Where did 1280x1024 come from?
Mxsmanic
option for hardware and software monitor configuration? Almost all
monitors have a 4:3 aspect ratio, and all selectable resolutions have
the same ratio ... except 1280x1024. Why this exception to the rule?
There must be some sort of historical reason for it.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Larc
| Why is 1280x1024 so often included among other resolutions as an
| option for hardware and software monitor configuration? Almost all
| monitors have a 4:3 aspect ratio, and all selectable resolutions have
| the same ratio ... except 1280x1024. Why this exception to the rule?
| There must be some sort of historical reason for it.
I've wondered that as well, but my questions about it have never resulted in any
logical answers. My CRT is set to 1280 x 960, which is 4:3.
Larc
งงง - Change planet to earth to reply by email - งงง
David Maynard
> Why is 1280x1024 so often included among other resolutions as an
> option for hardware and software monitor configuration? Almost all
> monitors have a 4:3 aspect ratio, and all selectable resolutions have
> the same ratio ... except 1280x1024. Why this exception to the rule?
> There must be some sort of historical reason for it.
>
Wish I could tell ya but I don't know either.
That's the resolution I'm using, though,
Lez Pawl
"David Maynard" <nos...@private.net> wrote in message
news:12eihdl...@corp.supernews.com...
same here and its perfect for my 19"er
EDM
From elsewhere in cyberland:
"For mostly obscure hardware reasons, early DRAM/VRAM
graphics controller implementations favored horizontal
resolutions that were a multiple of the row size. 1280 is
divisible by 256, the row size of a 64K DRAM.
One of those obscure reasons was address translation. If you
form the linear framebuffer address as (2048*y)+x, it made
doing blt hardware much easier: just map x and y onto the
appropriate row and column bits.
Another of those reasons was being able to load the video
shift registers at the same times each line. This made the timing
control easier to do in the logic of the day (think MSI counters
and gates.)
Modern gfx conrollers refresh the display using periodic burst
DRAM access instead of actual shift registers; and they have
hardware to help deal with the x-y to linear address translation.
So the whole issue of row size pretty much goes away."
Lez Pawl
"EDM" <EDM_sp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rndGg.6736$Sn3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
do you know, I was just gonna say that.
Garrot
> Why is 1280x1024 so often included among other resolutions as an
> option for hardware and software monitor configuration? Almost all
> monitors have a 4:3 aspect ratio, and all selectable resolutions have
> the same ratio ... except 1280x1024. Why this exception to the rule?
> There must be some sort of historical reason for it.
>
widescreen models. 17" and 19" LCD's have a native resolution of
1280x1024, these are the most bought monitors now. That means most
monitors have a 5:4 aspect ratio and not 4:3 as you said. Very few
people buy 4:3 crt's anymore.
Senex
Bingo, give the man an Havana.
johnlbrown53
"Lez Pawl" <L...@Pawlbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:I7-dnaVcXJAk1XTZ...@bt.com...
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Clint
Take back the man's cigar...
Clint
"Senex" <Se...@Senex.net> wrote in message
news:mn.aa1d7d68f...@Senex.net...
Senex
> Except the 1280x1024 resolution pre-dated the commonly available LCD panels.
>
> Take back the man's cigar...
<snip>
The only time you should use 1280x1024 is if it is the native
resolution of an LCD monitor. If you are using a CRT monitor, do not
use 1280x1024. Why?
Monitors have something called an aspect ratio. This is the ratio
between the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the monitor, and
determines whether the monitor is more square-shaped or more
rectangular. Virtually all CRT monitors and many LCD monitors have a
4:3 aspect ratio, which means if you divide the horizontal size by the
vertical size, you will get (roughly) 4/3, or 1.333333333… repeating.
Screen resolutions also have their own aspect ratio, which is
independent of the aspect ratio of the monitor. Fortunately, most
popular resolutions (800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1600x1200, etc.) are
also a 4:3 aspect ratio, so when you display them on a 4:3 monitor,
everything looks normal. Here is the problem: 1280x1024 is not a 4:3
resolution. It is, in fact, 5:4. Thus, if you use 1280x1024 on a
normal 4:3 ratio monitor (most CRTs are 4:3), everything will be
squished vertically because the aspect ratios are different. There is
no way around this; if your monitor is 4:3, the resolution you want is
1280x960, not 1280x1024.
