Who wants 1280x1024 (5:4 ratio)?
Ford Fulkerson
screen resolution?
How many people have monitors with 5:4 width-to-height ratio?!
Somebody please enlighten me as to why every graphics adapter and
monitor is preconfigured to work at this resolution when it produces a
distorted image... It just doesn't make sense to me.
On a related note, how easy/hard/impossible is it to set up custom
screen resolutions in Windows (Win2k, Matrox G400, Nokia 446PRO 19")? I
would like to have something in between 1152x864 and 1600x1200.
/ff
Jay C. Parangalan
> Just a general wondering: what moron decided
> that 1280x1024 is a good screen resolution?
> How many people have monitors with 5:4
> width-to-height ratio?!
It's only 1.25:1 (vs 1.33:1), which isn't a very big difference. It was
created mostly as an intermediate stepping in resolutions, so that
people don't have to jump straight to 1600x1200 and possibly have their
video performance come to a crawl.
Besides that, renderers can easily calculate the scene for a 1.33:1
aspect at 1280x1024 resolution. Instead of basing the image on "number
of pixels", they simply base it on "viewing angle". (In very simple
terms.) The pixels are then no longer "perfect" squares, but the image
is not distorted.
--
Jay C. Parangalan, http://www.saber.net/~firefly/
S@H:4.0#, 11-001001000011111101101010100010001000010110100011
jimmy
became available in the display properties of my Tnt2, which is the one I
use. I guess the monitor inf file was responsible. I also got 1600x900
(besides 1600x1200). Now that's a screwed up aspect ratio!
Ford Fulkerson wrote:
> Just a general wondering: what moron decided that 1280x1024 is a good
> screen resolution?
>
> How many people have monitors with 5:4 width-to-height ratio?!
>
Ford Fulkerson
would choose something that is slightly wrong over something that is
exactly right (1280x960 for example).
In article <8iXT4.28767$sf6.4...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
fir...@unforgettable.AIM says...
Gosharks
ratio matters 1280 x 960 would be better. The people doing spread
sheets or word processing would rather have the extra lines
vertically, aspect ratio is not a big deal for these types of
applications. This is why people in Europe like 1600 x 1280 over
1600 x 1200, why because they use A-4 page size.
Jim at http://www.monitorsdirect.com
In article <MPG.138a997dd...@news1.telia.com>, Ford
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Brock Landers
never noticed anything "distorted" about it. Even when compared to other resolutions. And
that includes full screen DVD, TV, and games.
Brock
"Ford Fulkerson" <wlado...@spray.se> wrote in message
news:MPG.13894d59c...@news1.telia.com...
Slash
<drbrock...@hotmail.com> scribbled:
>I've used it almost exclusively ever since I got my 19" monitor almost 2 years ago... and I've
>never noticed anything "distorted" about it. Even when compared to other resolutions. And
>that includes full screen DVD, TV, and games.
>
>Brock
It may not be something that you personally notice, but simple math
tells you the image is 'distorted' from what monitors are
traditionally set to (4:3 aspect). Compared to 800x600 or 1024x768 or
1280x960, 1280x1024 is 'squashed' vertically by a little over 6%. If
you were to draw a circle, for instance, and then measure it, it would
be an ellipse, not a true circle. For people not doing things that
require accurate geometry (CAD/imaging), there's nothing necessarily
wrong with 1280x1024.
-Slash
"The people on the internet know more about what I am doing than I do.
Like, they will say that I am going to be in this mall on this day and
sure enough I am there."
- Tori Amos, Dew Drop Inn Tour, 17-June-1996
Sunny
squished. I used to run at 1280x1024 because I couldn't get 1280x960 from
the vid card but, now that I can get that res I can sure notice the
difference (in icons and stuff). displaying circles should make the
distortion more obvious.
OTOH, if it doesn't bother you, then it is really not an issue...
"Brock Landers" <drbrock...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LE%T4.7580$LM4.5...@monger.newsread.com...
> I've used it almost exclusively ever since I got my 19" monitor almost 2
years ago... and I've
> never noticed anything "distorted" about it. Even when compared to other
resolutions. And
> that includes full screen DVD, TV, and games.
>
> Brock
>
jimmy
tube which compensates for the concave effect that people complain about with
other flat screens. Looks perfectly flat to me!
