Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-01-02, 12:17 PM   #49
Steppy
Radeon 10K Pro
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 351
Default

The easiest way to see the distortion is to make a grid of squares(in a standard res like 640 or 800) and use it as background stretched. When you are in most resolutions it will still be squares. When you go to 1280x1024 it becomes rectangles instead of boxes. What you are "supposed" to do is resize your monitor controls so that they do appear as boxes. Not every res is supposed to "fill" your monitor(otherwise letterbox resolutions look REALLY funny).
__________________
Here's my clever comment
Steppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-02, 12:28 PM   #50
volt
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 1,556
Default

I prefer 1280x960 mainly becuase it's better on my eyes and text appears much sharper and a bit bigger. As for desktop space I haven't noticed that much of a difference. I'm quite satisfied with that resolution.
volt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-02, 01:37 PM   #51
FastM
GeForceFlop
 
FastM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 545
Send a message via ICQ to FastM
Default

Someone brought up an interesting point. If you were doing alot of drawing in a program like Photoshop could using 1280x1024 really mess you up when it comes time to printing?
FastM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-02, 04:39 AM   #52
Kruno
TypeDef's assistant
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,641
Send a message via ICQ to Kruno Send a message via AIM to Kruno
Default

Huh!

Ash, translation please
__________________
"Never before has any voice dared to utter the words of that tongue in Imladris, Mr. Anderson" - Elrond LOTR

Last edited by Kruno; 08-04-02 at 09:39 AM.
Kruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-02, 08:47 AM   #53
Wolfman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by FastM
Someone brought up an interesting point. If you were doing alot of drawing in a program like Photoshop could using 1280x1024 really mess you up when it comes time to printing?
Personally I would have though ALL the resolutions mess you up when drawing such things as Circles as none have the same width and height...

eg 640x640 or 1280x1280

Surely a circle drawn in 640x480 would still be an elipse as the vertical height would be smaller than the width....

Last edited by Wolfman; 08-06-02 at 04:15 PM.
Wolfman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-02, 06:20 PM   #54
NeoGeo
Geforce 4
 
NeoGeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Coast, England, UK
Posts: 146
Default

urm what?

are you saying you have a perfect square monitor

monitors are wider than they are tall! this makes for un-even size, therefore there needs to be more pixels wide to make up and make a correct resolution!! 4:3 aspect ratio!!! just like widescreen becomes 16:9!! everything changes then!! but for 4:3 1024x960 is an even res... but 1280x1024 can be nice for some games....
__________________
AthlonXP 2500 Barton
MSI K7N2 Delta (MS-6570)
Nvidia Geforce FX 5600 128MB VIVO
512MB (2x 256MB) Crucial PC2700
2x 120GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 8MB
16x DVD
52x/24x/52x Lite-On CD-ReWriter
550 watt Q-Tech PSU
Superflower silver case
T1 Internet Connection
AOC 17" 7Klr
MS Keyboard+Mouse
NeoGeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-02, 08:51 AM   #55
Quinn1981
Elite Bastard
 
Quinn1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lyons, GA, USA
Posts: 86
Default

I think its absurd for anyone to think that 1280x1024 is some kind of wrong, screwy, gay resolution. Why would it be an option then? There are many other resoltions that aren't at the "TRADITIONAL" aspect ratio, and there shall be more. (ie. 1600x1024, 1920x1080, 1920x1200; all from the list all modes menu on an nVidia card) There's even 720x480 that's used for NTSC video. The more you look around the world the more strange resolutions there are.

If you want to know why I use it; there's two reasons:
1: It offers more workspace which I need doing my work.
2: It's not as blurry as 1600x1200 on my monitor.

You know, it is a stupid resolution. Why else would the entire industry support it and so many people make use of it?

It's just a bunch of pexils at a 1.25 ratio. Seems like a pretty solid and cool ratio to me, much unlike that gay 1.33 ratio. (just kidding)

Who am I kidding? I can't read all this scewed text. (kidding again)

EDIT: Oh yes, and I use Photoshop 6 all the time and have never had any scewed work or problems drawing circles. There are tool options that help you draw or make perfect square shapes. You simply make the project the size you need it to be when you print it out.

The resolution is just a viewing window size into your puter.

Quote:
Originally posted by Steppy
The easiest way to see the distortion is to make a grid of squares(in a standard res like 640 or 800) and use it as background stretched. When you are in most resolutions it will still be squares. When you go to 1280x1024 it becomes rectangles instead of boxes. What you are "supposed" to do is resize your monitor controls so that they do appear as boxes. Not every res is supposed to "fill" your monitor(otherwise letterbox resolutions look REALLY funny).
Your experiment is useless because you made it a stretched backround. You stretched it. Of course it's going to do that when the resolution is not at a 4:3(1.33) ratio.

Quote:
Originally posted by d1rX
I prefer 1280x960 mainly becuase it's better on my eyes and text appears much sharper and a bit bigger. As for desktop space I haven't noticed that much of a difference. I'm quite satisfied with that resolution.
Now that is a very valid reason why someone would use a resolution. We see different pros and cons in everything.

