1280*1024 vs 1280*960

[takwu]

I've been using 1280*1024 for my desktop for a long time.

But that's a 5:4 ratio, which means the pixels aren't very square, since the screen's physical dimension is 4:3.

I thought it'd never bother me because it's just text and icons. But then I realize I do occasionally view videos and images with that wrong ratio.

So I try 1280*960, which my monitor doesn't directly support, but works just fine (it's says NEW MODE in the menu).

Now everything looks the way they are supposed to. Sure, I lost 64 horizontal lines worth of desktop space, but that's the "right" thing to do.

Or is it?

[Sampah]

1280X1024!!? Until die my monitor will never able to display this resolution!

[Neojag]

I use 1280*1024 cuz 1280*960 isn't enabled by default for my card and none of the registry hacks I tried (to tweak the drivers) worked

[takwu]

Neojag still has the ring?
Anyway, yeah now that I start to like 1280*960, I'm worried that when I finally replace my Voodoo3 I would loose that resolution option...

[Neojag]

'course i do

[Adair]

Somehow 1280x960 just doesn't look right to me. When I play a video game I always choose 1280x1024 over 1280x960. Even though the ratio is off it still seems better.
For example if I start playing a game at 800x600 and then swith to 1280x960 it seems like everything is too tall, but if I use 1280x1024 then things are just right.

[Quatro]

too bad my screen resolution is too small... 1024x7** (forgot the 700 part)does it hurt on your eyes at having that resolution?

[Ali]

What hurts ur eyes is the Refresh Rate not the resolution, lowe refresh rates give me swear headaches, any resolution above 80 Hz is very comfy for the eyes.

1280x960 resolution gives a sort of wide sceen effect, which is pretty nice, Im using it myself right now, on 85 Hertz.

[Gamer1]

Originally posted by Quatro
too bad my screen resolution is too small... 1024x7** (forgot the 700 part)does it hurt on your eyes at having that resolution?

it hurts my eyes not having that resolution. I must have at least 1024 x 768. well, also depends what size the moiniter is. also the fact that some vid card cough... i810.... cough... does really crappy when its at 1024 x 768 (everything is wavy beyond 800x 600... i hate it how intel made this crappy product)

[Quatro]

> 1024 x 768.

thanks Gamer for stating this... I forgot it a while ago...

anyway, I use this resolution mostly to handle graphic programs... although higher res are good, I can't see it too much because it looks very small...

I think 1280x1024 is the best resolution to watch DVDS in. Because its the closer to the 16:9 ratio of the DVDS.

Very hard to get a monitor into a 16:9 ratio. Since most monitors can't do a 16:9 Ratio

[takwu]

Adair,
did you make sure to fix the width and height when you switch resolutions? If your monitor has different settings for each resolution (like mine), you might want to check that.

Ali,
wide screen effect? no. it's 4:3, which is the TV ratio that most monitor has physically.

ChrisRay,
1280*1024 (5:4) is further from 16:9 than 1280*960 (4:3)
And whatever DVD player you are using, it should have an option to keep aspect ratio for stretching.

I think this 1280*1024 thing is giving the public a lot of confusion. Why did that happen in the first place?

Originally posted by takwu
Adair,
did you make sure to fix the width and height when you switch resolutions? If your monitor has different settings for each resolution (like mine), you might want to check that.

Ali,
wide screen effect? no. it's 4:3, which is the TV ratio that most monitor has physically.

ChrisRay,
1280*1024 (5:4) is further from 16:9 than 1280*960 (4:3)
And whatever DVD player you are using, it should have an option to keep aspect ratio for stretching.

I think this 1280*1024 thing is giving the public a lot of confusion. Why did that happen in the first place?

Hmm Are you sure? 1280x960 looks incredibly funny for DVDS,


Hmm 15:12 and 12:9.

Depends on how you look at it I suppose.


Btw. How do you deem 1280x1024 so confusing?


My monitor goes

320x200
320x240
400x300
480x360
512x384
640x400
640x480
720x480
720x576
800x600
848x480
1024x786
1152x864
1280x768
1280x960
1280x1024

If anyone is to blame its really not monitor companies. It's Microsoft. Because Most monitors support these resolutions nowadays.

[takwu]

Originally posted by ChrisRay
Depends on how you look at it I suppose.

Ok so this is how I look at it:

resolution -> ratio
1280*1024 -> 5:4
1280*960 -> 4:3
1280*720 -> 16:9

seems perfectly clear to me which is closer to 16:9

And it would have to be either the video card makers, or the monitor makers.
I don't see how Microsoft could have anything to do with it.

Originally posted by takwu

Ok so this is how I look at it:

resolution -> ratio
1280*1024 -> 5:4
1280*960 -> 4:3
1280*720 -> 16:9

seems perfectly clear to me which is closer to 16:9

And it would have to be either the video card makers, or the monitor makers.
I don't see how Microsoft could have anything to do with it.

As I said, 1280x1024 = 15/12 and 1290x960 = 12:9.