The 8 default (factory) display settings are awful, and there is no autosizing
function, so a bit of work is required to set up the screen at all the
resolutions and timings you'll be using. You can define 10 custom settings,
but I wish there were more. Many of the settings such as the ones for
geometry are universal, so once you get that properly adjusted then it's easy
to adjust the rest of the settings.
My screen's geometry is looking very good with very minor deviation (less than
1.5mm) in "parallelogram" on some vertical lines of a cross-hatch pattern at
the edges of the screen, and is perfectly straight in the middle. No
pincushion problems. The convergence is excellent! The colour is very nice
and uniform throughout the screen, and there are purity adjustments for 4
separate areas. The default contrast and brightness settings have to be toned
down A LOT to achieve deep blacks (I went from 100/60 to 72/30).
Looks great.
The text is a bit coarse and faint compared to my Nanao 17" AG monitor, but it
may be because the Tnt2 is not good at 2d in high resolutions. Black on white
text looks much better than white on black text on this screen, whereas the
Nanao is the opposite.
1600x1200 @85hz is possible based on the specs but my tnt2 can only reach 75hz
at that res. I use 1280x960 @85hz even though it can do that at 100hz (I
don't want to push the video card to the absolute edge hehe). 1600 looks very
small using the large font setting in windows, but readable. 1280x960 looks
like 1152x864 on a 17".
One problem that concerns me is how the monitor automatically degausses each
time it's turned on with the power switch (it doesn't degauss when the monitor
is in "shut off" mode under windows). The manual states that the degauss
function shouldn't be used more than once in a 30 min time period, so does
that mean the monitor shouldn't be turned on, then off, then on again within
30 minutes? I've had a couple power failures in the span of 30 minutes that
forced multiple degausses hehe. Damn. I even have a UPS (420va) but it can't
handle my computer and monitor together.
When I was shopping for my monitor, most of the places I went to had
Viewsonics on display and in stock. The 900nf was out of stock everywhere,
and I heard good things about it, so I was determined to track it down and see
for myself. I like the 900nf better than the PF790 I was comparing it to.
The case of the 900nf seemed a little high and the frame around the screen a
bit thick when I first got it (compared to my sleek 17" monitor) but I'm used
to it now.
Is this enough info?!? :)
Non...@soap.com wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2000 19:19:38 GMT, jimmy <ad...@dsff.com> wrote:
>
> >When I got my 19" Samsung 900nf, a new resolution setting of 1280x960
> >became available in the display properties of my Tnt2, which is the one I
> >use. I guess the monitor inf file was responsible. I also got 1600x900
> >(besides 1600x1200). Now that's a screwed up aspect ratio!
> >
> How is the monitor. I am looking at that one along with the
> Viewsonic, and am leaning towards it. How good is it, any problems,
> as I have no way of seeing it in a store. It does 1600 * 1200 @
> 75 hz, will it go any higher. The specs say the max is 87 hz, so
> 85 should be available. Just how small is the text at 1600,
> comparable to 1280 on a 17". Questions, Questions, and no answers
> about the .25 tube.
> Any other comments on it.
> Thanks.
jimmy
settings are not universal (they can be different for each timing, except for
rotation I think), but are applicable universally.
Btw, get the program found here to calibrate your monitor:
http://www.construnet.hu/nokia/Monitors/TEST/monitor_test.html
Brock Landers
don't notice any "distortion" or "stretching" even when I look for it. I guess I just don't
understand why Ford thinks it's such a big deal.
Brock
"Slash" <sla...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:fna1isc90b4iha1dl...@4ax.com...
On Mon, 15 May 2000 23:22:19 GMT, "Brock Landers"
<drbrock...@hotmail.com> scribbled:
>I've used it almost exclusively ever since I got my 19" monitor almost 2 years ago... and I've
>never noticed anything "distorted" about it. Even when compared to other resolutions. And
>that includes full screen DVD, TV, and games.
>
>Brock
It may not be something that you personally notice, but simple math
banjo
<drbrock...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm not arguing with the math and I understand the issue completely. I'm just saying that I
>don't notice any "distortion" or "stretching" even when I look for it. I guess I just don't
>understand why Ford thinks it's such a big deal.
>
>Brock
>
Do you ever do any digital image editing? Say the pictures from a
digital camera.
