What's up with 1280x1024?
Elemental Master
What monitor are you using? My Viewsonic PT775 displays 1280x1024 very
well. I think a fairly advanced monitor should adjust the aspect ratio of
the display area when this resolution is chosen. If not you can still
independently adjust the width and height of the image.
Shane wrote in article <33eda5b5...@news.earthlink.net>...
>All the graphics in this resolution appear squashed. It's
>particularly apparent because circles look like ellipses. At first I
>thought it was just my monitor, but it's the same on the others I've
>seen.
>
>Every other resolution available has a 4 to 3 aspect ratio except
>1280x1024 (5 to 4). Yes, I know that 1800x1440 is also a 5 to 4
>ratio.
>
>Why isn't there a 1280x960?
>
>I've stopped editing graphics at 1280x1024. It's hard to get a good
>feel of the actual appearance.
>
>This is a request to the powers that be... How about a 1280x960 so I
>don't have to change resolutions just to edit graphics?!!!
>
>Shane
>-- "Sometimes quantity becomes quality." - Garry Kasparov --
>
>Visit http://home.earthlink.net/~shanec/
Shane
Shane
> What monitor are you using? My Viewsonic PT775 displays 1280x1024 very
>well. I think a fairly advanced monitor should adjust the aspect ratio of
>the display area when this resolution is chosen. If not you can still
>independently adjust the width and height of the image.
I've got a Viewsonic P815. Thanks, I know about the adjustments. I
just don't like having black space around the display.
If you do the math, you'll realize that the 5 to 4 ratio is longer
width wise, ergo the squashed display.
Why shouldn't the resolution follow the 4 to 3 ratio like all other
resolutions (i.e. 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1600x1200)?
Bailey Brown
sp...@earthlink.net (Shane) wrote:
>All the graphics in this resolution appear squashed. It's
>particularly apparent because circles look like ellipses. At first I
>thought it was just my monitor, but it's the same on the others I've
>seen.
>
You need max out the image vertically then shrink in the sides until
you get round circles.
>Every other resolution available has a 4 to 3 aspect ratio except
>1280x1024 (5 to 4). Yes, I know that 1800x1440 is also a 5 to 4
>ratio.
>
>Why isn't there a 1280x960?
There used to be (was supported by some drivers until about two years
ago). But I guess the "more is always better" mentality made it lose
out to 1280x1024. Maybe powers of 2 are more apealing?
>I've stopped editing graphics at 1280x1024. It's hard to get a good
>feel of the actual appearance.
>
>This is a request to the powers that be... How about a 1280x960 so I
>don't have to change resolutions just to edit graphics?!!!
Just shrink the image horizontally. I know it sucks to give up some
of that monitor real-estate, but that will have to do until 1280x960
comes back into vogue. Or you can get a 21" monitor that you can run
at 1600x1200 (thank God 1600x1280 is dead!). Personally, I'd like to
see 1364x1024.
Bailey
Posted by bbrown_at_accessone_dot_com
(please note obfuscated email address to foil spammers)
Elemental Master
>I've got a Viewsonic P815. Thanks, I know about the adjustments. I
>just don't like having black space around the display.
Then you shouldn't complain. It's up to you to put up with the black
borders or the squashed image. I personally prefer the former.
Elemental Master
Another theory: maybe 1280x1024 was started by NeXT so their 64x64-per icon
application dock can fit perfectly on the screen?
Shane wrote in article <33eda5b5...@news.earthlink.net>...
>All the graphics in this resolution appear squashed. It's
>particularly apparent because circles look like ellipses. At first I
>thought it was just my monitor, but it's the same on the others I've
>seen.
>
>Every other resolution available has a 4 to 3 aspect ratio except
>1280x1024 (5 to 4). Yes, I know that 1800x1440 is also a 5 to 4
>ratio.
>
>Why isn't there a 1280x960?
>
>I've stopped editing graphics at 1280x1024. It's hard to get a good
>feel of the actual appearance.
>
>This is a request to the powers that be... How about a 1280x960 so I
>don't have to change resolutions just to edit graphics?!!!
