Resolution

skynet · 07-29-2002, 10:20 PM

I have been running at 1280x1024 for some time now. I found that it was the best resolution for me. Anything above people would complain the text was too small (Girlfriend/Roommates get to be a pain in the arse) and anything below I couldn't deal with, especially when programming, you want lots of space.

Anyway I was messing around and I pumped it all the way up to 1600x1200. My Geforce4 can actually do that res at 85hrz. But the text just doesn't look right to me. It looked nearly stretched. 1280/1024=1.25 while 1600/1200=1.333. So why is 1.33 the correct ratio? Give 1280x1024 a try and tell me what you think of the text. For some reason it looks more squared I guess which seems correct.

hapoo · 07-29-2002, 10:30 PM

your just used to it, TV's have a 4:3 ratio (4/3 = 1.33) and so 1600*1200 is a "square" resolution

skynet · 07-29-2002, 10:31 PM

If it makes a difference this is my monitor
http://www.dwe.co.kr/product2002/103.phtml

and give it a try, read some stuff leave it on for 15-30 minutes then go back to your res.

sbp · 07-29-2002, 10:41 PM

1600x1200 was too small on this 19" monitor for me. I use a resolution of 1280x960 since it keeps the same preferred ratio.

seqiro · 07-29-2002, 10:53 PM

I use two displays at once, an LCD with a native resolution of 1280x1024 and a CRT. When I have the two monitors showing the same desktop, the image on the LCD looks perfect but the image on the CRT looks quite squished vertically. But the LCD screen has a 5:4 aspect ratio. The CRT is, as usual, 4:3. So it makes sense.

I agree with hapoo, you are probably just used to your resolution, so anything else seems "wrong" to you.

07-29-2002, 10:20 PM	#1
skynet Lieutenant Commander Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 523	Resolution I have been running at 1280x1024 for some time now. I found that it was the best resolution for me. Anything above people would complain the text was too small (Girlfriend/Roommates get to be a pain in the arse) and anything below I couldn't deal with, especially when programming, you want lots of space. Anyway I was messing around and I pumped it all the way up to 1600x1200. My Geforce4 can actually do that res at 85hrz. But the text just doesn't look right to me. It looked nearly stretched. 1280/1024=1.25 while 1600/1200=1.333. So why is 1.33 the correct ratio? Give 1280x1024 a try and tell me what you think of the text. For some reason it looks more squared I guess which seems correct.

07-29-2002, 10:30 PM	#2
hapoo Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield USA Posts: 9,276	your just used to it, TV's have a 4:3 ratio (4/3 = 1.33) and so 1600*1200 is a "square" resolution __________________

07-29-2002, 10:53 PM	#5
seqiro Commander Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western MA Posts: 1,183	I use two displays at once, an LCD with a native resolution of 1280x1024 and a CRT. When I have the two monitors showing the same desktop, the image on the LCD looks perfect but the image on the CRT looks quite squished vertically. But the LCD screen has a 5:4 aspect ratio. The CRT is, as usual, 4:3. So it makes sense. I agree with hapoo, you are probably just used to your resolution, so anything else seems "wrong" to you. __________________ Paul Beasi

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-29-2002, 10:31 PM	#3
skynet Lieutenant Commander Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 523	If it makes a difference this is my monitor http://www.dwe.co.kr/product2002/103.phtml and give it a try, read some stuff leave it on for 15-30 minutes then go back to your res.

07-29-2002, 10:41 PM	#4
sbp Chief of Naval Operations Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 11,037	1600x1200 was too small on this 19" monitor for me. I use a resolution of 1280x960 since it keeps the same preferred ratio.

User Name
Password
Remember Me?