For standard windows work: desktop, web browsing, word processing,
spreadsheets, etc it is almost imposible to see any distortion, but
when you have an image captured at one ratio 1280x960 and you display
it at 1280x1024 it can come out looking not just right.
Sami
>On a related note, how easy/hard/impossible is it to set up custom
>screen resolutions in Windows (Win2k, Matrox G400, Nokia 446PRO 19")? I
>would like to have something in between 1152x864 and 1600x1200.
I don't know how hard it is in general, but here is what I always do after
upgrading the video drivers. I run my ICL 171p at 1280x960 which is not
unsupported, but:
I Fire up the regedit and do a key search for "1280,1024".
This sees me into the proper part of the tree. I look around and if I can
see other usual resolutions such as 640,480, 800,600 and 1024,768 I assume
I am pretty close to where I want to go.
I look up a step and see branches like 16, 32, 4 and 8. These are bit
depths. The 16 should be open and I am actually seeing the refresh rates
used for each resolution under that bit depth. I make a new key and rename
it "1280,960". I open the key.
I modify default according to "80" which is the (also unsupported) refresh
rate I wish to use. Then I make a new value and I rename it "RefreshRate"
and I give it the same value: 80. I actually copy the proper key names from
under some other resolution to avoid typos.
I repeat this for all bit depths I plan to use (32 and 16). And that's it -
all that is left is actually change the resolution of my desktop.
The only real pitfall for me has been the fact that sometimes there are
multiple instances of video adapters in registry, the branches containing
the bit depths represent these - such as "0000", "0001" etc. Usually the
last is the right one, but you may have to experiment.
There are also tools, such as the praised HzTool, but it doesn't work for
me - it always sets the default and used refresh rate of the generated
resolution at 60 no matter what it says on the screen.
Anyway - I take no responsibility what so ever, of anything really
including any undesired effects of this procedure.
>/ff
--
Sami
Jay C. Parangalan
> If you adjust the display to 'fill' the screen, things
> are slightly squished. I used to run at 1280x1024 because
> I couldn't get 1280x960 from the vid card but, now that I
> can get that res I can sure notice the difference (in
> icons and stuff). displaying circles should make the
> distortion more obvious.
This is because icons, circles, etc. are "pixel based"; they'll occupy
the same number of pixels regardless of resolution, sans any special
scaling. Such distortion would not be present in a (correctly-written)
game because a 3D scene is typically viewed at a given viewing-angle,
then calculated to the resolution of the display.
2D games will look funky, of course, if you compare them. The pixels
are no longer perfect squares. -:)
Ford Fulkerson
things don't look quite right. My question, though, was why 1280x1024
was chosen in the first place.
/ff
In article <chaU4.3402$v%5.24...@newshog.newsread.com>,
drbrock...@hotmail.com says...
m...@here.com
> Just a general wondering: what moron decided that 1280x1024 is a good
> screen resolution?
For starters, 1280x1024 was, and is a standard workstation display
resolution that's been around for a very long time.
> How many people have monitors with 5:4 width-to-height ratio?!
> Somebody please enlighten me as to why every graphics adapter and
> monitor is preconfigured to work at this resolution when it produces a
> distorted image...
It doesn't necessarily produce a distorted image. I have a Sun
system (monitor is OEM Sony, display chip is ATI) mind you, but in
any case, a properly written program should scale fine on a PC to
any resolution, too.
> It just doesn't make sense to me.
Too bad.
Brock Landers
they?
Brock
"Ford Fulkerson" <wlado...@spray.se> wrote in message
news:MPG.138bd7495...@news1.telia.com...
Brock Landers
look bad at 1280x1024. Then you list ONE specific thing (capturing images at 1280x960) that
looks bad that people rarely do. In that rare case, just change your resolution!
Brock
"banjo" <upsided...@excite.com> wrote in message news:3921739...@news.telerama.com...
On Tue, 16 May 2000 11:28:08 GMT, "Brock Landers"
<drbrock...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm not arguing with the math and I understand the issue completely. I'm just saying that I
>don't notice any "distortion" or "stretching" even when I look for it. I guess I just don't
>understand why Ford thinks it's such a big deal.
>
Tomas
times wondered myself why there is no usable resolution
betwen 1152x864 and 1600x1200.
The only good solution that i have found is to buy an 21 inch
monitor and then use the 1600x1200 :)
Tomas
Ford Fulkerson
> For starters, 1280x1024 was, and is a standard workstation display
> resolution that's been around for a very long time.
