PDA

View Full Version : Opinions on 1280x1024 resolution


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

skipparoo
07-27-02, 09:55 PM
What a shame every last thread had to be removed and a new forum had to be created. In ways this can be beneficial, but in others it is unfortunate that we cannot go back and refer to old threads.

Anyways, I wanted to start off with my opinion on the resolution of 1280x1024. I do not understand why a lot of people like to use this resolution. This resolution is at an incorrect ratio, as opposed to 1280x960, so as a result the picture is slightly distorted.

Most OpenGL applications seem to utilize this resolution instead of 1280x960, which is just wrong. I guess there is no real problems with running a slightly distorted image, and most of the time it's probably not noticeable to the average user, but the fact is it is a resolution at an incorrect ratio, and in my opinion shouldn't even exist.

Peace to everyone, and enjoy the new forums!

-Skippy

Kruno
07-27-02, 10:05 PM
It's distorted? Come over to my house and I'll show you quality with 1280x1024. In games and desktop it looks schweet on my monitor. :)

skipparoo
07-27-02, 10:53 PM
It sure is. But remember, it's not like the picture is so distorted that you cannot read text or what not. It's just mathematically incorrect to use that kind of resolution. The easiest way I can show you this is simple. Take 640x480 as your base resolution (you could even use 320x240), multiply both numbers by two and you get 1280x960, not 1280x1024. This is what I am referring to when I say that the ratio of the resolution is incorrect. I just wanted to post this information to see if everyone who used 1280x1024 was aware of it.

-Skippy

Kruno
07-27-02, 10:56 PM
Mathamatically you can take the square root of a negative number and get a imaginary number that you can't work with.
Mathametically it's incorrect to take the square root of a negative number but maths specialist people still do it.

SsP45
07-27-02, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by skipparoo
It sure is. But remember, it's not like the picture is so distorted that you cannot read text or what not. It's just mathematically incorrect to use that kind of resolution. The easiest way I can show you this is simple. Take 640x480 as your base resolution (you could even use 320x240), multiply both numbers by two and you get 1280x960, not 1280x1024. This is what I am referring to when I say that the ratio of the resolution is incorrect. I just wanted to post this information to see if everyone who used 1280x1024 was aware of it.

-Skippy

I still don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of it. It's just a resolution. I personally prefer 1280x1024 over 1280x960. I find that, at least on my monitor, 1280x960 looks a bit weird. It is possible that I have be desensitized to 1280x1024, but I still prefer it over 1280x960.

skipparoo
07-27-02, 11:11 PM
Well that's all very well, mathematics is complicated in that fashion, but when it comes to resolutions, square roots don't apply :P All I'm saying is, knowing that this is true, do you really want to still play games in a resolution that stretches the picture slightly? I have found it distracting at times, like when you switch back and forth between the two and compare, the differences are more apparent. I mean, what is it with 1280x1024? Is it the fact that both the width and length of the screen have exceeded 1000 pixels with this resolution that intrigues people? Not a concern for me..

-Skippy

skipparoo
07-27-02, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by SsP45
I still don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of it. It's just a resolution. I personally prefer 1280x1024 over 1280x960. I find that, at least on my monitor, 1280x960 looks a bit weird. It is possible that I have be desensitized to 1280x1024, but I still prefer it over 1280x960.

It's not a big deal, not at all. But from what you just said you have no real reason why you like to use 1280x1024. Exactly as you said, you've probably just been conditioned to prefer it over 1280x960. I'm simply stating that this resolution should not exist, and started this thread to inform people who may not know that the resolution is in an incorrect ratio.