15:12 is just as close in dimensions as 12:9 is. Since 1280x960 isn't 16:9 it's it's still off by quite a bit. And I think 15:12 produces a better movie enviroment for watching 16:9 movies. Maybe you prefer your movies thinner. I don't.

I don't see how its clear.

And like I said. maybe your monitor just Sucks.

All three of my monitors support the 5:4 ratios and the 4:3. And Nvidia adapters support the ratios too.

I don't see what you're so mad about. As I said. Maybe your monitor just sucks. If you are really that confused about it. Switch to 1600x1280 or 1024x786.

[takwu]

First of all, I'm not mad. And I can't really see how you got that idea.

I made the chart to show that if you have 1280 pixels on each line across, and you want 16:9, you'll need 720 lines. That is because (1280/80)=16, and (720/80)=9.

And, to me at least, 1280*960 is clearly closer to that number than 1280*1024.

If it's STILL unclear, another way to see it is to treat each ratio as a fraction.
1280/1024 = 5/4 = 1.25
1280/960 = 4/3 = 1.31 (approx)
and 16/9 = 1.78 (approx)

so... 5/4 < 4/3 < 16/9

I hope this helps. If it made it worse, sorry, forget it.

Originally posted by ChrisRay
maybe your monitor just Sucks.

I don't know where that came from. I'm perfectly happy with my monitor. I'm just saying the idea of the 5:4 ratio displaying on a ***physically*** 4:3 screen is confusing.

As if I didn't emphasize enough, I actually measured my monitor's screen width and height. It is 32cm across and 24cm high.
32:24 = (32/8): (24/8) = 4:3

To quote that Berkley's commercial: Is that loud enough for ya?

First of all, I'm not mad. And I can't really see how you got that idea.

I made the chart to show that if you have 1280 pixels on each line across, and you want 16:9, you'll need 720 lines. That is because (1280/80)=16, and (720/80)=9.

And, to me at least, 1280*960 is clearly closer to that number than 1280*1024.

If it's STILL unclear, another way to see it is to treat each ratio as a fraction.
1280/1024 = 5/4 = 1.25
1280/960 = 4/3 = 1.31 (approx)
and 16/9 = 1.78 (approx)

so... 5/4 < 4/3 < 16/9

I hope this helps. If it made it worse, sorry, forget it.

We're talking about dimensions the way the image is stretched. I prefer my image to be taller and less stretched, Feeling more of the screen with the least stretching. Which is why I prefer the 15:12 ratio rather than the 12:9.

You are stating that 12:9 is a more cubic comparing to 16:9. Which is true. But it still offers a more stretching to the image on a verticle level. Which irritates me. Which is why I stand by 15:12 being superior to 12:9 when it comes to watching 16:9 movies.

I don't know where that came from. I'm perfectly happy with my monitor. I'm just saying the idea of the 5:4 ratio displaying on a ***physically*** 4:3 screen is confusing.

As if I didn't emphasize enough, I actually measured my monitor's screen width and height. It is 32cm across and 24cm high.
32:24 = (32/8): (24/8) = 4:3

To quote that Berkley's commercial: Is that loud enough for ya?

You are complaining that monitors do a 5:4 ratio along with several 4:3 ratios correct?

It seems to me that your monitor is lacking the 5:4 ratios and a few 4:3 ratios. And you are stating that its confusing to you. I don't see how its confusing other than your monitor doesn't support any other 5:4 ratios.

You are essentially complaining about a 5:4 ratio because your monitor does not support any other 5:4 ratios. Which is why its so darn confusing to you. The More Ratios the better IMO.

There are plenty of 4:3 and 5:4 ratios available on my monitor. It's evolutionary. I don't see the problem with it.

[Snake785]

Hmm...I dont know about you guys, but I actually like 1152x864. It is just perfect to look at (when looking at the desktop, web pages, etc.) to me anyways. Another reason is that my monitor can display that res at 100Hz.

But when I play video games, I prefer 640x480 or 1280x960 mostly because they look better to me (and that they have a similar ratio, just one is double the size than the other).

[takwu]

ChrisRay,
Thanks for trying to explain. But I REALLY do not understand what you were saying about stretching and stuff. I just want my pixels to be square, as they are meant to be. As simple as that.

And for the part about my rant. Same thing: pixels are meant to be square. I just don't want to see an oval when looking at the picture of a circle, which happens when you use 1280*1024.

And for the record, when I said it was confusing, I didn't mean I couldn't figure out what was going on. Actually I meant that it confused a lot of other people on this thread, and they don't even know it.

Snake785,
Well, I tried 1152*864. But I just need to squeeze as much desktop space onto my monitor as I could. That's why I used 1280*1024 in the first place, until the distorted pixels started to bother me.

[takwu]

Ok didn't want to double post, but I figured editing my last one would be too clumsy, and make matters worse.

Originally posted by ChrisRay
You are complaining that monitors do a 5:4 ratio along with several 4:3 ratios correct?

No, that is not what I was complaining about.