the shift key while dragging your circle size, this prevents an oval from forming) THEN CHANGE YOUR RES TO ONE WITH A DIFFERENT ASPECT RATIO AND LOOK AT THE CIRCLE! NO OVAL. ;-)

my 2 bits.

BDOG

 

[Tol]

I'm compelled to try to make this as simple as possible....

Most CRTs' viewable image are in a 4:3 aspect ratio. Therefore, if you are using a resolution which is not 4:3, and you are using your monitor's full viewable area, everything is distorted. When this was discussed last week, someone said their Sony monitor was 5:4, and 1280x1024 was the native resolution.

Try to think about it logically. The pixels you are viewing do not have to be square. They are only square if the resolution and the viewable area are the same aspect ratio. If you don't believe that, try adjusting horizontal size on your monitor and find where pixels disappear...obviously they don't, however things will definitely get distorted.

The reason that people should consider using a proper 4:3 ratio on their CRTs is for circumstances when they want to watch a full screen media file. Just about all video is shot or captured in a 4:3 ratio, therefore, if you are using a non-4:3 resolution the image will be distorted.

As for the 1280x1024 setting in particular, I don't think anyone would be able to tell the difference if they weren't trying to. The number of pixels are high enough, and our monitors are big enough that the distortion is very slight.

 

[Eug]

<< Think of drawing a circle. If you made a program that had a circle 40 pixels wide and 40 pixels tall (a mathematically correct circle) it will look like an oval on any common resolution. Instead a good programmer will draw a circle 40 pixels wide and 30 pixels tall for a resolution with a 4:3 ratio. This is mathematically an oval but appears like a circle since 4:3 distorts things from a true 1:1 ratio. If you are a lazy programmer you leave the program like that. If you are a good programmer you do an if statement.
  If resolution is 4:3 then draw a circle that is 40 wide and 30 tall.
  else if resolution is 5:4 then draw a circle that is 40 wide and 32 tall.
That way things are never distorted.

In Word or Excel or widows, just use a wider font for the wider ratio. No big deal.

Note: this assumes your monitor is at its default settings and is perfectly calibrated. I know of no one that does that - most people stretch their screen to fill the entire glass - thus it isn't at 4:3 ratio anymore it is more like 4:3.2 ratio or 4:2.9 ratio. So in fact, nearly everyone is distorted at nearly every resolution! >>



Incorrect. A 40x40 pixel square on a 4:3 monitor with a 4:3 resolution will be a perfect square. Create one if Photoshop and you'll see.

However, a 40x40 pixel square on a 4:3 monitor with a 1280x1024 resolution WILL NOT be a perfect square. It will be distorted. Thus it is incorrect to use 1280x1024 on any 4:3 monitor since any images (eg. mom's birthday JPEGs) will be distorted. If somebody doesn't notice it then it's just because they're used to it. Try 1280x960 and you'll instantly notice the difference. Indeed, just scan in any picture and then hold it up to the screen and compare it. AT 1280x1024 the image will be distorted on 4:3 CRT. Then do the same at 1024x768 or 1280x960. Then you'll know what I'm talking about.

Remember though that 1280x1024 is the proper resolution for some LCD monitors. Yes these monitors are actually 5:4 monitors, not 4:3. If you use any 4:3 resolution and fill the screen, then it's gonna be distorted of course.

I'm still surprised there's so much debate about this. Think of it this way. Try putting a square foam peg into a rectangular hole. Yes, you can make it fit, but in order to do it, you have to squish or stretch the peg.



<< As for the 1280x1024 setting in particular, I don't think anyone would be able to tell the difference if they weren't trying to. The number of pixels are high enough, and our monitors are big enough that the distortion is very slight. >>

I don't know about that. If I know what a person looks like, if I see a picture of that person on a 4:3 screen set at 1280x1024, I often (but not always) can tell the image is distorted. If I don't know the person I usually won't be able to tell though. With bikes and cars it's even easier, since the wheels will no longer be round. They become ovals. It's pretty obvious once you've had it pointed out to you.

It's particularly annoying to me, because some vid card drivers do not have a 1280x960 setting, and you can't always create one either. 1280x960 is my preferred setting for a 17" monitor. 1400x1050 is my preferred setting for a 19" monitor, but I end up using 1600x1200 most of the time because of the drivers.

Here is a test:

Load up this page of a motorcycle... (An 1100 cc bike is too big for me. Sniff.. )

If you're running a 4:3 monitor, try both the 1280x1024 resolution and another resolution at 4:3 (like 1024x768 or 1280x960. At 1280x1024 you see the wheels are slightly oval, and it looks like the picture is squished top to bottom. In other words, it will look like it has been stretched sideways.

 

[dullard]

<< Incorrect. A 40x40 pixel square on a 4:3 monitor with a 4:3 resolution will be a perfect square. Create one if Photoshop and you'll see.