-Skippy

Kruno
07-27-02, 11:21 PM
There have been like 50 threads about this in the past lolz. Sure it may not be a "correct" ratio but if it looks good use it. I have something like 50 custom resolutions all incorrect ratios. Some look scruffy and others look miraculous. It really depends on ones taste. I don't think many people care ifit's an incorrect ratio. They use it because it may look good. I just switched my res to 1280x960. I really can't say it looks bad though. Comparing the 2 I have no idea which one I like best. In games 1280x960 for a bit more frame rate and refresh rate. :)

skipparoo
07-27-02, 11:38 PM
Well then don't go by what you "think" looks best, go by what you "know" is right. You said there's no apparent difference between the two resolutions in terms of image quality, because there is no difference, none whatsoever. The only difference is size, and one is right, one is wrong. But now that you know this, you're still going to use 1280x1024, aren't you? Why, because it looks better? Nope, because you're used to it, that's all, or because everyone else likes to use it. But it's wrong, the whole world has got it all wrong! Hahaha :P

-Skippy

Kruno
07-27-02, 11:41 PM
Same reason can be said about 1280x960. I use whatever looks best (IMHO) and always have. Actually I'm still using 1280x960 currently. Some games coupled with 2x AA do look better with 1280x1024 than using same settings and 1280x960. Again others might think different. I like most games at 640x480 believe it or not. Sometimes even a positive LOD I use. I like QAA on my G3 becuase of the filtering it has. (some ppl call it blur ;)) Again my preferences.

BTW I go on what looks best. What looks right is what looks best in terms of screen resolution (IMHO). So that leaves your statement contradictive to mine.

saturnotaku
07-27-02, 11:46 PM
If I have the option to select 1280x960 I'll take it as my monitor does 85 Hz at that rate as opposed to 75 at 1280x1024. In Quake 3 (and Quake 3 only) if I pick 1280x1024 the picture is distorted. Any other game I run at that resolution works just fine. Not a big deal because I'll do Q3A at 1600x1200 anyway, hehe. :D

SsP45
07-28-02, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by skipparoo
Well then don't go by what you "think" looks best, go by what you "know" is right. You said there's no apparent difference between the two resolutions in terms of image quality, because there is no difference, none whatsoever. The only difference is size, and one is right, one is wrong. But now that you know this, you're still going to use 1280x1024, aren't you? Why, because it looks better? Nope, because you're used to it, that's all, or because everyone else likes to use it. But it's wrong, the whole world has got it all wrong! Hahaha :P

-Skippy

Just because something isn't using a 4:3 ratio doesn't make it wrong. I use the larger resolution, 1280x1024, because my monitor does the same 85Hz refresh rate at either. I would rather have more desktop space than a smaller one.

mavis
07-28-02, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by skipparoo
Well then don't go by what you "think" looks best, go by what you "know" is right.

Yes, SIR!!!

Very amusing thread. Looks good even at 1280x1024 (oh the horror!!!)

:D

mavis

Cereal-Killer
07-28-02, 12:54 AM
Here's my $0.02: I'm using a flat panal monitor with the native res @ 1280x1024. I can't notice any kind of distortion when playing games or browsing the web. But let's say I draw a circle in Photoshop, it'll be more like an ellipse. Even that is hardly noticable though... if at all. Mathematically incorrect? Yes. Big deal? No.

Matthyahuw
07-28-02, 12:57 AM
I use only 1280x960 (unless it's unselectable), but if someone wants to use 1280x1024, go right ahead!
Even if it is WRONG :p

SavagePaladin
07-28-02, 01:29 AM
I'm so wrong-headed.
I'm going to go hang myself now...
Well, actually, I'm not on 1280 until I get a better vidcard and monitor.
Maybe just the monitor.
I will note one of my fav games hates 1280x960

koslov
07-28-02, 01:48 AM
It is my understanding that 1280x1024 will not distort the picture in 3D applications. It just samples more pixels in the same space as 1280x960 does. The 5:4 ratio only applys to 2D apps... I still use 1280x1024 as a desktop res because I am not a 2D artist and the difference is insignificant to my eyes.

Feanor
07-28-02, 04:44 AM
Well as to the use of imaginary numbers (the complex number system), if the algebra teacher I had when I was back in highschool is correct, imaginary numbers did come into play (an application thereof) when radio technology was being developed. Though I have worked with some circuit design (in regards to computers) I have not looked into this to see if he was correct. Imaginary numbers could have their practical applications however.

