• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who uses 1280x1024?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
If the big concern is greater vertical resolution, then take a 4:3 screen and turn it 90 degrees, for a 3:4 screen - which beats 4:3, 5:4, and 4:5!

At least then, you can turn it back to 4:3 if you need to use standard resolutions. Say, to watch TV.

You do realize that 5:4 wastes more screen real estate than 4:3 for watching wide-screen video, right?

 
widescreen video looks fine on my 17 inch 5:4 lcd.....dont see anymore wasted than on my tv or monitor....
 
Umm... 720x576 (5:4) is the CCIR 601 standard.

All PAL DVDs are recorded at 720x576, not the "square pixel" PAL resolution of 768x576.
 


<< dont see anymore wasted than on my tv or monitor >>



Sure there is. Stop to think about it. If I had a TV that was one inch wide and eleven inches tall, I'd be wasting a lot of screen displaying a widescreen video. And a 5:4 screen is taller than a 4:3 screen.
 
ADxS, yes right ... the movie industry at work crippling things again. TV Broadcast standard is 768 pixels, and if you watch PAL TV-in-a-window a lot, you'll see that there are left and right margins of varying width, many things fit exactly, some don't.

PAL TV is 15.625 MHz pixel clock, 768 visible pixels, 1000 pixels total for 15.625 kHz scan frequency. 576 visible lines, 625 total for exactly 50 Hz interlaced.

regards, Peter
 
hmmm...i've been running 1280x1024 for about a year...never noticed the distortion...guess i'll try 1600x1200x32 at 85hz for awhile.
 
btw, the next mainstream panel size we'll get is 1400x1050. The first wave of notebooks using these has already hit the shelves, and once the values ramp up, we'll have desktop panels using that resolution too.

regards, Peter
 
yea you guys, no matter how you slice it you NEED to be using 960 unless you want a distorted picture.

CRT screens are 4:3, 960 is 4:3, 1024 is 5:4. now why doesn't it seem strange to use a 5:4 aspect ratio for a SCREEN that is 4:3? if you like things squashed and you dont do any graphics work, that's cool, but if you do ANY kind of image/video editing it's absolutely crucial to use the right aspect ratio. it's like back when everyone and their mom used the buggy flaskmpeg to encode divx movies. frikking every movie had horrible distortion because of incorrect aspect ratios and no one cared! arhghgghg

17-18 LCD's are 5:4. why this is is totally beyond me. i mean 15 inchers are 4:3, 19"+ are 4:3, but not frikkin 17-18"! with these lcd's you would obviously need to run at 1024, but the problem is that running in any other 4:3 resolution means you get a squashed image 🙁. a few lcd's compensate for this buy displaying a correct 4:3 ratio but having black bars top and bottom.

so let's all come together to fight the evil 'bastard resolution' that is 1280x1024.

regards.
 
The reason why those 17" LCDs are 5:4 is that they're made to use that just as stupid as it is widespread 1280x1024 resolution. The resolution was here first, everyone in the PC world has it, and as long as we're on VGA not DVI, the graphics card has the say in which resolutions are available and which are not. So if they'd made 1280x960 VGA panels, noone would have been able to use them from Windows.

regards, Peter
 
Woah, I have been running 1280x1024 since I got my 17' monitor, I just tried 1280x964 and it looks weird... I dont know. o what is this about Hz? my monitor runs 1280x1024 at 60Hz is this bad?
 
60hz is real bad. 72-75 is the accepted minimum, and even then, some people need 85 to feel warm and fuzzy.

I used to use 1280x1024, I've wised up, every since seeing a photo of myself on it. 1024 is bigger than 960, so things aren't squashed--I must have gained 50 pounds!
 
example of someone who doesn't understand his own statement:



<< Wider? That would be going in the other direction. A 5:4 screen is taller than a 4:3 screen >>



if we compare 5/4 and 4/3

5/4 * 3/3 = 15/12
4/3 * 4/4 = 16/12

from what you see which ratio is higher?
 
davidg::::::::

please learn some basic math skills before making yourself an "expert" on how to measure


Sure there is. Stop to think about it. If I had a TV that was one inch wide and eleven inches tall, I'd be wasting a lot of screen displaying a widescreen video. And a 5:4 screen is taller than a 4:3 screen
 
And how about area? Would the area of a 19" (viewable) CRT with the 4:3 be equal to the area of a 19" LCD with 5:4 ratio? too bored to do the math 😉

With my CRT i was using 1152x864 and it was perfect. Now with the LCD I am using 1280x1024 and I was wondering why i am now getting black lines on top and bottom when i was watching TV at full screen with my tv-tuner. Now i know 🙂

Somebody said that DVD in Europe is 5:4 , i hope this is the case since I am moving back to Europe soon and I wouldn't like to watch DVDs with black lines on top and bottom.


 
wow this is all very interesting....

i just put my syncmaster 700nf (17'') at 1600X1200@75hz, the highest it can go. damn SMALL.

but i think i'll see if i can get used to 12X9...makes sense.
 


<< please learn some basic math skills before making yourself an "expert" on how to measure >>



Please learn some basic *reading* skills. I never said that 5:4 is a larger ratio than 4:3; I said a 5:4 screen is taller (relatively, given equal horizontal resolution) than a 4:3 screen. As they are both given horizontal:vertical, it follows that a larger vertical gives a smaller ratio. I am very good at math, sir.
 
I switched from 1024x768 to 1280x1024 to 1280x960 and 60HZ is the max i can get with 1280x1024 and also with 1280x960, should I switch to 1152x864 @75hz or should i stay at 1280x960 @ 60HZ? and could someone explain why 60HZ is so bad?
 
Because the image processing in your brain sees it flicker, causing you to fatigue much faster. The ideal range for humans is 72-90 Hz.

You can test your individual brain's properties by looking at an object above and behind the monitor, not directly into it. See the screen flicker then? If you do, the refresh rate is too low for you.

regards, Peter
 
1280 x 1024 x32bit x 85Hz on a trinitron 19"

Couldn't really ask more much more more.

A mates 18" LCD screen runs 1280 x 1024 native and when plugged into the DVI output it looks absolutly gorgeous.

 
I'm using 1280 x 1024 on my Radeon 8500 LE, because I can't get 1280 x 960 to work. I used to use 1280 x 960 on my GeForce 2 and liked it, but the Radeon doesn't have that option by default. I downloaded Rage3D Tweak, and used that to set my resolution to 1280 x 960, but for some reason, at that resolution, no matter what I set my refresh rate to, it stays at 60 Hz. So, until I can find out why, I'm back at 1280x1024.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top