Doesn't 1280X1024 distort a display slightly?

[Larc]

OK, this comes under the heading of "idle curiosity" since it's no big deal.
But I'm already off for the holidays and probably have too much extra time on my
hands. ;-)

This question keeps cropping up, especially since many LCD monitors have a
native 1280X1024 resolution and more people are using that setting on CRTs as
well.

Most monitor screens have an aspect ratio of 4:3. But 1280X1024 is 4:3.2, which
means the vertical has to be compressed 6.25% to fit on the standard display.
Technically, circles become ovals and squares become rectangles.

What I'm wondering is why anybody would choose a resolution that obviously
doesn't agree geometrically with most monitor screens?

Or is there some angle of physics I'm not aware of that makes this work?

Larc



§§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§

 

[scott]

OK, this comes under the heading of "idle curiosity" since it's no
big deal. But I'm already off for the holidays and probably have too
much extra time on my hands. ;-)

This question keeps cropping up, especially since many LCD monitors
have a native 1280X1024 resolution and more people are using that
setting on CRTs as well.

Most monitor screens have an aspect ratio of 4:3. But 1280X1024 is
4:3.2, which means the vertical has to be compressed 6.25% to fit on
the standard display. Technically, circles become ovals and squares
become rectangles.

I think with CRTs people will adjust them if they really require perfect
aspect ratio for circles etc. But you are correct, a square of 100x100
pixels will appear a non-square rectangle if you scale it up to 4:3 aspect
ratio. Do you think you would notice though, or could you even tell if you
were trying? Get a friend to draw one of (100x100),(94x100),(100x94) pixel
rectangles and you guess which it is...

My graphics card has 1280x960 as one of the options which is the correct 4:3
aspect ratio.

I also can't imagine LCD manufacturers would make non-square pixels, so if
an LCD screen is 1280x1024, you're probably ok.

What I'm wondering is why anybody would choose a resolution that
obviously doesn't agree geometrically with most monitor screens?

Most monitors sold are LCD, it won't be long before most used will be LCD.

Scott

 

[Ancra]

OK, this comes under the heading of "idle curiosity" since it's no big deal.
But I'm already off for the holidays and probably have too much extra time on my
hands. ;-)

This question keeps cropping up, especially since many LCD monitors have a
native 1280X1024 resolution and more people are using that setting on CRTs as
well.

Most monitor screens have an aspect ratio of 4:3. But 1280X1024 is 4:3.2, which
means the vertical has to be compressed 6.25% to fit on the standard display.
Technically, circles become ovals and squares become rectangles.

What I'm wondering is why anybody would choose a resolution that obviously
doesn't agree geometrically with most monitor screens?

Or is there some angle of physics I'm not aware of that makes this work?

Yes, using different aspect ratios, distort a display 'slightly'.
Personally, I feel the problem is worst with photos.

There's not so much fixed pixel based stuff these days. Just some
windows objects and small bitmaps and icons. Rasterizers can work on
pixel independent vector information and aspect ratio. Just consider
how well your TT fonts prints, using much higher resolutions and
printers wildly different aspect ratios.
A typical draw, or design application, should draw circles and angles
correctly, regardless of aspect ratio. Same as a 3D game that can
change resolutions. The pixel screen is not the 'picture', just the
canvas it's painted on.
With Longhorn, the entire GUI will be vector based, z-buffered, 3D and
drawn by Direct3D rather than GDI. (you can kiss your beloved '2D'
cards goodby then ;-))


ancra