Of course, it’s more complicated than this. Many new LCD monitors have
a native resolution of 1280x1024. This means that the monitor itself
is now a 5:4 ratio, so regular resolutions will be wrong. 800x600,
1024x768, 1152x864, 1600x1200, none of these will display properly.
Confusing things even more, there are now widescreen monitors, which
are completely different from both 4:3 and 5:4.
Larc
Understood. But now for the big question. When the accepted aspect ratio for
computer monitors was already 4:3, WHY would LCD monitors come along at 5:4?
Didn't anybody know how to make them 4:3 because of technical limitations? Or
did somebody suddenly decide that 5:4 was better? Most computer graphics were
constructed for 4:3 monitors then, and I suspect that most still are.
So far most of the answers to the 1280 x 1024 question have basically been
"Because that's the way things are." I'd really like to know WHY things are
that way.
Something tells me I may have to keep wondering... ;)
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
Mxsmanic
> "For mostly obscure hardware reasons, early DRAM/VRAM
> graphics controller implementations favored horizontal
> resolutions that were a multiple of the row size. 1280 is
> divisible by 256, the row size of a 64K DRAM.
>
> One of those obscure reasons was address translation. If you
> form the linear framebuffer address as (2048*y)+x, it made
> doing blt hardware much easier: just map x and y onto the
> appropriate row and column bits.
>
> Another of those reasons was being able to load the video
> shift registers at the same times each line. This made the timing
> control easier to do in the logic of the day (think MSI counters
> and gates.)
>
> Modern gfx conrollers refresh the display using periodic burst
> DRAM access instead of actual shift registers; and they have
> hardware to help deal with the x-y to linear address translation.
> So the whole issue of row size pretty much goes away."
Fascinating. Where did you find this?
Mxsmanic
> All standard LCD monitors are 5:4 ratio, the only ones that are not are
> widescreen models.
The standard ration is 4:3. I just measured mine: 4:3 (40x30 cm).
> 17" and 19" LCD's have a native resolution of
> 1280x1024, these are the most bought monitors now. That means most
> monitors have a 5:4 aspect ratio and not 4:3 as you said. Very few
> people buy 4:3 crt's anymore.
I'm not sure where you live, but the situation is exactly the opposite
everywhere I've seen. The latest monitors still have a 4:3 ratio,
even when they have native resolution of 1280x1024. It's easy to see,
too, since circles are obviously oval on the screen when it is set to
this resolution.
Mxsmanic
> Of course, it’s more complicated than this. Many new LCD monitors have
> a native resolution of 1280x1024. This means that the monitor itself
> is now a 5:4 ratio, so regular resolutions will be wrong.
This is incorrect. New LCD monitors have aspect ratios of 4:3 as a
general rule, just like old LCD monitors and CRTs. If you set them to
any resolution that is not also a 4:3 ratio of row pixels to column
pixels, images will be distorted on the screen. Fortunately, the only
standard resolution that has this problem is 1280x1024.
> ... 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1600x1200, none of these will display
> properly.
They aren't necessarily the native resolution of some monitors, but
they display with proper proportions, at least.
It looks like some people still are confused by resolution issues.
Mxsmanic
> Understood. But now for the big question. When the accepted aspect ratio for
> computer monitors was already 4:3, WHY would LCD monitors come along at 5:4?
They wouldn't. The LCD monitor screens still have a physical ratio of
4:3.
I do wonder why 4:3 LCD screens are being made with native resolutions
that don't match the aspect ratio, though (such as 1280x1024).
> Didn't anybody know how to make them 4:3 because of technical limitations? Or
> did somebody suddenly decide that 5:4 was better? Most computer graphics were
> constructed for 4:3 monitors then, and I suspect that most still are.
My guess is that a greater number of pixels was a marketing advantage.
Most users (including some in this newsgroup, apparently) don't
understand that 1280x1024 causes distortion on a 4:3 screen--and a 5:4
screen would distort every resolution _except_ 1280x1024 (which is
5:4).
In any case, I shall make a point in the future of only buying flat
panels with native resolutions that matches their aspect ratios.
Senex
All LCD screens can actually display only a single given resolution
referred to as the native resolution. This is the physically number of
horizontal and vertical pixels that make up the LCD matrix of the
display. Setting a computer display to a resolution lower than this
resolution will either cause the monitor to use a reduced visible area
of the screen or it will have to do extrapolation. This extrapolation
attempts to blend multiple pixels together to produce a similar image
to what you would see if the monitor were to display it at the given
resolution but it can result in fuzzy images.