However, a 40x40 pixel square on a 4:3 monitor with a 1280x1024 resolution WILL NOT be a perfect square. It will be distorted. Thus it is incorrect to use 1280x1024 on any 4:3 monitor since any images (eg. mom's birthday JPEGs) will be distorted. If somebody doesn't notice it then it's just because they're used to it. Try 1280x960 and you'll instantly notice the difference. Indeed, just scan in any picture and then hold it up to the screen and compare it. AT 1280x1024 the image will be distorted on 4:3 CRT. Then do the same at 1024x768 or 1280x960. Then you'll know what I'm talking about.

I'm still surprised there's so much debate about this. Think of it this way. Try putting a square foam peg into a rectangular hole. Yes, you can make it fit, but in order to do it, you have to squish or stretch the peg. >>



I was thinking about really old monitors (1:1) and not current monitors sorry. So on a current 4:3 monitor you don't have to draw an oval for a 4:3 resolution - you are correct. However that same circle will look like an oval on 5:4 resolution on that 4:3 monitor. Thus you just alter the shape for that different resolution. My point is the exact same. A good programmer will put a different image for the different resolution and have the same effect.

A game which uses Mom's birthday JPEG's could easily scan the image twice (once for 4:3 and once for 5:4) and the effect will be undistorted if they program it to display the image according to the resolution. A good peg manufacturer will create two different foam pegs. I'm just saying that 5:4 doesn't have to be distorted (although it usually is since we don't have many good programmers out there).

The distortion is very minor anyways. Think about this: (4/3) / (5/4) = 1.0666. Thus the distortion is only 6.67% - nothing that bothers most people.

I used to program some silly games for fun in my spare time. I would play it along with my friends. I had a VGA monitor capable of 640x480, the now standard 4:3 ratio. One friend had an EGA monitor only capable of 640x350, far from any ratio now used. My best friend had an older monitor capable of only 320x200, a 8:5 ratio. To make the games, I had to test them all on my computer. Obviously the 640x350 and 320x200 distorted the images greatly. But instead of ignoring the issue, I had a simple change to the program that used different images for each resolution - problem solved and there is no distortion.

 

[Eug]

<< I was thinking about really old monitors (1:1) and not current monitors sorry. So on a current 4:3 monitor you don't have to draw an oval for a 4:3 resolution - you are correct. However that same circle will look like an oval on 5:4 resolution on that 4:3 monitor. Thus you just alter the shape for that different resolution. My point is the exact same. A good programmer will put a different image for the different resolution and have the same effect.

A game which uses Mom's birthday JPEG's could easily scan the image twice (once for 4:3 and once for 5:4) and the effect will be undistorted if they program it to display the image according to the resolution. A good peg manufacturer will create two different foam pegs. I'm just saying that 5:4 doesn't have to be distorted (although it usually is since we don't have many good programmers out there). >>

True, but for games it doesn't really matter all that much in some ways, and as you said you can just ask the program to rescale the image for the appropriate resolution and aspect ratio.

OTOH, it matters when you're playing with digital images. eg. If you're going to use Photoshop to scan in and edit images or use Illustrator to create graphics for a magazine, you definitely don't want to be using a 4:3 CRT at 1280x1024. ie. When you draw what you think is a circle, it's gonna get printed as an oval.

I'm not a programmer or anything but IMO it doesn't really make sense to have something like Photoshop or Illustrator do what you propose. It'd slow down the program (with the CPU constantly recalculating the rescales purely for 2D display). That's if you wanted good quality display, but if you wanted to speed it up it would negatively affect the video quality for 2D display while editing. eg. In Photoshop just (quick) rescaling to 33.33% to fit on screen makes it look terrible. Fortunately 100% and 50% and 25% are excellent. I can imagine that rescaling to 33%*1.067 would look bad too, but every resolution would be affected too. eg. 100%*1.067 or 25%*1.067.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

1280x1024 is 5:4. if you run a 5:4 resolution stretched to the size of a 4:3 monitor, then the picture will be distorted. if you can't get that through your head then you must be completely stupid.

/me is sick of explaining the obvious to people who think they know everything.

 

[ripthesystem]

sorry to drag this on but... how do you tell if you have a 5:4 or a 4:3 monitor?

 

[dullard]

<< OTOH, it matters when you're playing with digital images. eg. If you're going to use Photoshop to scan in and edit images or use Illustrator to create graphics for a magazine, you definitely don't want to be using a 4:3 CRT at 1280x1024. ie. When you draw what you think is a circle, it's gonna get printed as an oval. >>



Digital images and other things that the computer doesn't calculate are the one part where the distortion matters the most.

If the program must calculate what to display (like with polygon games) then it isn't that much more work to calculate something slightly thinner (or taller depending on your point of view).

