04-22-2003, 02:56 PM
|
#14 (permalink)
|
|
Tilted
|
FROM: GUI Portal, http://www.guiportal.com/articles/1280x1024.html
Quote:
A special note for users with 1280x1024 resolution: Be warned - you work on a rectangular screen with almost quad resolution. This stretches your pixels. If you draw a circle on your screen - the output picture of this circle can be seen as ellipse on majority of screens. Why? Because most (if not ALL) computer monitors today have 1.3333 physical size proportion. Test it - measure the width of your screen in inches or centimeters, then measure its height. Then divide the width by the height. You will get a number close to 1.3333
Let's do the same test with resolutions:
640:480=1.3333
800:600=1.3333
1024:768=1.3333
1152:864=1.3333
1280:960=1.3333
1600:1200=1.3333
All of the above resolutions perfectly fit the physical proportions of today's computer monitors. Pixels are approximately quad and not stretched. When you draw a circle - it looks a circle on other screens and resolutions as well, despite the fact that you and the other person look on this circle on different screens with different resolutions.
But the resolution of 1280x1024 is completely different. 1280:1024=1.25 Why does this resolution exist? What is the reason that manufacturers of screens and video boards include such a resolution in their products? Because 10 years ago there were some models of computer monitors included in Silicon Graphics workstations that had almost quad (1.25) physical proportions. Yes, they were less rectangular. They were looked almost quad and this resolution fits them perfect. But not today's monitors. Damn tradition.
Maybe such screens still exist or are manufactured today in very small numbers, but this resolution misleading masses! Masses of people use this resolution on 1.3333 proportioned computer monitors. Use 1280x960 instead - it's 1.3333 proportioned.
|
|
|
|