Where did 1280x1024 come from?

[Garrot]

Except the 1280x1024 resolution pre-dated the commonly available LCD panels.

Take back the man's cigar...

No, no, I want my cigar!

 

[Andrew Smallshaw]

I do wonder why 4:3 LCD screens are being made with native resolutions
that don't match the aspect ratio, though (such as 1280x1024).

Most users (including some in this newsgroup, apparently) don't
understand that 1280x1024 causes distortion on a 4:3 screen--and a 5:4
screen would distort every resolution _except_ 1280x1024 (which is
5:4).

Historically, there has been no big attachment to the 4:3 aspect
ratio for resolutions, although there certainly has for physical
screen dimensions. CGA was 320*200 or 640X200 with a physical 4:3
screen and EGA topped out at 640*350 - all too wide for a square
depiction on a 4:3 display. It didn't really matter though since
software that it mattered to (e.g. CAD) used scaling factors in
their calculations to display images in their correct proportions.

For most purposes I suspect it makes little difference - you are
used to looking at things with distorted aspect ratios in the real
world - anything that isn't exactly square on. Additionally I know
plenty of people who state they can't notice the distortion when a
widescreen TV stretches normal programs to fill the whole screen -
a much greater distortion than anything here.

I suspect the choice of 1280*1024 has more to do with memory sizes
than anything else - it equates to exactly 1.25 megapixels so 16
colours could be done using e.g. 10 64Kx8 or 128Kx4 memory chips
without waste. At the this resolution was defined (1990 or so)
the cost of a megabyte of RAM was probably at least $100, and was
more than the average main memory of an IBM PC, so this would have
been an important consideration.

 

[kony]

The standard ration is 4:3. I just measured mine: 4:3 (40x30 cm).


I'm not sure where you live, but the situation is exactly the opposite
everywhere I've seen. The latest monitors still have a 4:3 ratio,
even when they have native resolution of 1280x1024. It's easy to see,
too, since circles are obviously oval on the screen when it is set to
this resolution.

It'd be easy to see if true, but that doesn't mean it always
is. Perhaps you have succumb to an urban myth?

I have a 19" 4:3 CRT sitting right next to a 19" 5:4 LCD,
there's no question about it, the LCD is not 4:3 ratio and
1280x1024 does stretch things on the CRT. Yes, I've
measured it again just a moment ago to double-check this, a
circle is in the correct ratio on the LCD but not the CRT at
1280x1024.

 

[Garrot]

This is incorrect. New LCD monitors have aspect ratios of 4:3 as a
general rule, just like old LCD monitors and CRTs.

Sorry, you are wrong, I've never even seen a 17" or 19" model(the most
common bought sizes) that is not 5:4 ratio. Their native res is
1280x1024 which is 5:4.

 

[Garrot]

The latest monitors still have a 4:3 ratio,
even when they have native resolution of 1280x1024.

??? You're the confused one...very confused.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10163_7-5912625-5.html
"Even if your display looks good at a nonnative resolution, there's one
gotcha to consider. A flat-panel monitor with a native resolution of
1,280x1,024 has an aspect ratio of 5:4, and this matches the
height-to-width proportions of the screen itself."

 

[Mxsmanic]

You might want to measure a screen, they don't all have 4:3
physical ratio.

The ones I've measured have all been 4:3, including several with
native resolutions of 1280x1024. The distortion is easy to see on the
screen with things like circles (which appear slightly oval).

 

[Mxsmanic]

Oh? What makes you assume this?

Reading their specs, which invariably give 4:3 dimensions for the
screen surface. There are some widescreen displays, but they are far
from 5:4.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Sorry, you are wrong, I've never even seen a 17" or 19" model(the most
common bought sizes) that is not 5:4 ratio.

I have several sitting in front of me.

Their native res is 1280x1024 which is 5:4.

You're confusing the resolution with the physical dimensions of the
screen. The screen is 4:3. The native resolution is 1280x1024. This
means that, when the screen is used at its native resolution, the
image on the screen is slightly distorted, being slightly compressed
horizontally. Circles will appear as ovals with the long axis
vertical.

 

[Mxsmanic]

It'd be easy to see if true, but that doesn't mean it always
is. Perhaps you have succumb to an urban myth?

It has been true in each case I've examined.

If you know of a LCD monitor with published specs for screen
dimensions of 5:4, I'd like to see those specs. I suppose there are
such screens out there somewhere, but the very vast majority of
screens are 4:3, even when the native resolution is 1280x1024.

I have a 19" 4:3 CRT sitting right next to a 19" 5:4 LCD,
there's no question about it, the LCD is not 4:3 ratio and
1280x1024 does stretch things on the CRT. Yes, I've
measured it again just a moment ago to double-check this, a
circle is in the correct ratio on the LCD but not the CRT at
1280x1024.