If you are typing in Word, or Excel, or email you can just use a taller font for the same effect - or just realize that it doesn't matter if your text is slightly squished compared to the text in a different ratio.

I often use 1600x1280 resolution even though it is 5:4 instead of 4:3. The extra 80 pixels lets me get a few more lines of a spread sheet in or see a little more detail in my computational fluid dynamics pictures (thus I scroll less looking for information). So I like the 5:4 as it makes me more productive and makes my life easier. The next standard step up on my video card is 2048x1536 and the text just looks too small for my preferences. I guess I could try a non-standard resolution that is 4:3. What is the next step, and how do I force it?

I assume real graphics designers will use 1600x1200 to avoid any potential problems instead of 1600x1280. That is just fine with me. 1600x1200 would just make me less productive.

 

[Eug]

<< The next standard step up on my video card is 2048x1536 and the text just looks too small for my preferences. I guess I could try a non-standard resolution that is 4:3. What is the next step, and how do I force it?

I assume real graphics designers will use 1600x1200 to avoid any potential problems instead of 1600x1280. That is just fine with me. 1600x1200 would just make me less productive. >>

I suppose you could try 2048x1536 and change the font sizes, but I agree, it's not a good resolution for most people (unless you have a 21" monitor or something).


<< sorry to drag this on but... how do you tell if you have a 5:4 or a 4:3 monitor? >>

Well, if you have a CRT then 99.99% of the time it's 4:3. The easiest way to tell for sure is simply to get out a ruler. Take the horizontal glass measurement and divide it by the vertical glass measurement. If it's 1.25 then you have a 5:4 monitor because 5/4=1.25. If it's 1.33 then you have a 4:3 monitor, since 4/3=1.33.

In my case it's 14.25"/10.75" = 1.33 = 4:3 (Diagonal measurement is just under 18", which is about right for a so-called 19" monitor.) Samsung SyncMaster 950p

By the way, did you try the motorcycle wheel test? It's not like nite-and-day, but the distortion is noticeable.

 

[Floydian]

I just visited the U of Minnesota IT part, and they had some strange looking monitors (CRT's, not LCD's), standard 19inch-monitor-height wise, but wider, I asked him about it, and he said it was for graphic design, so I assume they were one of the elusive 5:4 ratio monitors out there.

BTW, they were Sun workstations, w/ Sun monitors. Still not quite sure why they would need a wider monitor, why not just make it standardized? Oh well - I don't think they were running at 1280/1024, something bigger, 1600/1200 is it? Not quite sure

 

[kgraeme]

<< I assume real graphics designers will use 1600x1200 to avoid any potential problems instead of 1600x1280. That is just fine with me. 1600x1200 would just make me less productive. >>



80 pixels makes you less productive?

I'm a professional designer. Correct proportions are important to me. If I run my display at 1280x1024 on a normal 4:3 monitor I can see the distortion, so I go into the monitor's configuration and change the actual scan area to make everything square. BTW, "real" graphic designers don't all use 1600x1200. I don't, and most of the ones I know don't. I personally run 1024x768 on two monitors. With Photoshop it doesn't really matter for the image what resolution you use since you are zooming in and out anyway. The benefit of a higher res is to get the palettes smaller to give you more working room. With two monitors I just put all the palettes on the second monitor and use the primary for the image only. And at the lower res I get faster graphics performance. And I can actually read my email too.

 

[Eug]

<< I'm a professional designer. Correct proportions are important to me. If I run my display at 1280x1024 on a normal 4:3 monitor I can see the distortion, so I go into the monitor's configuration and change the actual scan area to make everything square. BTW, "real" graphic designers don't all use 1600x1200. I don't, and most of the ones I know don't. I personally run 1024x768 on two monitors. With Photoshop it doesn't really matter for the image what resolution you use since you are zooming in and out anyway. The benefit of a higher res is to get the palettes smaller to give you more working room. With two monitors I just put all the palettes on the second monitor and use the primary for the image only. And at the lower res I get faster graphics performance. And I can actually read my email too. >>



I'm not a professional designer. Anyways, I run 1600x1200 simply because my drivers won't allow 1400x1050 (19" monitor), which is my preferred resolution. However, in XP, changing the font sizes makes everything easily readable even at 1600. It's a pain to set things in Win NT 4 though. I run 2560x960 at work over two monitors in Windows 2000, but I don't at home because of cost and because most of the dual monitor cards have mediocre gaming for the price. (That's moot now though since I don't game anymore, but at the time it was a consideration.)

