Topic: They mystery of 1280x1024

[Pugnate]

http://askville.amazon.com/What%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s-deal-screens-1280x1024-resolution-16-widescreen/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=2041724

[Quemaqua]

How interesting.  I'd never even thought about it.

[Cobra951]

I had, and it bugged the hell out of me when it first started popping up.  Theories like conformance to binary-friendly numbers or magic pixel totals don't wash at all.  I've never used it.

Another odd resolution: 1366x768 on HDTVs, where the format standards are 1280x720 and 1920x1080.  Huh?!  Who came up with that?  It's very popular, and I can't escape it.  My TV/monitor uses it, and I'm looking at 1360x768 right now.  That's because VGA resolutions have to be divisible by 8 (not 256 or even 128).

Oh, and 1280x960 is a valid res.  I have used that on CRTs.

[Pugnate]

I see "1280x960" becoming a lot more common now, though we are slowly shifting towards a widescreen aspect ratio in PC LCDs anyway.

I also don't get why WS LCDTVs are 16x9, while WS LCD monitors are 16x10.

[Cobra951]

2 divergent paths.  PC widescreen is called WXGA.

Edit:  Interesting article on aspect ratios centering on 16:9.  This does not deal with PC aspects at all, only film, video and still photography.

[Xessive]

I always questioned that about 1280x1024.

There is definitely a noticeable distortion with any 4:3 resolutions on a LCD that has a native 1280x1024 (5:4).

Now my question is why are there two seprate widescreen standards: 16:9 and 16:10? Just why?!

Is it the same reason we have DVD regions: No real reason just corporate dickery?

Isn't it easier if everything is unanimous? It's gotta be less complicated.

EDIT:

And why aren't movies made for widescreen (DVD's etc.) set at 16:9? They often have the black streaks across the top and bottom indicating that they're a lot wider.

Anyway, sorry just took this opportunity to kinda rant.

[Cobra951]

The Wiki explanation for 16:10 is much shorter than the other article I linked (on 16:9).

I just see it as 2 approaches to the widescreen trend, one from the video perspective and the other from the PC one.  The best solution on PCs I imagine comes from good video cards and their fancy drivers: slightly letterboxed 16:9 resolutions (on 16:10 screens) intended for video and HDTV-aspect gaming.

Edit:

EDIT:

And why aren't movies made for widescreen (DVD's etc.) set at 16:9? They often have the black streaks across the top and bottom indicating that they're a lot wider.

See the article I linked in my last post (above).  There are many different film aspect ratios, with several of those being significantly wider than 16:9, which is a compromise format.

[Pugnate]

I always questioned that about 1280x1024.

There is definitely a noticeable distortion with any 4:3 resolutions on a LCD that has a native 1280x1024 (5:4).

Now my question is why are there two seprate widescreen standards: 16:9 and 16:10? Just why?!

Is it the same reason we have DVD regions: No real reason just corporate dickery?

Isn't it easier if everything is unanimous? It's gotta be less complicated.

EDIT:

And why aren't movies made for widescreen (DVD's etc.) set at 16:9? They often have the black streaks across the top and bottom indicating that they're a lot wider.

Anyway, sorry just took this opportunity to kinda rant.

Various directors shoot their films at various widescreen aspect ratios.

[Xessive]

Thanks guys.

The Wikis were enlightening but I still don't like having separate formats.

Remember how all movies on VHS tapes were "formatted to fit your screen?" I was just curious why new movies aren't formatted to fit 16:9.

[Cobra951]

Many of them are.  I'd say most 16:9 movie DVDs have been "formatted to fit your screen" from wider-aspect films.  That means someone chose which parts to chop off the ends.  Some directors who have creative control of their work will have none of that,and insist their movies make the transition to video intact.  Some artsy video labels might do the same with all their releases.  The pan & scan vs letterboxing debate doesn't end just because we've gone from 4:3 to 16:9.  That's still not wide enough for a lot of movies.

[Xessive]

Many of them are.  I'd say most 16:9 movie DVDs have been "formatted to fit your screen" from wider-aspect films.  That means someone chose which parts to chop off the ends.  Some directors who have creative control of their work will have none of that,and insist their movies make the transition to video intact.  Some artsy video labels might do the same with all their releases.  The pan & scan vs letterboxing debate doesn't end just because we've gone from 4:3 to 16:9.  That's still not wide enough for a lot of movies.

I'm more comfortable with widescreen anyway. But how wide is enough? I guess the monitors and TVs of the future will have to be parallax screens. Curved just right so the edge of the screen lines up with our peripheral vision.

I read a bit more about the Golden Ratio, which is suggestably the inspiration behind the 16:10 ratio (1.6:1 is really close to 1.618:1) and according to the wiki "...at least since the Renaissance, many artists and architects have proportioned their works to approximate the golden ratio believing this proportion to be aesthetically pleasing. Mathematicians have studied the golden ratio because of its unique and interesting properties."

Interesting stuff.

[Cools!]

Why do we have all these aspect ratios in films?

Simple, cause they want you to keep going to cinemas! It all started when TV started becoming popular back in the day and people stopped going to cinemas. So they widened the aspect ratio to 1.85:1 and then even more to 2.40:1 to create a more "engrossing" experience and make sure that people kept going to cinemas because that was the "original" way to watch movies.

The same thing with how we now have IMAX and what not (all derivatives of CinemaScope, Cinerama, etc.) and all the myriad of multi channel high definition audio setups in cinemas.

I suspect that 1366x768 exists to be able to deal with standard definition NTSC (720x486) and PAL (720x576) signals without having to make two different sets.