Here are some of the common native resolutions found in LCD monitors:
* 14-15": 1024x768 (XGA)
* 17-19": 1280x1024 (SXGA)
* 20"+: 1600x1200 (UXGA)
* 19” (Widescreen): 1440x900 (WXGA+)
* 20” (Widescreen): 1680x1050 (WSXGA+)
* 24” (Widescreen): 1920x1200 (WUXGA)
* 30” (Widescreen): 2560x1600
Larc
| Here are some of the common native resolutions found in LCD monitors:
|
| * 14-15": 1024x768 (XGA)
- 4:3
| * 17-19": 1280x1024 (SXGA)
- 5:4
| * 20"+: 1600x1200 (UXGA)
- 4:3
Wouldn't you agree there's one that "sticks out like a sore thumb"? That lone
5:4 completely defies logic. There MUST be a reason for it.
I guess we could first consider stupidity and work up from that if there's any
need. ;)
Larc
งงง - Change planet to earth to reply by email - งงง
kony
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Larc writes:
>
>> Understood. But now for the big question. When the accepted aspect ratio for
>> computer monitors was already 4:3, WHY would LCD monitors come along at 5:4?
>
>They wouldn't. The LCD monitor screens still have a physical ratio of
>4:3.
>
>I do wonder why 4:3 LCD screens are being made with native resolutions
>that don't match the aspect ratio, though (such as 1280x1024).
You might want to measure a screen, they don't all have 4:3
physical ratio. I do recall measuring one of the 19" I
have, it's very close to 5:4, probably spot-on, not 4:3.
kony
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Senex writes:
>
>> Of course, it’s more complicated than this. Many new LCD monitors have
>> a native resolution of 1280x1024. This means that the monitor itself
>> is now a 5:4 ratio, so regular resolutions will be wrong.
>
>This is incorrect. New LCD monitors have aspect ratios of 4:3 as a
>general rule,
Oh? What makes you assume this?
Some do, those with 1600x1200 ratio.
Garrot
> Except the 1280x1024 resolution pre-dated the commonly available LCD panels.
>
> Take back the man's cigar...
No, no, I want my cigar! :)
Andrew Smallshaw
> I do wonder why 4:3 LCD screens are being made with native resolutions
> that don't match the aspect ratio, though (such as 1280x1024).
> Most users (including some in this newsgroup, apparently) don't
> understand that 1280x1024 causes distortion on a 4:3 screen--and a 5:4
> screen would distort every resolution _except_ 1280x1024 (which is
> 5:4).
Historically, there has been no big attachment to the 4:3 aspect
ratio for resolutions, although there certainly has for physical
screen dimensions. CGA was 320*200 or 640X200 with a physical 4:3
screen and EGA topped out at 640*350 - all too wide for a square
depiction on a 4:3 display. It didn't really matter though since
software that it mattered to (e.g. CAD) used scaling factors in
their calculations to display images in their correct proportions.
For most purposes I suspect it makes little difference - you are
used to looking at things with distorted aspect ratios in the real
world - anything that isn't exactly square on. Additionally I know
plenty of people who state they can't notice the distortion when a
widescreen TV stretches normal programs to fill the whole screen -
a much greater distortion than anything here.
I suspect the choice of 1280*1024 has more to do with memory sizes
than anything else - it equates to exactly 1.25 megapixels so 16
colours could be done using e.g. 10 64Kx8 or 128Kx4 memory chips
without waste. At the this resolution was defined (1990 or so)
the cost of a megabyte of RAM was probably at least $100, and was
more than the average main memory of an IBM PC, so this would have
been an important consideration.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
and...@sdf.lonestar.org
kony
It'd be easy to see if true, but that doesn't mean it always
is. Perhaps you have succumb to an urban myth?
I have a 19" 4:3 CRT sitting right next to a 19" 5:4 LCD,
there's no question about it, the LCD is not 4:3 ratio and
1280x1024 does stretch things on the CRT. Yes, I've
measured it again just a moment ago to double-check this, a
circle is in the correct ratio on the LCD but not the CRT at
1280x1024.
Garrot
> This is incorrect. New LCD monitors have aspect ratios of 4:3 as a
> general rule, just like old LCD monitors and CRTs.