What are the dimensions of the images on the screens of these
monitors?

 

[Mxsmanic]

??? You're the confused one...very confused.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10163_7-5912625-5.html
"Even if your display looks good at a nonnative resolution, there's one
gotcha to consider. A flat-panel monitor with a native resolution of
1,280x1,024 has an aspect ratio of 5:4, and this matches the
height-to-width proportions of the screen itself."

I stand corrected. At least some of the monitors that have native
resolutions of 1280x1024 are indeed 5:4. Perhaps I have been setting
the wrong resolutions on some monitors (believe it or not, some of the
low-end monitors I've installed didn't mention the native resolution
of the monitor anywhere in the documentation, although I've generally
assumed that the highest supported resolution is the native
resolution).

 

[Senex]

Mxsmanic rattled this off his keyboard on 8/21/2006 :

It has been true in each case I've examined.

If you know of a LCD monitor with published specs for screen
dimensions of 5:4, I'd like to see those specs.

http://www.dealtime.com/xPO-Acer_AL1923_R_19IN_1280X1024_100_1_2X1_0_W_INTERNAL_ADAPTER_TITANIUM

<snip>

 

[Mxsmanic]

http://www.dealtime.com/xPO-Acer_AL1923_R_19IN_1280X1024_100_1_2X1_0_W_INTERNAL_ADAPTER_TITANIUM

Thanks. My mistake; sorry. I've looked at a lot of other specs, too,
and it now appears that 1280x1024 panels are indeed 5:4.

I may have been misled by bitmapped graphics on screens or something,
which can be distorted if the aspect ratio of the screen isn't what
the creator of the bitmap expected.

 

[Garrot]

??? Clueless

 

[Garrot]

At least some of the monitors that have native
resolutions of 1280x1024 are indeed 5:4.

Not just some, all.

although I've generally
assumed that the highest supported resolution is the native
resolution).

It is, except on many HDTV's they can upscale to 1080i even though their
native res is maybe 1366x768.

 

[Garrot]

If you know of a LCD monitor with published specs for screen
dimensions of 5:4, I'd like to see those specs. I suppose there are
such screens out there somewhere, but the very vast majority of
screens are 4:3, even when the native resolution is 1280x1024.

No.

 

[kony]

The ones I've measured have all been 4:3, including several with
native resolutions of 1280x1024. The distortion is easy to see on the
screen with things like circles (which appear slightly oval).

Were these very old LCDs?

AFAIK, all the major panel manufacturers are making correct
aspect ratio panels. No matter the ratio of pixels, today
they should be accurate dimensionally as well.

 

[kony]

Reading their specs, which invariably give 4:3 dimensions for the
screen surface. There are some widescreen displays, but they are far
from 5:4.

Oh?

As a check, I just went to newegg.com and randomly clicked
on one of their advertised specials, a BenQ FP93GX 19",
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824014111

Note the spec, Display Area 14.8" x 11.8" (5:4)

I suppose now it's only fair to ask you to produce one that
claims 4:3

 

[Sjouke Burry]

You might want to measure a screen, they don't all have 4:3
physical ratio. I do recall measuring one of the 19" I
have, it's very close to 5:4, probably spot-on, not 4:3.

Looking around....1..2............8 screens with 4:3

 

[kony]

It has been true in each case I've examined.

If you know of a LCD monitor with published specs for screen
dimensions of 5:4, I'd like to see those specs.

See the link in my previous post.
Further, I have one sitting in front of me that is 5:4
physical dimensions as mentioned below.

suppose there are
such screens out there somewhere, but the very vast majority of
screens are 4:3, even when the native resolution is 1280x1024.

I disagree, think the minority of old ones "might" be, but
in general they are not, when a monitor has 5:4 pixels it
has the same physical dimensions.

What are the dimensions of the images on the screens of these
monitors?

That's what I measured. The LCD is 375mm W x 300mm H (live
pixel area, about 1mm more visible around the inside of the
plastic frame). Also measured was a *perfect* circle from
an image editing program, also dead-on 1:1
horizontal:vertical.

 

[Thomas Wendell]

All standard LCD monitors are 5:4 ratio, the only ones that are not
are widescreen models. 17" and 19" LCD's have a native resolution of
1280x1024, these are the most bought monitors now. That means most
monitors have a 5:4 aspect ratio and not 4:3 as you said. Very few
people buy 4:3 crt's anymore.

Remember any (old) 15" LCD monitor????? 1024*768..... that's 4:3 ratio..
--
Tumppi
=================================
A lot learned from these newsgroups
Helsinki, FINLAND
(translations from/to FI not always accurate
=================================