1280x1024, is this 5:4 or 4:3?

Why not just do the calculation yourself and see who is right?

1280 / 4 = 320

320 * 3 = 960

So it's obviously not 4:3 aspect... ;)
 
Hmmm, does the display aspect ratio enter into this?

For example, I can watch a movie with 1920x1080 lines of resolution with a display ratio of 16:9. That same movie might have been encoded differently, say at 1280x1080, but my monitor will still display it, due to the "flags", at 16:9.

Perhaps what Matrox is implying is that 1280x1024 is a resolution "best suited" for displaying/encoding at 4:3 as opposed to the other popular aspect ratio of 16:9.

That's why, I guess, some games support both 1280x720 and 1280x768 for 16:9 displays.

I have a software player, ZoomPlayer, that recognizes this issue. It allows you to choose the aspect ratio of the video display using several methods.

Disabled (Fit to Window)

Source

Derived (Recommended)

Fullscreen 4:3

Widescreen 16:9

Anamorphic

Custom
 
What aspect ratio is simply a ratio of the width and height. A resolution can only be one aspect ratio, you're not going to magically make it something else. No clue where you even get your idea from or even follow it for that matter Babel-17.
 
I was merely suggesting that Matrox was perhaps stating that 1280x1024, while not being in a four to three ratio, was a resolution better suited for 4:3 display devices as opposed to 16:9. I would think it would be harder to scale 1280x1024 onto a 16:9 display than it would be to scale it to a 4:3 display.
 
Skrying said:
What aspect ratio is simply a ratio of the width and height. A resolution can only be one aspect ratio, you're not going to magically make it something else.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. As DiGuru said - it all depends on the pixels. Usually, pixels in PC LCD displays are square, so 1280x1024 is 5:4. I always wondered why they don't manufacture 1280x960 panels...
 
Like I've said in other threads, 5:4 is an abomination that boggles the mind that it could be around in this day and age. Now it's the de facto standard even! Personally, it boils my blood. :devilish:

It comes from 80's workstation graphics adapters, where >1Mpix displays were super-ultra-high resolution. Then having a 1280x1024 frame buffer made a bit of sense, as memory cost an arm and a leg. The frame buffer fits snugly inside multiples of five # of memory chips, with no spill at all, like you would have with 1280x960 which is the proper 4:3 res.

Btw, the proper way to use 1280x1024 on a CRT is to set black borders on the side edges(all CRT:s then was 4:3), something completely lost on most people that just want something higher than 1024x768. Way back when, with the fixed scan monitors originally used, it generally wasn't a problem since it was set like that from the beginning. And that's the story why we know millions of people apparently don't notice if their screen is squashed by 7% or so... and why 75%+ of TFT screens sold today are in an unholy, evil, never mind spinecurving aspect ratio. :cool:

Btw, talking about non-square aspect ratios, I think the Amiga modes takes the cake... 1280x512? 1280x320? :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DiGuru said:
It depends on the pixels being square.

320*200 was a 4*3.
Click to expand...
Back then when this resolution was common in games, monitors were almost exclusively 4:3, yes, but display devices with non-square fixed pixels are certainly very rare. So if you find an LC display with 320x200 pixels, it will most likely have an aspect ratio of 16:10.

320x200 was only popular because it fitted nicely into a 64 KiB segment, but later 320x240 and such strange resolutions as 320x400
were used as well.

I think there are reasons for different aspect ratios, OTOH four to five widescreen ratios are probably too much.
 
Xmas said:
Back then when this resolution was common in games, monitors were almost exclusively 4:3, yes, but display devices with non-square fixed pixels are certainly very rare. So if you find an LC display with 320x200 pixels, it will most likely have an aspect ratio of 16:10.

320x200 was only popular because it fitted nicely into a 64 KiB segment, but later 320x240 and such strange resolutions as 320x400
were used as well.

I think there are reasons for different aspect ratios, OTOH four to five widescreen ratios are probably too much.
Click to expand...
Yes, I owned a Tandy TRS 1000 laptop, with that weird 320*200*16 resolution. Squashed view. But, thanks to the 320*200*256 VGA resolution, anyone could make a game without having to do arcane things like bank switching and bitplanes. (I did as well, or at least a very extensive 2D game engine.) It's probably one of the best reasons why PC's are as popular today as they are.

But all other resolutions were just as bad to handle, so 640*480 was not more difficult than 640*400. SVGA (1024*786) with the lineair mapped display buffer was the next step that made it easy once again.

Edit: the Tandy laptop had an aspect ratio of about 1*2, which made it even worse. No square pixels there, either, but in the wrong direction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is weird, though, is that on any CRT I've used the 1280x960 resolution always looks stretched and 1280x1024 looks the correct aspect even though the former is the proper 4:3 for the monitor. All other 4:3 ratios look fine, too. Why is that? And why do most 17" and 19" TFT panels use 1280x1024?
 
Diplo said:
What is weird, though, is that on any CRT I've used the 1280x960 resolution always looks stretched and 1280x1024 looks the correct aspect even though the former is the proper 4:3 for the monitor. All other 4:3 ratios look fine, too. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Babel-17
Babylon 5, the show that was so prescient, is now free to watch
Replies
3
Views
2K
Babel-17
Babel-17
R
The Unreleased CPU Thread
Replies
10
Views
8K
kalelovil
K
A
IBM Power7 Derivative: A Viable Console CPU?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
23K
Ninjaprime
N
A
What is Microsoft's "Xbox 3" Exclusive Strategy?
2
Replies
32
Views
9K
Dominik D
Dominik D
N
How do you feel about next-gen gaming? *remodelled
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
AlNom
A
Back
Top