Sorry, you are wrong, I've never even seen a 17" or 19" model(the most
common bought sizes) that is not 5:4 ratio. Their native res is
1280x1024 which is 5:4.
Garrot
>The latest monitors still have a 4:3 ratio,
> even when they have native resolution of 1280x1024.
??? You're the confused one...very confused.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10163_7-5912625-5.html
"Even if your display looks good at a nonnative resolution, there's one
gotcha to consider. A flat-panel monitor with a native resolution of
1,280x1,024 has an aspect ratio of 5:4, and this matches the
height-to-width proportions of the screen itself."
Mxsmanic
> You might want to measure a screen, they don't all have 4:3
> physical ratio.
The ones I've measured have all been 4:3, including several with
native resolutions of 1280x1024. The distortion is easy to see on the
screen with things like circles (which appear slightly oval).
Mxsmanic
> Oh? What makes you assume this?
Reading their specs, which invariably give 4:3 dimensions for the
screen surface. There are some widescreen displays, but they are far
from 5:4.
Mxsmanic
> Sorry, you are wrong, I've never even seen a 17" or 19" model(the most
> common bought sizes) that is not 5:4 ratio.
I have several sitting in front of me.
> Their native res is 1280x1024 which is 5:4.
You're confusing the resolution with the physical dimensions of the
screen. The screen is 4:3. The native resolution is 1280x1024. This
means that, when the screen is used at its native resolution, the
image on the screen is slightly distorted, being slightly compressed
horizontally. Circles will appear as ovals with the long axis
vertical.
Mxsmanic
> It'd be easy to see if true, but that doesn't mean it always
> is. Perhaps you have succumb to an urban myth?
It has been true in each case I've examined.
If you know of a LCD monitor with published specs for screen
dimensions of 5:4, I'd like to see those specs. I suppose there are
such screens out there somewhere, but the very vast majority of
screens are 4:3, even when the native resolution is 1280x1024.
> I have a 19" 4:3 CRT sitting right next to a 19" 5:4 LCD,
> there's no question about it, the LCD is not 4:3 ratio and
> 1280x1024 does stretch things on the CRT. Yes, I've
> measured it again just a moment ago to double-check this, a
> circle is in the correct ratio on the LCD but not the CRT at
> 1280x1024.
What are the dimensions of the images on the screens of these
monitors?
Mxsmanic
> ??? You're the confused one...very confused.
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10163_7-5912625-5.html
> "Even if your display looks good at a nonnative resolution, there's one
> gotcha to consider. A flat-panel monitor with a native resolution of
> 1,280x1,024 has an aspect ratio of 5:4, and this matches the
> height-to-width proportions of the screen itself."
I stand corrected. At least some of the monitors that have native
resolutions of 1280x1024 are indeed 5:4. Perhaps I have been setting
the wrong resolutions on some monitors (believe it or not, some of the
low-end monitors I've installed didn't mention the native resolution
of the monitor anywhere in the documentation, although I've generally
assumed that the highest supported resolution is the native
resolution).
Senex
>
>> It'd be easy to see if true, but that doesn't mean it always
>> is. Perhaps you have succumb to an urban myth?
>
> It has been true in each case I've examined.
>
> If you know of a LCD monitor with published specs for screen
> dimensions of 5:4, I'd like to see those specs.
http://www.dealtime.com/xPO-Acer_AL1923_R_19IN_1280X1024_100_1_2X1_0_W_INTERNAL_ADAPTER_TITANIUM
<snip>
Mxsmanic
> http://www.dealtime.com/xPO-Acer_AL1923_R_19IN_1280X1024_100_1_2X1_0_W_INTERNAL_ADAPTER_TITANIUM
Thanks. My mistake; sorry. I've looked at a lot of other specs, too,
and it now appears that 1280x1024 panels are indeed 5:4.
I may have been misled by bitmapped graphics on screens or something,
which can be distorted if the aspect ratio of the screen isn't what
the creator of the bitmap expected.
Garrot
>> the 1280x1024 is for those of us who have wide screen computers.
??? Clueless
Garrot
>At least some of the monitors that have native
> resolutions of 1280x1024 are indeed 5:4.
Not just some, all.
>although I've generally
> assumed that the highest supported resolution is the native
> resolution).
>
It is, except on many HDTV's they can upscale to 1080i even though their
native res is maybe 1366x768.