>
Shane
>Just shrink the image horizontally. I know it sucks to give up some
>of that monitor real-estate, but that will have to do until 1280x960
>comes back into vogue.
Grumble mumble mumble grumble...
>Or you can get a 21" monitor that you can run
>at 1600x1200 (thank God 1600x1280 is dead!).
I've got a Viewsonic P815, which does support 1600x1200. However,
except for editing graphics (especially very large ones), I find that
working in 1280x1024 is more practical (1280x960 would be ideal).
>Personally, I'd like to
>see 1364x1024.
I've since then learned that the resolutions generally have to follow
32 pixel increments (at least that's what Matrox MGA chipsets are
capable of). Therefore, you cannot get 1364x1024 (i.e. 1364 doesn't
evenly divide into 32). The closest you can get to that is 1376x1024
which isn't strictly a 4 to 3 ratio.
Pieter Molenaar
Shane wrote:
>
> All the graphics in this resolution appear squashed. It's
> particularly apparent because circles look like ellipses. At first I
> thought it was just my monitor, but it's the same on the others I've
> seen.
>
> Every other resolution available has a 4 to 3 aspect ratio except
> 1280x1024 (5 to 4). Yes, I know that 1800x1440 is also a 5 to 4
> ratio.
>
> Why isn't there a 1280x960?
>
> I've stopped editing graphics at 1280x1024. It's hard to get a good
> feel of the actual appearance.
>
> This is a request to the powers that be... How about a 1280x960 so I
> don't have to change resolutions just to edit graphics?!!!
Hi
It could be that your video card isn't up to the job ! I know my Diamond
Stealth 64 Dram isn't.
Maybe you have not a correct monitor definition in Windows 95 (it was
W95 wasn't it).
Could be a problem with your monitor.
If you see a visible black border at the top and bottom, it could be
that the videocard is pushing the monitor to too high a frequency.
Pieter Molenaar
xar...@pi.net
P.S. You ARE drawing circles are you ;-] (I never understood CorelDraw)
Bailey Brown
sp...@earthlink.net (Shane) wrote:
>>Personally, I'd like to
>>see 1364x1024.
>
>I've since then learned that the resolutions generally have to follow
>32 pixel increments (at least that's what Matrox MGA chipsets are
>capable of). Therefore, you cannot get 1364x1024 (i.e. 1364 doesn't
>evenly divide into 32). The closest you can get to that is 1376x1024
>which isn't strictly a 4 to 3 ratio.
>
It's close enough to 4:3 for me. Now I wish they would do it!
I've heard that in Linux with X you can specify your own resolutions
if you are able to figure out the horizontal front porch, back porch,
etc. etc. etc., and the hardware can do the resolution. That would be
great if somebody could figure out a way to have this ability in
Windows.
Shane
On Sat, 09 Aug 1997 17:07:50 +0200, Pieter Molenaar <pmol...@pi.net>
wrote:
[deleted stuff about things being squashed in 1280x1024]
>> Every other resolution available has a 4 to 3 aspect ratio except
>> 1280x1024 (5 to 4). Yes, I know that 1800x1440 is also a 5 to 4
>> ratio.
>It could be that your video card isn't up to the job ! I know my Diamond
>Stealth 64 Dram isn't.
It's not the video card. I've got a Matrox Millennium 4meg WRAM and a
220 MHz RAMDAC.
>Maybe you have not a correct monitor definition in Windows 95 (it was
>W95 wasn't it).
>Could be a problem with your monitor.
*sigh* No one seems to understand. The monitor is fine (Viewsonic
P815)...
>If you see a visible black border at the top and bottom, it could be
>that the videocard is pushing the monitor to too high a frequency.
The P815 is capable of 250MHz bandwidth. Even the powerdoc Millennium
(250MHz RAMDAC) can just keep up with it.
Just wait till you get a monitor that's capable of displaying
1280x1024, you'll see the squashed effect that I'm talking about.
It's not the independent hardware, it's the way the Horizontal to
Vertical aspect ratios are set up.
