Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

About resolusion1280*1024...the aspect ratio doesn't equals to 4:3...

This topic is 5141 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

As we all know, for years, 4:3 is the standard aspect ratio of our display, at least so far. For examples, 640:480=800:600=1024*768=4:3 but, the higher resolution---1280:1024=5:4 !!! In a PC shop several days ago, I noticed that the picture showed on the 1280*1024 display seems been stretched, I could distinguish it very easy! I think this difference may cause a lot of problems: movies played on PC may not be displayed correctly, industrial designers may not evaluate there production correctly, the picture created on other PC can't be displayed correctly(just like the one I saw in the shop),vice versa...For now, most 17' LCD were made with the default resolution 1280*1024... I want to ask: how can this resolution came into standard resolution?! [edited by - Challenger17 on November 13, 2003 8:47:41 PM] [edited by - Challenger17 on November 13, 2003 8:58:54 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I red in a magazine somewhere that 1280*1024 is the more ergonomic than 1280*960. Expecially for 21'' monitors like mine. And it dont see any streching. If you saw streching on a TV, thats because it was a widescreen tv and the movie playing was not. Its not because of the resolution, but the actual size of the screen in real world... I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All LCDs have the proper aspect ratio for that resultution. Standard monitors are 4:3, which is why a 5:4 resolution may make images look distorted, but if the default resultion on an LCD is 5:4, then the LCD is 5:4 as well so it isn''t actually stretching the image any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a 19" CRT at 1280x1024 and I see absolutely no stretching. In fact... yup, after measuring a perfect square on the screen, im sure its not stretched. Image fills the whole screen also, it isnt stretched back by the monitors settings or anything...

~Vendayan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In code it''s a doddle to grab the resolution and then setup the aspect ratio of the projection matrix, such that things still appear square on the screen like they should. The problem only appears if you hard code an aspect ratio of 3.0f/4.0f (which I''ve done in the past..).

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have an Acer AL922 LCD monitor which is 19". The nice thing about this monitor is that it''s a 5:4 monitor.
The 18" models are just as wide but not as high vertically, the don''t use square pixels. 17" and 18" models can produce a stretched image.

Although I don''t know whether people take this in account. Half of the samples I see posted just use SetPerspectiveFovLH with 1.0 as the aspect parameter instead of 1.33 or 1.25...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by LinaInverse2010
When you set the resolution to 1280x1024, your programs know the ratio has changed. For example, most games that run this resolution just add more lines or actual display than 1280x960, so there is no visible distortion.

LinaInverse


Yes it does. You can easily measure that almost every monitor is about 4:3 and 1280x1024 is not.
Who invented this ugly resolution? It doesn''t match the pattern at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it''s just one of those things. Either you like it or you don''t. I quite like it because it''s higher res than 1280x960, and depending on the shape of your screen it might actually give you square pixels.

Shame it makes it harder to program games for widescreen, but then not many people have widescreen monitors.


Why you shouldn''t use iostream.h - ever! | A Good free online C++ book

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just got a widescreen laptop, and I love the extra width it provides. Its really useful for development, but I have had some problems with games with it. But over all, most games will scale very nicely to whatever resolution your monitor is. Just as a side not, my 17" LCD is 1280x1024 and I''ve never noticed any distortions in any of my games.

LinaInverse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
I have a theory that the reason 1280x1024 became popular is that it is the default (and only!) available resolution of many Sun boxes, and maybe other Unix vendors.. people became used to this res and designed various programs for it, and it wouldn''t make sense to try to sell native 1280x960 LCD displays when there were always going to be people complaining and wanting 1280x1024. So they just added 64 extra rows of pixels. I''m not complaining, my 1280x1024 LCD r0x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by LinaInverse2010
When you set the resolution to 1280x1024, your programs know the ratio has changed. For example, most games that run this resolution just add more lines or actual display than 1280x960, so there is no visible distortion.

LinaInverse


Yep, graphical programs like games won''t have aspect ratio problem here. But something else do. Like bitmaps, I think no one can guarantee those pictures with standard aspect ratio won''t be stretched in >=17'''' LCD monitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I HVAE THE REAL REASON


I just mesured one of my old monitors (a 14") and it was 2 cd jewel cases (sorry i didnt have a ruler...) by 1.5 cases:

2x1.5 = 4x3

Then i messured my 21" and it was 2.5 by 2 cases:

2.5x2 = 5x4

WOW! 5:4 is the 1024*768 aspect ratio...

word.. so there you go. i dont know if anyone else posted this because i didnt want to read all the posts...

Edit: PS. Ya, so the images dont get stretched on a 21" monitor, but if you could get a 14" up to 1280x1024 they would look squished...

PSS. AP - Sun doesnt set many standards for the home user, and I hate their keyboards...

[edited by - TheDarkening on November 13, 2003 12:15:45 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by TheDarkening
I HVAE THE REAL REASON


I just mesured one of my old monitors (a 14") and it was 2 cd jewel cases (sorry i didnt have a ruler...) by 1.5 cases:

2x1.5 = 4x3

Then i messured my 21" and it was 2.5 by 2 cases:

2.5x2 = 5x4

WOW! 5:4 is the 1024*768 aspect ratio...

word.. so there you go. i dont know if anyone else posted this because i didnt want to read all the posts...

Edit: PS. Ya, so the images dont get stretched on a 21" monitor, but if you could get a 14" up to 1280x1024 they would look squished...

PSS. AP - Sun doesnt set many standards for the home user, and I hate their keyboards...

[edited by - TheDarkening on November 13, 2003 12:15:45 AM]


I''m afraid there''s something wrong with your analyze. 21'''' monitor is designed to be used under the recommended resolution 1280*1024. You just set the resolution to 1024*768. So there''s nothing special about the 5:4, it''s prepared for the ''1280*1024''...

If you try a 17'''' monitor, you will find out the aspect ratio is 4:3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites