Resolution v Ratio

[kettle]

When presented with a choice, which screen size would you choose?

a) 1280x1024
b) 1280x960

It seems to me that 1280x1024 is the more common, despite 1280x960 being a 4:3 ratio.
What is the tech/logic behind this?
:confused:

[zarathustra]

I actually wondered myself, because when i set to 1280x1024, type, geometric shapes seem stretched and I have to manually adjust the monitor. I have all my machines on 1280x960, because it gives me the better screen ratio. I guess it's one-upmanship from people to whom geometry doesn't matter (i.e. coders, writers, gamers). When I draw a cicle in illustrator and it looks like an oval, that is unaccaptable.

[MacsRgr8]

The Apple 17" Studio Display which has the 1280 x 1024 default resolution is not exaclty 4:3 ratio, which justifies the resolution.
Problem with it though, if you're forced in using a 4:3 ratio resolution you'll find that it will not fill the screen.

[kettle]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8
The Apple 17" Studio Display which has the 1280 x 1024 default resolution is not exaclty 4:3 ratio, which justifies the resolution.
Problem with it though, if you're forced in using a 4:3 ratio resolution you'll find that it will not fill the screen.

So when using the Apple 17" Studio Display, what happens to all the 4:3 ratio resolutions like 800x600 1024x768 1152x870? Why not specify some more 5x4 ratios?
What I think I'm asking is ... is this down to the architechture/mechanics of graphic cards? what is the long and the short of 5:4 'vs' 4:3?
:confused:

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by kettle
So when using the Apple 17" Studio Display, what happens to all the 4:3 ratio resolutions like 800x600 1024x768 1152x870? Why not specify some more 5x4 ratios?
What I think I'm asking is ... is this down to the architechture/mechanics of graphic cards? what is the long and the short of 5:4 'vs' 4:3?
:confused:

I have no idea why they have doen this. Especially when you think of the fact that the 1280 x 1024 is LESS "wide-screen" than 1280 x 960, which makes viewing of a DVD even worse...
Just an example: Playing F1 2000 CS on such a display annoys me, actually. Seeing two black lines top and bottom makes you think there's something wrong with it. There is nothing wrong, but the game only supports 4:3 ratio settings.

[mactastic]

This trend towards widescreen format monitors is great for watching DVD's but cuts into valuable screen real estate top to bottom. I can't deal with my dock on the bottom of the screen, it has to be on the side, since I can't afford to give up any vertical space. My PB runs at 1280 x 854 which is very nice, but many of us are used to squarish monitors that give you almost equal dimensions in both directions.

[zarathustra]

Humans' field of vision is wider than taller - that's why we have widescreen movies and not portrait. i personally would prefer if all new marketed US TVs would switch to the 16:9 ratio used in new european tv sets. This should also be true for monitors IMO. 1600*900 would give you a 1024*900 px space for windows and 576*900 px space for palettes, etc.

Plus watching movies is just awesome on 16:9 - you can actually emerse yourself in them.

I hear the complaint about games not supporting various screen though - and as much as I hate control, there should be a new standard and manufacturers should stick to it. ¢2.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by zarathustra
Humans' field of vision is wider than taller - that's why we have widescreen movies and not portrait. i personally would prefer if all new marketed US TVs would switch to the 16:9 ratio used in new european tv sets. This should also be true for monitors IMO. 1600*900 would give you a 1024*900 px space for windows and 576*900 px space for palettes, etc.

Plus watching movies is just awesome on 16:9 - you can actually emerse yourself in them.

I hear the complaint about games not supporting various screen though - and as much as I hate control, there should be a new standard and manufacturers should stick to it. ¢2.

Well, if you want to get technical we have widescreen because movies were losing ground to TV so they stopped shooting 4:3 and started shooting wider formats to differentiate themselves from TV.

Also, I have to agree w/mactastic that widescreen is best for all uses. I have 2 17" monitors while I'm editing I almost always wish I had taller monitors because I keep have to scroll vertically thru my timeline and in my browers window when searching for clips. I have plently of horizontal space it's the vertical space I run out of. :(


lethal