>Pieter Molenaar
>xar...@pi.net
>
>P.S. You ARE drawing circles are you ;-] (I never understood CorelDraw)
=) When you create a circle, you want it to look round, not like
ellipses. That's not really the big issue. Sometimes when you
manipulate photographs, proportions become really important. A
squashed picture will throw off the editing.
This is especially apparent when you look at photographs of people you
know in 1280x1024. You'll see that they look a bit squashed.
Just you wait. Some day, maybe it'll be you who'll complain about
this.
Bob Myers
Shane (sp...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> I've got a Viewsonic P815. Thanks, I know about the adjustments. I
> just don't like having black space around the display.
Well, as you probably know, that's the tradeoff. Since 1280 x 1024 IS a
5:4 format, you either take the black space or stretch the image horizontally,
and live with the resulting distortion.
We can get into the history of 1280 x 1024 if you like, but the short form
of the story is that it was already well-established in the workstation world
before format and timing standards became popular across the industry.
(The short form of WHY is that 1280 is a multiple of 256, and 1024 is also
a nice "power-of-two" sort of number, which was important to the frame buffer
guys at the time.)
Actually, there IS a set of VESA timing standards for 1280 x 960; it's
just that nobody ever uses them, given 1280 x 1024's entrenched position.
Fortunately, we WERE able to derail 1600 x 1280, another 5:4 format; VESA
brought out a set of 1600 x 1200 standards, and those seem to have been
accepted pretty well. We're now facing the same problem with 1800 x 1440,
another 5:4 set of numbers; expect to see this challenged by something
like 1792 x 1344, which IS 4:3 and has a nicer number horizontally as well
(1792 being a multiple of 256).
Standardizing display formats (these are NOT to be called "resolutions",
for reasons that are going to become obvious as we get away from the
CRT in the future) haven't been that big a deal on CRT displays, which can
pretty much handle any timing within their horizontal and vertical frequency
ranges regardless of how silly the result set of numbers in terms of pixels
and lines might be. But as we move to fixed-format devices, such as LCD,
picking a sensible set of format standards is going to become much more
important. All I can say at this point is - we're working on it!
> If you do the math, you'll realize that the 5 to 4 ratio is longer
> width wise, ergo the squashed display.
Actually, it's more nearly square ("taller") than a 4:3 if shown at its
proper aspect ratio.
Bob Myers | my...@fc.hp.com
Senior Engineer, Displays | Note: The opinions presented here
Workstation Systems Division | are not those of my employer.
Hewlett-Packard Co., Ft. Collins, CO |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but I am unable to reply to e-mail requests; please post your question.
Shane
On 9 Aug 1997 19:36:22 GMT, my...@fc.hp.com (Bob Myers) wrote:
>We can get into the history of 1280 x 1024 if you like, but the short form
=) If you don't mind, what is the history of 1280x1024?
>important. All I can say at this point is - we're working on it!
=) May the force be with you.
>> If you do the math, you'll realize that the 5 to 4 ratio is longer
>> width wise, ergo the squashed display.
>
>Actually, it's more nearly square ("taller") than a 4:3 if shown at its
>proper aspect ratio.
Yes, I realize that the horizontal to vertical ratio is actually
smaller for 5:4, but it's packing the extra 64 pixels into the
vertical that gives the "squashed" picture.
I was hoping that if we can get enough people to gripe about 1280x960,
we may actually get some driver support. However, this doesn't seem
to be a very popular thread at all.
Shane
>I've heard that in Linux with X you can specify your own resolutions
Yes. Depending on the chipset that your graphics accelerator uses,
you can pretty much set the resolutions at whatever you want as long
as you can get your monitor to sync to it.
>if you are able to figure out the horizontal front porch, back porch,
>etc. etc. etc., and the hardware can do the resolution. That would be
There's a utility for X windows called xvidtune that helps you figure
out the proper specs for you monitor.
>great if somebody could figure out a way to have this ability in
>Windows.
I tried to tinker with the MGA.MON file (monitor specs for use with a
Matrox Card) and tinkered with the resolution parameters. Regardless
of whatever h sync, v sync, f porch or b porch that I used, as soon as
you change the vertical resolution to 960, the entry disappears as a
valid option in Win95.