 

[dullard]

<< 80 pixels makes you less productive? >>



Ok here are two common examples that nearly everyone can test on their own.
1) MS word. Set the zoom to 100% while at 1600x1200 resolution. On a paper with 1/2" margins you cannot read the top and bottom of a page at the same time. You have two choices: (A) scroll repeatedly up and down or (B) set the zoom to about 95%. I use hundreds of equations in a paper, and these are unreadable unless at 100% or more zoom so I have to repeatedly scroll up and down to write/edit. Now set the resolution to 1600x1280. You can see the whole page at 100% zoom with no equation problems and no scrolling. This is a help in productivity.
2) MS Excel. Set the resolution to 1600x1200. With my cell sizes set to a comfortable level (and 100% zoom), I get 49 lines on the screen. At 1600x1280 I get 53 lines on the screen. That means I see 8% more information at a single glance. I personally work with blocks of 50 (thus needing to constantly scroll when the screen only shows 49 lines at a time). This extra screen boost makes my work a lot less tiresome. Sure I could set the zoom to 95% or so but then you have your graphics and charts looking corrupted with missing lines...

 

[mesonw]

Personally I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet over aspect ratios. Living in a PAL territory, all old SNES games were bordered by thick black strips, and all images were squashed. This was because the native resolution for them was based on the NTSC format which has less scan lines. As a consequence I spot the odd ratio straight away. I tried playing UnrealTournament at 1600x900 (my 1st-gen GeForceDDR on Athlon600 could handle that reasonably well, 1600x1200 was too much for it), and it looked absolutely horrible. Likewise, the squat look of people/bots at 1280x1024 looks horrible to me.

(Obviously I'm going on the basis of using the whole screen, not adjusting the picture to make things the correct aspect, but gaining black borders.)

I agree that 1280x960 should become a standard for benchmarking, because 1280x1024 is NOT a proper gaming ratio unless you have a 5:4 monitor. It's not the cards that are limited, and often not the drivers, but the games themselves. I wanted to play Jedi Knight II at 1280x960, but there's no option to, so I was limited to 1152x864 until I realised I could run smoothly at 1600x1200.

I say to developers "wake up and pay a little heed".

 

[zephyrprime]

<< Digital images and other things that the computer doesn't calculate are the one part where the distortion matters the most. >>



What you mean to say when you say "Digital images" is "raster images". The images you refer to as being calculated are properly called vector images. Theres also stuff like 3D images that are both vector and raster but also neither.

By the way, Bulldog7000 doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.

Also, I've seen the funny monitors at the University of Minnesota also. They're not 5:4. A 5:4 monitor is slightly taller than a regular 4:3 monitor while the UofM monitors are wider than normal. Perhaps those monitors are 3:2?

 

[Eug]

<< By the way, Bulldog7000 doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. >>



<< EDIT: TO VERIFY WHAT I JUST SAID, GO INTO MS PAINT AND DRAW A PERFECT CIRCLE (Hold down the shift key while dragging your circle size, this prevents an oval from forming) THEN CHANGE YOUR RES TO ONE WITH A DIFFERENT ASPECT RATIO AND LOOK AT THE CIRCLE! NO OVAL. >>


See above. A perfect circle, ie. 40 pixels wide by 40 pixels tall, will be an oval on 1280x1024, unless you've set up your monitor strangely (or you have a 5:4 monitor). If you can't see it then you're obviously it's irrelevant to you. For most of us in this thread, it's pretty obvious. Mind you if you change your resolution from say 1024x768 to 1600x1200, it will still be round. OTOH, even if you just draw a perfect circle in 1280x1024, it will be oval shaped. Conversely, if you draw a circle that looks right in 1280x1024 it will not be a perfect circle, and will be oval shaped with a 4:3 resolution.

 

[gunf1ghter]

So how do LCD's with 1280X1024 resolutions fit into this? If the person who wrote the game tried to do a trick and "fix" the game for the 4:3 resolution of CRT's then when the image plays on a 5:4 LCD screen it will still be distorted.

 

[dullard]

<< So how do LCD's with 1280X1024 resolutions fit into this? If the person who wrote the game tried to do a trick and "fix" the game for the 4:3 resolution of CRT's then when the image plays on a 5:4 LCD screen it will still be distorted. >>



It isn't as easy as it used to be - with every monitor having a different resolution limit (EGA vs VGA vs Hercules vs SVGA vs...) I guess there would need to be a preference for this "fix". If you hate a 6.67% stretch so much that it causes dislike in the game, then select the box and the game will display with a different set of images that are unstretched for you.

What do you 5:4 haters think about the newer digital TVs? They often come in widescreen format and let you stretch the vision (I'm guessing about a 25% distortion) to avoid black bars. I bet you hate those TVs when set to streched mode.

 

[ElFenix]

streched mode looks like crap.


what needs to happen is 1280x960 become a standard resolution in shipped display drivers, as well as 1400x1050. i hate that the new nvidia drivers don't allow custom resolutions, so i've been using my haxored 21.83s.