Why 1280x1024?

[SocrPlyr]

UXGA (1600 x 1200), SXGA (1280 x 1024), XGA (1024 x 768), SVGA (800 x 600), VGA (640 x 480)
Why is SXGA a resolution? it doesn't follow the 4:3 ratio of all the rest? this would cause the possibility of distortion in certain programs... i just don't understand why they wouldn't have made it like 1280x960 or something like that...
in reality there is a reason for my rant...
i am interested in getting a planar lcd and the resolution on it is sxga..., now this causes a problem when i want to run at a smaller rate or something like that? is the panel itself in a 5:4 ratio or is are the pixels not square to make it 4:3? if i scale down (which i probably wouldn't do) how would this affect the picture...
basically i just ask why not keep w/ the 4:3 ratio... (now i am thinking of getting the much more expensive lcd w/ 1600x1200, just to keep it in the correct proportions...
i was just wondering if anyone else out there had any comments or answers? (i know that wasn't really a question )

thanks guys
Josh

Edit: getting rid of the stupid font code...

 

[Dimitri]

If you're gonna be running out of native resolution and notice the difference between 4:3 and 5:4 as well, I guess you're best off avoiding a 1280x1024 lcd, but 1600x1200 are much fewer and more expensive. The planar 17" ones are 5:4, more square.

 

[Eug]

First, check out the other thread.

Second, most 1280x1024 LCD screens are actually 5:4 screens, so there is no distortion.

Third, you don't want to run anything except the native resolution, so if you don't want to run 1280x1024, then don't buy a 1280x1024 LCD.

Fourth, higher resolution LCDs are VERY expensive.

 

[BFG10K]

1280 x 1024 has the native 5:4 ratio that LCDs have and it's also leftover from the earlier days of video cards when it was easier to make it fit into the VRAM than 1280 x 960 was.

 

[smp]

Yeah, but 1280x960 is better

I think it sucks too SocrPlyr

 

[CubicZirconia]

I don't think distortion is much of problem. Whatever distortion exists, its minimal.

 

[SocrPlyr]

thanks for the input guys... one thing that i noticed from the other thread that was linked above is the comments from it only pertain to CRTs... if a CRT is running at 1280x1024 then the resolution is out of sync, but the picture is not (assuming that the picture is being spread to the edges cuz the CRT is still 4:3... it just means that the pixels on the CRT aren't square) therefore would you see any distortion on a CRT? i don't really know cuz i don't know how things are programmed... cuz if it is programmed by pixel by pixel ratios then there would be distortion but if it was programmed to detect the ratio of pixels then it would come out ok... but how are things really programmed, by pixel or by portion of screen or what?... i guess i just don't know here...
now the last thing is that if the computer compensates for the 5:4 resolution being shown on a CRT (4:3) then there would be distortion on the lcd cuz the computer would be compensating for nonsquare pixels, but they are square on the LCD (i checked out planar's and actual screen size is in 5:4)
so which one is it distorted on LCD or CRT?

just a few added rambles...
thanks guys
Josh

 

[BFG10K]

Whatever distortion exists, its minimal.

I find it very visible and the whole image looks squashed and flatter than it should be.

so which one is it distorted on LCD or CRT?

The CRT is because at a 4:3 ratio the pixels are square and look how they should. At 5:4 the pixels are vertically too small.

 

[QTPie]

<< Whatever distortion exists, its minimal>>

I just don't like to draw a circle and get an oval. I'd go with 1280x960 for CRT and 1024x768 for LCD.

 

[Derango]

I think SXGA+ is a more common resolution though. 1400x1050, 4:3 ratio. I don't recall seeing too many SXGA's around