Garrot
> If you know of a LCD monitor with published specs for screen
> dimensions of 5:4, I'd like to see those specs. I suppose there are
> such screens out there somewhere, but the very vast majority of
> screens are 4:3, even when the native resolution is 1280x1024.
No.
kony
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>kony writes:
>
>> You might want to measure a screen, they don't all have 4:3
>> physical ratio.
>
>The ones I've measured have all been 4:3, including several with
>native resolutions of 1280x1024. The distortion is easy to see on the
>screen with things like circles (which appear slightly oval).
Were these very old LCDs?
AFAIK, all the major panel manufacturers are making correct
aspect ratio panels. No matter the ratio of pixels, today
they should be accurate dimensionally as well.
kony
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>kony writes:
>
>> Oh? What makes you assume this?
>
>Reading their specs, which invariably give 4:3 dimensions for the
>screen surface. There are some widescreen displays, but they are far
>from 5:4.
Oh?
As a check, I just went to newegg.com and randomly clicked
on one of their advertised specials, a BenQ FP93GX 19",
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824014111
Note the spec, Display Area 14.8" x 11.8" (5:4)
I suppose now it's only fair to ask you to produce one that
claims 4:3
Sjouke Burry
kony
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>kony writes:
>
>> It'd be easy to see if true, but that doesn't mean it always
>> is. Perhaps you have succumb to an urban myth?
>
>It has been true in each case I've examined.
>
>If you know of a LCD monitor with published specs for screen
>dimensions of 5:4, I'd like to see those specs.
See the link in my previous post.
Further, I have one sitting in front of me that is 5:4
physical dimensions as mentioned below.
>suppose there are
>such screens out there somewhere, but the very vast majority of
>screens are 4:3, even when the native resolution is 1280x1024.
I disagree, think the minority of old ones "might" be, but
in general they are not, when a monitor has 5:4 pixels it
has the same physical dimensions.
>
>> I have a 19" 4:3 CRT sitting right next to a 19" 5:4 LCD,
>> there's no question about it, the LCD is not 4:3 ratio and
>> 1280x1024 does stretch things on the CRT. Yes, I've
>> measured it again just a moment ago to double-check this, a
>> circle is in the correct ratio on the LCD but not the CRT at
>> 1280x1024.
>
>What are the dimensions of the images on the screens of these
>monitors?
That's what I measured. The LCD is 375mm W x 300mm H (live
pixel area, about 1mm more visible around the inside of the
plastic frame). Also measured was a *perfect* circle from
an image editing program, also dead-on 1:1
horizontal:vertical.
Thomas Wendell
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Why is 1280x1024 so often included among other resolutions as an
>> option for hardware and software monitor configuration? Almost all
>> monitors have a 4:3 aspect ratio, and all selectable resolutions have
>> the same ratio ... except 1280x1024. Why this exception to the rule?
>> There must be some sort of historical reason for it.
>>
> All standard LCD monitors are 5:4 ratio, the only ones that are not
> 1280x1024, these are the most bought monitors now. That means most
> monitors have a 5:4 aspect ratio and not 4:3 as you said. Very few
> people buy 4:3 crt's anymore.
Remember any (old) 15" LCD monitor????? 1024*768..... that's 4:3 ratio..
--
Tumppi
=================================
A lot learned from these newsgroups
Helsinki, FINLAND
(translations from/to FI not always accurate
=================================
kony
<burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote:
>>>>Understood. But now for the big question. When the accepted aspect ratio for
>>>>computer monitors was already 4:3, WHY would LCD monitors come along at 5:4?
>>>
>>>They wouldn't. The LCD monitor screens still have a physical ratio of
>>>4:3.
>>>
>>>I do wonder why 4:3 LCD screens are being made with native resolutions
>>>that don't match the aspect ratio, though (such as 1280x1024).
>>
>>
>>
>> You might want to measure a screen, they don't all have 4:3
>> physical ratio. I do recall measuring one of the 19" I
>> have, it's very close to 5:4, probably spot-on, not 4:3.
>>
>>
>Looking around....1..2............8 screens with 4:3
19" screens? If so, what make and models?
Sjouke Burry
chucking earlier generations ;) :)
(IBM-xt, BBC_b, arc310,186 ,286, 486,p200 ,p200 ,celeron2.7GHZ,
with their screens of the day)
kony
<burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote:
I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean, they're
only CPU/system names.
