The 1280x1024 paradox at DVinfo.net

Robert Martens · March 16th, 2004, 06:33 PM

Is 1280x1024 a bad resolution to edit in? I've come across many a video editor who works in this mode (while trying to answer my question by searching, for example), but nobody ever brings up the fact that while 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, and 1280x960 are 4:3 ratio displays, 1280x1024 is not. Logic would tell me, then, that if computer pixels are always square, images and video displayed on a monitor running at said resolution should look distorted. But they don't. All the images and movies I have on my computer seem to look exactly the same in every resolution, even though the aspect ratio changes.

As much of a computer nerd as I consider myself to be, I cannot figure it out. Is the OS/software compensating for this in some way? Are the pixels non-square when in such a resolution?

Or is there another, incredibly obvious, reason that I'm simply not seeing?

Boyd Ostroff · March 16th, 2004, 06:52 PM

Well I can't speak for Windows systems, but on my Mac if I choose 1280x1024 the aspect ratio changes by changing the amount of CRT surface that is covered by the raster (vs 1600x1200 that I normally use on my 21" monitor). So I think the pixels are still square, but the overall image size changes. Maybe PC's handle this differently however?

Rob Lohman · March 17th, 2004, 05:21 AM

I think Boyd has the correct answer. All the pixels should remain
sqaure. Which you can easily test. Draw a perfect circle in a paint
program when running onder 1024x768. Save the picture. Close
the program and switch to 1280x1024. Load the picture in the
program again. Still perfectly round? Then you're set to go.

Julian Luttrell · March 17th, 2004, 01:18 PM

1280x1024 is just 720x576 enlarged equally (by a factor of 1.7777!) in both dimensions. So it corresponds to PAL video with PAL rectangular pixels.

But why would somebody want to edit in this mode? It's not a multiple of 720x576, so if you are delivering the result as PAL D1 video, the downsize won't be clean. It's not a square pixel 4:3 image so if you deliver the result to a computer, you again will have to resize.

Who are these "many a video editor" who work in this resolution? Can you find out why?

Regards,

Julian

Robert Martens · March 17th, 2004, 07:16 PM

Ah...I see. Making much more sense now, I hadn't considered the resizing of the actual scan area (though my monitor in particular offers the ability to manually stretch/squash the screen, perhaps that's dangerous).

Julian, I think one of the reasons is that your average 17" LCD panel (which seems to be a very popular size for such a screen) runs at 1280x1024 natively. Changing resolutions on one of those things is less than ideal. What's more, there's always the possibility that a monitor/graphics card won't support 1280x960; I've had cards like that, myself.

And if it makes a difference, I'm an NTSC guy. PAL mileage (or "kilometerage", I suppose :P) may vary.

Boyd Ostroff · March 17th, 2004, 08:14 PM

I *think* they are using the 1280 pixel width on those screens so they can letterbox a 1280x720 HD image and call it "HD capable". Running an LCD panel at anything other than its native resolution is a bad idea as scaling will degrade the image. I have a 17" Sony 16:9 LCD screen with a native resolution of 1280x768 and my 15" Powerbook screen runs at 1280x854.

I still have a 21" Apple Studio Monitor (Trinitron) CRT screen as my primary display. Analog CRT's are more flexible when scaling images to a variety of resolutions. But after lugging this monster up and down a few stairs, when it dies I'm gonna have to bite the bullet and get the big Apple Cinema Display :-)

March 16th, 2004, 06:33 PM	#1
Robert Martens Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Miller Place, NY Posts: 820	The 1280x1024 paradox Is 1280x1024 a bad resolution to edit in? I've come across many a video editor who works in this mode (while trying to answer my question by searching, for example), but nobody ever brings up the fact that while 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, and 1280x960 are 4:3 ratio displays, 1280x1024 is not. Logic would tell me, then, that if computer pixels are always square, images and video displayed on a monitor running at said resolution should look distorted. But they don't. All the images and movies I have on my computer seem to look exactly the same in every resolution, even though the aspect ratio changes. As much of a computer nerd as I consider myself to be, I cannot figure it out. Is the OS/software compensating for this in some way? Are the pixels non-square when in such a resolution? Or is there another, incredibly obvious, reason that I'm simply not seeing?

March 17th, 2004, 05:21 AM	#3
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	I think Boyd has the correct answer. All the pixels should remain sqaure. Which you can easily test. Draw a perfect circle in a paint program when running onder 1024x768. Save the picture. Close the program and switch to 1280x1024. Load the picture in the program again. Still perfectly round? Then you're set to go. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

March 16th, 2004, 06:52 PM	#2
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Well I can't speak for Windows systems, but on my Mac if I choose 1280x1024 the aspect ratio changes by changing the amount of CRT surface that is covered by the raster (vs 1600x1200 that I normally use on my 21" monitor). So I think the pixels are still square, but the overall image size changes. Maybe PC's handle this differently however?

March 17th, 2004, 01:18 PM	#4
Julian Luttrell Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Cambridge, UK Posts: 164	1280x1024 is just 720x576 enlarged equally (by a factor of 1.7777!) in both dimensions. So it corresponds to PAL video with PAL rectangular pixels. But why would somebody want to edit in this mode? It's not a multiple of 720x576, so if you are delivering the result as PAL D1 video, the downsize won't be clean. It's not a square pixel 4:3 image so if you deliver the result to a computer, you again will have to resize. Who are these "many a video editor" who work in this resolution? Can you find out why? Regards, Julian

March 17th, 2004, 07:16 PM	#5
Robert Martens Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Miller Place, NY Posts: 820	Ah...I see. Making much more sense now, I hadn't considered the resizing of the actual scan area (though my monitor in particular offers the ability to manually stretch/squash the screen, perhaps that's dangerous). Julian, I think one of the reasons is that your average 17" LCD panel (which seems to be a very popular size for such a screen) runs at 1280x1024 natively. Changing resolutions on one of those things is less than ideal. What's more, there's always the possibility that a monitor/graphics card won't support 1280x960; I've had cards like that, myself. And if it makes a difference, I'm an NTSC guy. PAL mileage (or "kilometerage", I suppose :P) may vary.

March 17th, 2004, 08:14 PM	#6
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I think they are using the 1280 pixel width on those screens so they can letterbox a 1280x720 HD image and call it "HD capable". Running an LCD panel at anything other than its native resolution is a bad idea as scaling will degrade the image. I have a 17" Sony 16:9 LCD screen with a native resolution of 1280x768 and my 15" Powerbook screen runs at 1280x854. I still have a 21" Apple Studio Monitor (Trinitron) CRT screen as my primary display. Analog CRT's are more flexible when scaling images to a variety of resolutions. But after lugging this monster up and down a few stairs, when it dies I'm gonna have to bite the bullet and get the big Apple Cinema Display :-)