I think there needs to be driver support.
Bob Myers
> >We can get into the history of 1280 x 1024 if you like, but the short form
> =) If you don't mind, what is the history of 1280x1024?
Briefly, the move to "high resolution" started with a 4:3 ratio, 1024 x 768,
in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Workstations, which at the time were
just starting to develop as an identifiable market, pushed toward getting more
information on the screen, and the de facto standard of 1280 x 1024 emerged
very early in the 1980s. I don't recall who was the first to actually use
this - I believe it came out of document imaging, where vertically-oriented
pages meant that portrait or square image formats were a good idea, may have
started this. (Perhaps someone with more brain cells still working could
shed some light on the truly FIRST use of 1280 x 1024). Anyway, the
very first color monitor I was responsible for, for HP, was a 1280 x 1024
fixed-frequency model, the 98784A, based on Sony's GDM-1901 and using a
60 Hz timing that we got straight from Sony. Nobody cared much that the image
aspect ratio didn't match the tube; to get the best image quality across the
whole thing, you didn't want to size it out to the limits of the glass anyway
(something that is still true today), and 1280 x 1024 has been with us ever
since. It's simply a handy set of numbers for frame buffer design - 1280
being a multiple of 256, and 1024 being a power of 2. It has often been
actually implemented with frame buffers which were 1280 x 2048, giving you
lots of off-screen storage. An alternative path was followed by some who
used different frame-buffer architectures, which caused them to be more
concerned about fitting the most number of pixels into a given address
space - so you see things like 1152 x 900, which just fits into a one-meg
space.
> >important. All I can say at this point is - we're working on it!
> =) May the force be with you.
Watch this space....film at 11...:-)
> Yes, I realize that the horizontal to vertical ratio is actually
> smaller for 5:4, but it's packing the extra 64 pixels into the
> vertical that gives the "squashed" picture.
No, it's an incorrectly adjusted monitor that accounts for that. Basically,
a CRT display doesn't care HOW many lines are in the image - you just need to
adjust the size and centering such that the image is both centered AND at the
proper aspect ratio for the pixel format. The nominal size for a 1280 x 1024
image SHOULD itself be a 5:4 ratio; f'rinstance, on that long-ago Sony
monitor I mentioned above, the nominal size of the image was to be
343 x 274 mm, so that everything WOULD be shown at the proper shape. Like
I said, this DIDN'T fill the screen, esp. horizontally, but who cared? You
were only giving up about 20 mm relative to the nominal 4:3 setup for the
same tube, and you got circles that looked like circles. And using a
standard 4:3 tube is a LOT better idea than making a special 5:4 one, even
if it means living with some "black space".
Shane
This is Shane again.
This isn't so much related to the last posts, but I figured that
you're a video guru and might be able to help.
Do you know how to convert the modelines in XF86Config to something
like:
PIXEL_CLK = 145500
H_DISP = 1280
H_FPORCH = 200
H_SYNC = 178
H_BPORCH = 46
H_SYNC_POL = 1
V_DISP = 960
V_FPORCH = 1
V_SYNC = 5
V_BPORCH = 44
V_SYNC_POL = 1
The pixel clock, h. disp and v. disp I can figure out. I have a
little trouble with the f. porch, b. porch and the sync values.
I'd just like to be able to used the same settings for X and for
win95.
BTW, I went into Linux and easily configured X to use the 1280x960.
Nice and simple. Wish it was that simple in win95.
Laurence Lindstrom
sp...@earthlink.net (Shane) writes:
>All the graphics in this resolution appear squashed. It's
>particularly apparent because circles look like ellipses. At first I
>thought it was just my monitor, but it's the same on the others I've
>seen.
<Snip>
>This is a request to the powers that be... How about a 1280x960 so I
>don't have to change resolutions just to edit graphics?!!!
>Shane
This issue REALLY pisses me off.
I'm a small ISV who often writes X Window/Motif applications.