The topic was 19" LCDs. I only wrote "screen" above though,
certainly most 19" CRT are 4:3 but we were talking about
LCD, and if you know of 4:3 19" LCD, which specific make and
model of monitor, not system, they were.
Mxsmanic
> Were these very old LCDs?
One was new. The others of indeterminate age.
> AFAIK, all the major panel manufacturers are making correct
> aspect ratio panels. No matter the ratio of pixels, today
> they should be accurate dimensionally as well.
This is good news for me. It was always a source of irritation with
CRTs.
Mxsmanic
> Looking around....1..2............8 screens with 4:3
I think 4:3 is still overwhelmingly the dominant aspect ratio.
Mxsmanic
> It is, except on many HDTV's they can upscale to 1080i even though their
> native res is maybe 1366x768.
Television sets tend to be a blurry mess compared to computer
monitors. I can't believe that so-called HDTV still has only 1080
rows (on a 70-inch screen??) and--worst yet--that it still interlaces
them.
What television calls HDTV today was old hat on computer screens ages
ago. (In fact, HDTV is old hat ... I remember seeing demonstrations of
it at least 15 years ago.)
kony
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>kony writes:
>
>> Were these very old LCDs?
>
>One was new. The others of indeterminate age.
>
>> AFAIK, all the major panel manufacturers are making correct
>> aspect ratio panels. No matter the ratio of pixels, today
>> they should be accurate dimensionally as well.
>
>This is good news for me. It was always a source of irritation with
>CRTs.
Well you still have that problem if using non-native
resolution and stretched screen mode, but personally I never
have the inclination to use non-native. Hopefully it won't
be too long till LCD tech advances more and 17/19" 5:4 fades
away, replaced by 4:3 1600:1200 in that size... although,
I've been seeing more of those 20" 1400:1050 displays, which
are also 4:3 and getting down close to the price-points of
the average 19". 1400:1050 is just a rare resolution
though, I don't recall ever seeing a game that supported
that but then again I haven't ever looked for it either.
Garrot
>
> Remember any (old) 15" LCD monitor????? 1024*768..... that's 4:3 ratio..
Yes, but I specifically said 17" and 19" which are the most common sizes
purchased these days.
Mxsmanic
> Well you still have that problem if using non-native
> resolution and stretched screen mode, but personally I never
> have the inclination to use non-native. Hopefully it won't
> be too long till LCD tech advances more and 17/19" 5:4 fades
> away, replaced by 4:3 1600:1200 in that size... although,
> I've been seeing more of those 20" 1400:1050 displays, which
> are also 4:3 and getting down close to the price-points of
> the average 19". 1400:1050 is just a rare resolution
> though, I don't recall ever seeing a game that supported
> that but then again I haven't ever looked for it either.
I also prefer 1600x1200; that's what I have now with a 20" display.
I don't care much for widescreen formats. They may be fine for
watching movies, but there are a lot of other things you can do with a
PC besides watch movies, and screens that are too extreme in their
proportions tend to be a pain to use for ordinary applications.
Plus, as you point out, there's a lot of software written specifically
for 4:3 that just won't work or won't look right with other aspect
ratios. I personally don't see anything bad about 4:3.
Roger
> Why is 1280x1024 so often included among other resolutions as an
> option for hardware and software monitor configuration? Almost all
> monitors have a 4:3 aspect ratio, and all selectable resolutions have
> the same ratio ... except 1280x1024. Why this exception to the rule?
> There must be some sort of historical reason for it.
>
Wikipedia says the 5:4 ratio dates all the way back to the VIC-2 and the
IBM-PC Jr. I have read the 4:3 ratio goes back to Thomas Edison's labs
where it was used as the standard aspect ratio for film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
I personally find the 5:4 ratio better for web surfing and text
processing because it is easier to read text in long narrow columns
rather than wide short columns. I have been looking at the 1600x1200
pixel monitors, but only those that can be rotated to display at
1200x1600.
NewEgg shows 10 different resolutions with 1280x1024 being the most popular.
Roger
Larc
| Plus, as you point out, there's a lot of software written specifically
| for 4:3 that just won't work or won't look right with other aspect
| ratios. I personally don't see anything bad about 4:3.
