Why 1280x1024????

[Joel]

Why do we tend to use 1280x1024 when 1280x960 is the true 4:3 aspect ratio???

Joel

[Liquid Snake]

I dunno, but I use 1280x960. 1280x1024 looks funny

[Wombat]

1280x1024 was the highest res that could fit into some old (but prevalent) video card. It just stayed around after that.

[Admiral]

1280x1024, my monitor defines it as user mode 13 (on the OSD).
creepy

[Evil_Donnyboy]

It's a 5:4 ratio so yea, it should look "weird". It's gonna look squished horizontally if ur used to 1027x768 or 800x600.

[Wombat]

Actually, it will make everything look squished vertically.

[Thundrchez]

I use 1280x1024 because it is more compatible with displaying the correct aspect ratio with my monitor when I have the monitor set to its maximum display boundary.

If I were to use 1280x960, I would have to squeeze in the Y with the monitor controls to have a circle look like a circle, not an oval. Similarly with the other 4:3 aspect ratio resolutions, I should squeeze in the Y.

[xortam]

Dem pixels ain't square.

[rylan]

I'm using 1152x864 so I still get 4:3

I tried 1280x1024 for a bit, but the abnormal ratio bothered me.

[Evil_Donnyboy]

yea vertically, my bad.

[villerk]

I'd use 1024x960, but my vidcard won't do it, and my monitor freaks out and flicks like hell (@65 hz).

------------------
AMD K6-2/500 Mhz
A586B, Ali Aladdin V
128MB 100 Mhz SDRAM
20GB Maxtor DiamondMAX VL 20, Quantum Fireball EX6.4A
HP 9110i, Creative 32x mx
Intel i740 8 MB (laughter...)
SB64PCI
Winbond W940C (or such, 10MB/s)
Yakumo EN1570DO (15")
Mice, keyboard and stuff
Kenwood amplifier and stuff
Win98, RedHat 7.0 (sometimes also BeOS 5)

[Maggi]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by xortam:
Dem pixels ain't square.</font>

On computers they are, on TV they're not ...

[xortam]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Maggi:
On computers they are, on TV they're not ...

</font>

That was my recollection. I had a feeling I should double-check on that before I posted. Are you sure about this Maggi? Don't make me look it up.

[Thundrchez]

Yup, each pixel on a TV has a 4:3 aspect ratio.

Computer monitor pixels are supposed to be more square than that, but you get to play around with it a lot due to the monitor controls.

I'm not sure if the maximum extents of a monitor are supposed to be in a 4:3 aspect ratio.

[Maggi]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by xortam:
That was my recollection. I had a feeling I should double-check on that before I posted. Are you sure about this Maggi? Don't make me look it up. </font>

100% yes ...

just think about the actual pixel resolutions and the resulting image ratio, that then will be shown on 4:3 TV tubes.

PAL = 720x576 - 5:4
NTSC = 720x486 - 40:27

now projection those resolutions onto a 4:3 screen just cannot be done if the pixel were square, can it ?



Btw, that is also the reason why you had to do artwork for TV in 768x576 (4:3 for PAL), or 720x540 (4:3 for NTSC)and then squash it to fit the apropriate TV resolution.

16:9 is basically the same thing ...

Cheers,
Maggi

PS: in case you didn't know, I'm working in a video postproduciton for about five years now and this stuff is my daily bread.