About resolusion1280*1024...the aspect ratio doesn't equals to 4:3...
Author
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]
yeah, it sucks. No two ways about it. 1280x960 is better.
"Sneftel is correct, if rather vulgar." --Flarelocke
"Sneftel is correct, if rather vulgar." --Flarelocke
I never realized that before. Why then is it, that on my R9700, I run my screen at 1280x1024 and I dont notice any 'stretching' at all?
~Vendayan
[edited by - Vendayan on November 13, 2003 2:35:24 AM]
~Vendayan
[edited by - Vendayan on November 13, 2003 2:35:24 AM]
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.
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.
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
~Vendayan
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
LinaInverse
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
T
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...
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...
My LCD''s native resolution is 1280*1024. I think there will only be distortion if you use a resolution with a different aspect ratio to the native resolution. In any case, the more pixels the better.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