Last edited by Quinn1981; 08-05-02 at 09:12 AM.
Quinn1981 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-02, 12:12 PM   #56
Steppy
Radeon 10K Pro
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Quinn1981
I think its absurd for anyone to think that 1280x1024 is some kind of wrong, screwy, gay resolution. Why would it be an option then? There are many other resoltions that aren't at the "TRADITIONAL" aspect ratio, and there shall be more. (ie. 1600x1024, 1920x1080, 1920x1200; all from the list all modes menu on an nVidia card) There's even 720x480 that's used for NTSC video. The more you look around the world the more strange resolutions there are.

If you want to know why I use it; there's two reasons:
1: It offers more workspace which I need doing my work.
2: It's not as blurry as 1600x1200 on my monitor.

You know, it is a stupid resolution. Why else would the entire industry support it and so many people make use of it?

It's just a bunch of pexils at a 1.25 ratio. Seems like a pretty solid and cool ratio to me, much unlike that gay 1.33 ratio. (just kidding)

Who am I kidding? I can't read all this scewed text. (kidding again)

EDIT: Oh yes, and I use Photoshop 6 all the time and have never had any scewed work or problems drawing circles. There are tool options that help you draw or make perfect square shapes. You simply make the project the size you need it to be when you print it out.

The resolution is just a viewing window size into your puter.



Your experiment is useless because you made it a stretched backround. You stretched it. Of course it's going to do that when the resolution is not at a 4:3(1.33) ratio.



Now that is a very valid reason why someone would use a resolution. We see different pros and cons in everything.
You're right, forget the stretching.

Without resizing your monitor properly go and make a 50x50 pixel selection area in 1280x1024 and tell me what shape it is. If you resize it properly the 50x50 box will be square, but the picture will NOT fill your monitor...go try some monitor calibrating software sometime. You'll see what I mean. People don't understand that non 4:3 ratio resolutions ARE fine...but you MUST resize your picture properly not just so it fills the entire screen. Letterbox resolutions are a perfect example of this.
__________________
Here's my clever comment
Steppy is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-02, 08:00 AM   #57
Quinn1981
Elite Bastard
 
Quinn1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lyons, GA, USA
Posts: 86
Default

i think i know what you were trying to get accross, I just didnt get the experiment.

one good thing though, this thread made actually check to see what ratio all those wierd resolutions are and find out that 1280x1024 isnt traditional. i just started using it and have never looked back. i always thought the game Anachronox was being wierd using that wierd 1280x960 resolution and thought ATI didnt really care about 1280x960 and making it work properly in games was becuase it was a wierd resolution.

oh well...
Quinn1981 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-02, 04:54 PM   #58
snave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 4
Default Resolution of resolution issues...

Erm , what the heck difference does it make? some ask. Well, if you are an artist trying to create a likeness it is important that the proportions are consistent. Not just on YOUR machine, but on every other users machine.

If there were to be a consensus that the 4:3 ratio was somehow `wrong` and that 1280x1024 was somehow `right` then we could all switch to the new res and have done with it. BUT, as long as the two co-exist, only one can ever be correct on an uncorrected monitor...

...and therein lies the conundrum. The 1280x1024 res is designed to offer more fill space on the 4:3 standard monitor - if you modify the monitor settings you will see that, proprtion retained, the screen is better filled at 1280x1024. Nice, but not necessary.

However, the whole argument is moot unless one has the capacity - and the software - to perform standardisation checks on monitors. I use Nokia's NTest.exe and have adjusted the monitor to be in ratio at the 1280x1024 resolution. I simply have to remember to load another monitor profile if I change to the `correct` proportion resolutions.
snave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-02, 05:07 PM   #59
shmall
Graphics lover
 
shmall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Default

Some games look a little distored at 1280x1024 (Grand Prix Legends to name one)...... however do what I do ..play all games at 1600x1200 (4:3 ratio) all look great..... lol


Simon.
shmall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-02, 06:40 PM   #60
NeoGeo
Geforce 4
 
NeoGeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Coast, England, UK
Posts: 146
Default

i dont have a 1600x1200 capable monitor
__________________
AthlonXP 2500 Barton
MSI K7N2 Delta (MS-6570)
Nvidia Geforce FX 5600 128MB VIVO
512MB (2x 256MB) Crucial PC2700
2x 120GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 8MB
16x DVD
52x/24x/52x Lite-On CD-ReWriter
550 watt Q-Tech PSU
Superflower silver case
T1 Internet Connection
AOC 17" 7Klr
MS Keyboard+Mouse
NeoGeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
nvidia-settings only allowing 1440x900 resolution lumina NVIDIA Linux 4 11-17-12 02:09 PM
Regression with GTK+ menus when using a virtual resolution alex_sh NVIDIA Linux 0 10-20-12 03:20 PM
The Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 Ti GPU is Out Now, Great for 720p S3D News Archived News Items 0 10-09-12 09:40 AM
8800 GT and Ubuntu - Plymouth low resolution legluondunet NVIDIA Linux 3 06-24-12 03:22 PM
30.82 and 40.41 resolution + monitor OSD. Max3D NVIDIA Windows Graphics Drivers 2 09-05-02 02:15 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.