Speaking of which... Does anybody know of ANY software written for a 5:4
display? A 4:3 picture will always have to be stretched or squeezed somewhere
to fit on a 5:4 screen. Otherwise, keeping a true 4:3 perspective would result
in unused vertical space if the horizonal is full or an overscanned horizonal if
the vertical is full.
Larc
งงง - Change planet to earth to reply by email - งงง
Roger
Oops, the VIC-2 and IBM PC Jr were 4:5, not 5:4. The Acorn and Amiga
were 5:4.
Roger
Mxsmanic
> Speaking of which... Does anybody know of ANY software written for a 5:4
> display? A 4:3 picture will always have to be stretched or squeezed somewhere
> to fit on a 5:4 screen. Otherwise, keeping a true 4:3 perspective would result
> in unused vertical space if the horizonal is full or an overscanned horizonal if
> the vertical is full.
A lot of everyday software doesn't care. Documents in Microsoft word
or spreadsheets in Excel will still turn out okay in 5:4. Graphics
programs like Photoshop don't care, either, as long as the pixel
dimensions match the physical aspect ratio of the screen.
However, anything that uses full-screen images needs to know about
aspect ratios or things will look odd. I don't know how many games
can handle this. I tried Flight Simulator on a 5:4 monitor today and
it showed distortion in panel displays that are bitmapped--these were
adjusted to fit the aspect ratio but this distorted some of the
elements in the panels, such as circular instruments on the instrument
panel. It was hard to tell whether or not the game adjusted the
scenery correctly.
I have other games but they are all installed on 4:3 systems, so I
don't know how they behave on 5:4 systems. For games that generate 3D
environments from scratch and don't depend on full-screen bitmaps, it
should be trivial to adapt to most aspect ratios, but a lot of games
have static controls and things that are bitmapped and must be
designed to fit the aspect ratio.
I think it is certainly much safer to stick with 4:3 if possible.
Mxsmanic
> NewEgg shows 10 different resolutions with 1280x1024
> being the most popular.
In log data for my site, 1024x768 seems to be the most popular today,
with 800x600 close behind.
Wallpaper images are going to be a problem. You can prepare images in
1280x1024, but how do you know the actual aspect ratio of the
destination monitor? An LCD might be truly 5:4 (in which case the
image must be recropped from original source material), but a CRT
might in fact be 4:3 running at 1280x1024 (in which case the image
must be stretched and compressed, but not cropped differently).
kony
Most software does fine, is in either fixed size window
smaller than whole-screen resolution or in a dynamically
sized window.
Even on an software that was poorly written to target only
4:3, at most it means you have horizontal black bars. While
that is not ideal, until recently it has cost substantially
more to move up to 4:3 ratio higher-res screens.
For video playback, it is not so bad actually... It's not a
big deal having the black bars and some players also support
a zoomed mode that crops off the left and right borders to
fill entire screen, somewhat like some modes on widescreen
TVs. Since very little happens at the extreme edges of
videos, it is not much of an issue, plus in general I find
that for regular DVD/etc wide-screen playback, it is just as
well to have a TV for that and a computer display more
optimal for the legacy computer formats closer to 4:3 than
to higher ratios.
kony
1280x1024 is a commonly supported gaming resolution.
1440x900 and other wide-screen resolutions have far less
support, moreso on newest games perhaps but only a minority
on even the most popular of aging titles.
kony
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Roger writes:
>
>> NewEgg shows 10 different resolutions with 1280x1024
>> being the most popular.
>
>In log data for my site, 1024x768 seems to be the most popular today,
>with 800x600 close behind.
Yep, we often forget what the *average* system in use today
is really like. Quite a few people are using 17" CRT and
hoping it runs forever. I on the other hand could not go
back to 17" CRT today, would rather use a 800MHz Celeron
system on a good LCD than a state-of-the-art system on an
old 17" CRT... except perhaps for gaming, but that is not a
priority.
Christopher Range
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Why is 1280x1024 so often included among other resolutions as an
>> option for hardware and software monitor configuration? Almost all
>> monitors have a 4:3 aspect ratio, and all selectable resolutions have
>> the same ratio ... except 1280x1024. Why this exception to the rule?
>> There must be some sort of historical reason for it.
>>
>
>
> That's the resolution I'm using, though,
Same here.