Doesn't change the fact that it's stupid.
> It doesn't necessarily produce a distorted image. I have a Sun
> system (monitor is OEM Sony, display chip is ATI) mind you, but in
> any case, a properly written program should scale fine on a PC to
> any resolution, too.
Well, I'm sorry, but 1280x1024 is still really, really stupid. Besides,
Windows isn't properly written.
> > It just doesn't make sense to me.
> Too bad.
From that (extremely clever) comment I'm guessing it makes sense to you.
Please, then, tell me why it's a good idea to invent a 5:4 resolution to
squeeze into a 4:3 monitor when you could just as well choose a 4:3
resolution to begin with.
/ff
Mike Smith
message news:8iXT4.28767$sf6.4...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> Ford Fulkerson wrote:
> > Just a general wondering: what moron decided
> > that 1280x1024 is a good screen resolution?
> > width-to-height ratio?!
>
> created mostly as an intermediate stepping in resolutions, so that
> people don't have to jump straight to 1600x1200 and possibly have their
> video performance come to a crawl.
That doesn't wash. What's wrong with 1280x960? or 1332x999? or 1384x1038?
or 1400x1050? Whatever the rationale was for choosing 1280x1024, I doubt
that was it.
--
Mike Smith
There are perhaps 5% of the population that simply *can't* think.
There are another 5% who *can*, and *do*.
The remaining 90% *can* think, but *don't*.
-- R. A. Heinlein
Mike Smith
> When I got my 19" Samsung 900nf, a new resolution setting of 1280x960
> became available in the display properties of my Tnt2, which is the one I
> use. I guess the monitor inf file was responsible. I also got 1600x900
> (besides 1600x1200). Now that's a screwed up aspect ratio!
1600x900 corresponds to the 16:9 "widescreen" format selected for HDTV and
"letterbox" DVDs (because, IIRC, this is the aspect ratio used by the movie
industry).
Jay C. Parangalan
> That doesn't wash. What's wrong with 1280x960?
More screen real-estate. Sorry, thought I mentioned that part of it.
Han
laptops I've seen with that as the native resolution, scales poorly to all
the 4:3 resolutions. You CAD guys think you've got problems on your CRT
workstation monitors:)
--
-Han
Gary Figg
<msm...@NOSPAMkldlabs.com> wrote:
>"Jay C. Parangalan" <fir...@unforgettable.AIM:firefly0.com> wrote in
>message news:8iXT4.28767$sf6.4...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
>> Ford Fulkerson wrote:
>> > Just a general wondering: what moron decided
>> > that 1280x1024 is a good screen resolution?
>> > How many people have monitors with 5:4
>> > width-to-height ratio?!
>>
>> It's only 1.25:1 (vs 1.33:1), which isn't a very big difference. It was
>> created mostly as an intermediate stepping in resolutions, so that
>> people don't have to jump straight to 1600x1200 and possibly have their
>> video performance come to a crawl.
>
>That doesn't wash. What's wrong with 1280x960? or 1332x999? or 1384x1038?
>or 1400x1050? Whatever the rationale was for choosing 1280x1024, I doubt
>that was it.
It is crazy that you have to go from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 with
nothing in between. Why is this? Any ways around it with 3dfx V3
cards? I would love to run something in between as I find 1600x1200
text to be too small for my taste and I don't like using large fonts.
g
Byron Montgomerie
>It is crazy that you have to go from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 with
>nothing in between. Why is this? Any ways around it with 3dfx V3
>cards? I would love to run something in between as I find 1600x1200
>text to be too small for my taste and I don't like using large fonts.
You can buy a Matrox G400, it allows you to create your own modes and
includes several varients between 1280x1024 and 1600x1200. Their
powerdesk drivers rock, makes all the rest look lame in comparison.
Gary Figg
Yea but I don't wanna no G400 :) I have an old Millenium 2 on one
machine and I have to agree the Powerdesk setup is very nice.
I have a V5 on order anyway.
g
Mike Smith
> Mike Smith wrote:
> > That doesn't wash. What's wrong with 1280x960?
>
> -:)
Yes, but my point (which you snipped) was that there are many resolutions
that are intermediate between 1024x768 and 1600x1200, that offer 4:3 ratio
*and* more real estate than 10x7.