I often include configuration facilities where I ask the user to
enter the dimensions of the illuminated area of their screen, and
the resolution of the display. Then I give them a nice, properly
sized image. Circles appear round, squares appear square.
If memory servers, VGA (640 x 480)introduced the concept of square
pixels. That's nice, but there is nothing wrong with 1280x1024, or
any other resolution.
I realize that taking a tape measure to the monitors, or making the
effort to determine screen resolution is beyond most users. But graphical
software should allow motivated users to do just that.
Your problem, our problem, is that there is a shortage of competent
S/W developers.
Larry
Bob Myers
> This isn't so much related to the last posts, but I figured that
> you're a video guru and might be able to help.
> Do you know how to convert the modelines in XF86Config to something
> like:
Sorry; I DO speak video and monitors, but I don't speak software. I
think I know what your example means in terms of the timing, but I haven't
got a clue what "XF86Config" is supposed to look like to get there.
(I'm a reasonably average PC user; when my Windows NT system misbehaves,
I call the long-suffering sysadmin person who points out how I'm being
stupid, mutters the proper incantations over my keyboard, and SOMEHOW
gets the thing happy again. Hey, I spent most of my career so far trying
to keep a Unix workstation happy, and THEN they tell me that Bill Gates was
right all along...:-))
> PIXEL_CLK = 145500
> H_DISP = 1280
> H_FPORCH = 200
> H_SYNC = 178
> H_BPORCH = 46
> H_SYNC_POL = 1
> V_DISP = 960
> V_FPORCH = 1
> V_SYNC = 5
> V_BPORCH = 44
> V_SYNC_POL = 1
> The pixel clock, h. disp and v. disp I can figure out. I have a
> little trouble with the f. porch, b. porch and the sync values.
I can tell you what these ARE, but I don't think that this is what
you're asking for.
Bob "PC Rookie" M.
Bob Myers
Shane (sp...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> XFree86 uses modelines like:
> # Modes can be specified in two formats. A compact one-line format,
> # or a multi-line format.
> # These two are equivalent
> # ModeLine "1024x768i" 45 1024 1048 1208 1264 768 776 784 817
> Interlace
OK, from this - if I had to make a guess - I'd guess the following:
> # Mode "1024x768i"
Simply names the mode, and has no other effect.
> # DotClock 45
Target dot clock value in MHz.
> # HTimings 1024 1048 1208 1264
The horizontal programming, as follows:
1024 active pixels per line.
1048 gives the position of the start of the horizontal sync pulse
relative to the start of the line, which seems to be used as the reference
throughout. (In other words, there is a "front porch" of 1048 - 1024 =
24 pixels).
1208 is the end of the horizontal sync pulse, so the pulse is 1208 - 1048
= 160 pixels long.
1264 is the end of the horizontal blanking time, again relative to the
START of active video, so the blanking time is 1264 - 1024 = 240 pixels
long, and the "back porch" is 1264 - 1208 = 58 pixels long. You could
also view this value (1264) as the TOTAL length of each line (active plus
blanking) in pixels.
The vertical timing numbers decode the same way, relative to the LINE which
starts the frame.
> The best of our guesses were that it's configured like:
> Modeline 145.50 1280 1326 1504 1704 960 961 965 1004
> |..... H_DISP ..............|back porch| sync | front porch|
> |------- 1280 ------------->|
> |------------- 1326 ------------------>|
> |---------------------- 1504 ---------------->|
> |-------------------------------- 1704 ------------------->|
You've turned around "back porch" and "front porch" here (these are
normally stated relative to the SYNC PULSE, not the active video, which
admittedly is confusing). That accounts for the size and centering being
off with this setting.
If I read the above correctly, your settings should actually be:
Modeline 145.50 1280 1480 1658 1704....
which would turn the "porch" widths around - but that seems like an
awfully long front porch.
If I'm write in interpreting this line, and using the VESA 1280 x 960
timing standard at 85 Hz refresh, the line should be:
Modeline 148.50 1280 1344 1504 1728 960 961 964 1011
...which you can see uses shorter front porches than back porches, as
is typical.