As to the 1280 x 1024...I really don't care if the same 5:4 aspect ratio is used or not. I've had too many monitors in the past where 1280 x 960 looks rather distorted, and on my current one (a Viewsonic A90) it's all off center and takes a lot of work to get it centered and to fill the screen. That includes increasing the horizontal size and seriously changing the positioning... At least it isn't distorted like it was on my older 15" though...

1280 x 1024 is also the highest res I can use without going below a 75 Hz refresh rate....and 60 Hz refresh looks kinda dim, flickers, and can give me headaches...hence 1600 x 1200 is out. I don't like smaller desktops that fit less on them...and also prefer what displays without distortion or requiring substantial adjustment to my monitor. (And though I have worked inside a monitor before, if it's so far off I couldn't adjust it from the controls in the front...I'd rather pass on having to open it up to make course adjustments ...Lets just say it's so extremely off center, the right most 1/2 to 2/3 or so of the desktop is way off the screen when set to 1280 x 960 H position is also at 14...and it won't go much more to the left...) 1280 x 1024 doesn't have the inevitable "my desktop won't center on the screen" effect on this monitor.

In games I do use 1024 x 768 though, with Quincunx AA and Aniso

Kruno
07-28-02, 06:10 AM
I asked my maths methods teacher about this before (if imaginary numbers could be used anywhere) he went whacko at me and said you just simply can't because the square root of a negative doesn't exist. He said Imaginary numbers are there to help you understand maths better and is an extension of learning maths BUT I.N s can't be used practically.

That's what my maths teacher said. Prove him wrong and I will be happy to tell him :)


"Well as to the use of imaginary numbers (the complex number system), if the algebra teacher I had when I was back in highschool is correct, imaginary numbers did come into play (an application thereof) when radio technology was being developed. Though I have worked with some circuit design (in regards to computers) I have not looked into this to see if he was correct. Imaginary numbers could have their practical applications however."

Babel-17
07-28-02, 06:40 AM
koslov hits the nail on the head. I've used several funky resolutions in UT and they do not distort the 3D display. At 1600x1024 the game looks excellent and I get to enjoy a refresh rate of 85Hz instead of the 72Hz I would get at 1600x1200. Lol, the UT console (or should I could it "browser"?) looks distorted at that setting but I don't really care. :)

Dazz
07-28-02, 07:08 AM
1280x960 on my monitor looks squshed up, 1280x1024@85Hz looks alot better. I have a Hansol 710P monitor which can do 1600x1200@75Hz even though i can rerely run games nice at that high :o damn processor. Although i started to except 60Hz now :)

DIMA
07-28-02, 08:12 AM
What are u guys talking about?!

The best resolution both for 2D & 3D: 1024x768@32bit at 85hz with AA & AF (the later two things for 3D obviously :) )

Kruno
07-28-02, 08:16 AM
I could argue 320x240 looks best but considering the amount of work devs placed into getting rid of that resolution it wouldn't seem fair to compare such a 1337 resolution like 320x240 to sux0ring resolutions like 1600x1200 and so on ;) :D

DIMA
07-28-02, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
I could argue 320x240 looks best but considering the amount of work devs placed into getting rid of that resolution it wouldn't seem fair to compare such a 1337 resolution like 320x240 to sux0ring resolutions like 1600x1200 and so on ;) :D

LOL :D

Actually, 320x240 will be pretty popular when DOOM III comes out, cause according to Carmack, enjoyable framerates for GF1SDR owners will only be achievable with this resolution! :)

There, found that comment:
The slowest cards will be the 64 bit and SDR ram GF and Radeon cards, which will really not be fast enough to play the game properly unless you run at 320x240 or so.

Kruno
07-28-02, 08:22 AM
I'm pretty sure it won't be any different for the Nv30 ;) :D