Tomas Wilen
"Slash" <sla...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:fna1isc90b4iha1dl...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 May 2000 23:22:19 GMT, "Brock Landers"
> <drbrock...@hotmail.com> scribbled:
>
> >I've used it almost exclusively ever since I got my 19" monitor almost 2
years ago... and I've
> >never noticed anything "distorted" about it. Even when compared to other
resolutions. And
> >that includes full screen DVD, TV, and games.
> >
> >Brock
>
> It may not be something that you personally notice, but simple math
> tells you the image is 'distorted' from what monitors are
> traditionally set to (4:3 aspect). Compared to 800x600 or 1024x768 or
> 1280x960, 1280x1024 is 'squashed' vertically by a little over 6%. If
> you were to draw a circle, for instance, and then measure it, it would
> be an ellipse, not a true circle. For people not doing things that
> require accurate geometry (CAD/imaging), there's nothing necessarily
> wrong with 1280x1024.
At least real CAD progs will let you set the aspect ratio, to compensate for
non square pixels, Auto CAD does.
>
> -Slash
>
> "The people on the internet know more about what I am doing than I do.
> Like, they will say that I am going to be in this mall on this day and
> sure enough I am there."
> - Tori Amos, Dew Drop Inn Tour, 17-June-1996
>
>
--
Tomas "Badger" Wilen
Remove camouflage to reply
Magnus Svensson
<msm...@NOSPAMkldlabs.com> wrote:
>"jimmy" <ad...@dsff.com> wrote in message news:39204E6D...@dsff.com...
>> When I got my 19" Samsung 900nf, a new resolution setting of 1280x960
>> became available in the display properties of my Tnt2, which is the one I
>> use. I guess the monitor inf file was responsible. I also got 1600x900
>> (besides 1600x1200). Now that's a screwed up aspect ratio!
>
>1600x900 corresponds to the 16:9 "widescreen" format selected for HDTV and
>"letterbox" DVDs (because, IIRC, this is the aspect ratio used by the movie
>industry).
The term is "anamorphic" DVDs. 16:9 is usually not used by the movie
industry but rather 1.71:1 and 2.35:1. 16:9 is just better suited for
movie viewing than 4:3.
/Magnus
bogustxt...@muohio.edu
This may not be a popular solution,but if you pull in the sides a little
with the monitors adjustment the aspect is fine at 1280x1024.
:-) Greg B.
Bob Myers
a week at a display conference - some interesting stuff, too,
which hopefully I'll be able to write up later), but if I could put
my $0.02 in at this late point:
As has been mentioned already, 1280 x 1024 has its roots
in the workstation industry; it was chosen primarily for its
"nice" numbers with respect to the frame buffer and graphics
hardware operation, not (obviously) to fit onto a 4:3 screen.
The pixels ARE generally meant to be displayed "square",
which of course will make for a little bit of lost real estate on
the screen edges, but then the people who developed this
format weren't all that worried about it. (Actually, you shouldn't
be, either; if there is ANYTHING that's really, really dumb, it's
the idea that you HAVE to push the image out to the absolute
physical limits of the CRT.) But that's where it came from.
If you really must have a 4:3 that's intermediate to 1024 x 768
and 1600 x 1200, there are, of course, several to choose
from - they just didn't come into use early enough to keep
1280 x 1024 from becoming firmly entrenched.
(Note, by the way, that we ALMOST had another 5:4 "standard"
pop up - 1600 x 1280 was on its way to being accepted as a
de facto standard, until VESA chose to publish timing standards
for 1600 x 1200 instead. The timing and pixel format work groups
within that organization have already decided not to issue any
more non-4:3 timings unless there's a REALLY good reason for
doing so. Obviously, this restriction doesn't apply to the
"widescreen" 16:9 or 16:10 formats. Where 16:9 itself came
from is another interesting story, but for a later time...)
And an earlier question I didn't see answered, re the operation
of the degaussing coil - the restriction on how often this is
operated is basically to avoid excess heating in the coil itself,
which is just a big coil of wire that gets placed across the AC
line when the degauss operation is enabled. Don't worry
about the occasional instance where something causes more
than 1 degauss cycle per 30 minute period. The restriction is
there to prevent you from degaussing every few minutes, or
"leaning on the degauss button", and thereby causing an unsafe
condition.
Bob M.