> But it isn't correct I don't think. At least when I conver the
> settings via this convention, the timings seem to be different (i.e.
> in the same resolutions, the sizes and display positions are
> different).
Within reason, you can play around with the sync position (usually, where
the leading edge falls is the most important) and the total blanking times
to adjust the size and centering of the image. Don't get the blanking
too short, or you'll start to the see the edge of the active video
"wrap around" as it encroaches on the retrace time, and be sure to keep
the TOTAL line length in pixels such that the horizontal frequency is
within the spec limits for the monitor. (The horiz. frequency is simply
the pixel clock divided by the TOTAL length of the line in pixels, so
for my example above it's 148.50 MHz/1728 pixels = 85.94 kHz.)
Good luck!
Shane
On 13 Aug 1997 05:23:37 GMT, my...@fc.hp.com (Bob Myers) wrote:
>Sorry; I DO speak video and monitors, but I don't speak software. I
>think I know what your example means in terms of the timing, but I haven't
>got a clue what "XF86Config" is supposed to look like to get there.
=) Well, you may be able to help me yet. We'll see how it goes.
Either way, I thank you for your time.
XFree86 uses modelines like:
# Modes can be specified in two formats. A compact one-line format,
# or a multi-line format.
# These two are equivalent
# ModeLine "1024x768i" 45 1024 1048 1208 1264 768 776 784 817
Interlace
# Mode "1024x768i"
# DotClock 45
# HTimings 1024 1048 1208 1264
# VTimings 768 776 784 817
# Flags "Interlace"
# EndMode
to determine the settings.
A friend of mine pointed me to
http://www.XFree86.Org/3.1.2/VideoModes-8.html, but it reads like
ancient greek to me.
The best of our guesses were that it's configured like:
Modeline 145.50 1280 1326 1504 1704 960 961 965 1004
|..... H_DISP ..............|back porch| sync | front porch|
|------- 1280 ------------->|
|------------- 1326 ------------------>|
|---------------------- 1504 ---------------->|
|-------------------------------- 1704 ------------------->|
But it isn't correct I don't think. At least when I conver the
settings via this convention, the timings seem to be different (i.e.
in the same resolutions, the sizes and display positions are
different).
>gets the thing happy again. Hey, I spent most of my career so far trying
>to keep a Unix workstation happy, and THEN they tell me that Bill Gates was
>right all along...:-))
I hope not. More and more power geeks seem to be discovering Linux,
though the corporate world certainly seems to shy away from it.
>I can tell you what these ARE, but I don't think that this is what
>you're asking for.
Either way, I want to thank you for your time.
Shane
On 13 Aug 1997 16:59:16 GMT, my...@fc.hp.com (Bob Myers) wrote:
Again, thank you very much Bob. The conversion worked... I now have
the same settings in Win95 and X (except for 1280x960 of course).
I made the information available on a web page
(http://home.earthlink.net/~shanec/timings.html) just in case anyone
else had been following this.
>Bob Myers | my...@fc.hp.com
>Senior Engineer, Displays | Note: The opinions presented here
>Workstation Systems Division | are not those of my employer.
>Hewlett-Packard Co., Ft. Collins, CO |
Now if only you can make a coup on the 1280x960 thing... =)
BTW, something odd... Not that you could probably tell me anything.
In 800x600, my timings are identical (at least they should be) in X
and win95. In win95, 800x600 syncs to full screen. In X, there's
quite a bit of black space around it.
As far as I can tell, I did the math correctly.
Modeline "800x600" 56.25 800 832 896 1048 600 601 604 631
+HSync +VSync
[*User-Defined_ViewSonic_P815_,(800X600)]
PIXEL_CLK = 56250
H_DISP = 800
H_FPORCH = 32
H_SYNC = 64
H_BPORCH = 152
H_SYNC_POL = 1
V_DISP = 600
V_FPORCH = 1
V_SYNC = 3
V_BPORCH = 27
V_SYNC_POL = 1
INTERLACE_ENABLE = 0
All the other resolutions sync to full screen in both X and Win95.
Originally I thought it was the sync polarities, but they're both set
to positive. *shrug*