David Maynard
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Why is 1280x1024 so often included among other resolutions as an
>> option for hardware and software monitor configuration? Almost all
>> monitors have a 4:3 aspect ratio, and all selectable resolutions have
>> the same ratio ... except 1280x1024. Why this exception to the rule?
>> There must be some sort of historical reason for it.
>>
> All standard LCD monitors are 5:4 ratio, the only ones that are not are
> widescreen models. 17" and 19" LCD's have a native resolution of
> 1280x1024, these are the most bought monitors now. That means most
> monitors have a 5:4 aspect ratio and not 4:3 as you said. Very few
> people buy 4:3 crt's anymore.
That wonderfull, and all, but 1280x1024 was around long before LCDs were.
Mxsmanic
> Yep, we often forget what the *average* system in use today
> is really like. Quite a few people are using 17" CRT and
> hoping it runs forever.
I see "average" systems regularly and they are far behind the bleeding
edge. Many people are using systems that are several years old--not
because they are poor or deprived or anything, but simply because the
old systems do everything they require and have more than enough
performance to do it all quickly. There's no reason to upgrade the
hardware.
Indeed, it's hard to find a reason to upgrade any hardware nowadays,
unless one plays certain kinds of video games. Everything else runs
quite fast. When things don't run fast, it's usually the consequence
of poor access time for disks or network delays, neither of which can
be improved with any type of upgrade.
> I on the other hand could not go back to 17" CRT today, would
> rather use a 800MHz Celeron system on a good LCD than a
> state-of-the-art system on an old 17" CRT... except perhaps for
> gaming, but that is not a priority.
I spend a lot of time in front of a PC, and having a good monitor is
extremely important. I'm amazed at what some people put up with when
it comes to monitors. And, unlike the rest of a machine, monitors do
deteriorate significantly over time (especially CRTs), and upgrading a
monitor often brings a visible and obvious improvement.
Then again, I used my last CRT monitor until it was so worn out that
it would no longer come on even after 2 hours of "warm-up." But that
was a question of budget, not any reluctance to upgrade. The new
monitor had to provide at least the quality of the old monitor, and
that meant spending a great deal on the monitor.
Luke Curtis
wrote:
>kony writes:
The thing I love about CRTs is that they are so cheap, I change mine
every year or two, the last one I got was a Belinea 19" crt monitor
for the grand total of £7, gives a *beautiful* pin-sharp picture at
1280x1024 at 85hz.
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
sdlomi2
--
Please Note New address
danie...@bellsouth.net
"Lez Pawl" <L...@Pawlbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:etKdneG7nbw...@bt.com...
>
> "EDM" <EDM_sp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:rndGg.6736$Sn3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Lez Pawl" <L...@Pawlbtinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:I7-dnaVcXJAk1XTZ...@bt.com...
>>>
>>> "David Maynard" <nos...@private.net> wrote in message
>>> news:12eihdl...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> > Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Why is 1280x1024 so often included among other resolutions as an
>>> >> option for hardware and software monitor configuration? Almost all
>>> >> monitors have a 4:3 aspect ratio, and all selectable resolutions have
>>> >> the same ratio ... except 1280x1024. Why this exception to the rule?
>>> >> There must be some sort of historical reason for it.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Wish I could tell ya but I don't know either.
>>> >
>>> > That's the resolution I'm using, though,
>>> >
>>>
>>> same here and its perfect for my 19"er
>>>
>>
>> From elsewhere in cyberland:
>>
>> "For mostly obscure hardware reasons, early DRAM/VRAM
>> graphics controller implementations favored horizontal
>> resolutions that were a multiple of the row size. 1280 is
>> divisible by 256, the row size of a 64K DRAM.
>>
>> One of those obscure reasons was address translation. If you
>> form the linear framebuffer address as (2048*y)+x, it made
>> doing blt hardware much easier: just map x and y onto the
>> appropriate row and column bits.
>>
>> Another of those reasons was being able to load the video
>> shift registers at the same times each line. This made the timing
>> control easier to do in the logic of the day (think MSI counters
>> and gates.)
>>
>> Modern gfx conrollers refresh the display using periodic burst
>> DRAM access instead of actual shift registers; and they have
>> hardware to help deal with the x-y to linear address translation.
>> So the whole issue of row size pretty much goes away."
>>
>>
>>
>
> do you know, I was just gonna say that.
>
Hey, Lez, now I understand too--it's so clear once it is explained.
Almost like riding a bike, huh? s