19" Monitor resolutions

[Omega Destroyer]

Why is it that all 19" monitors, including the one I own, have recommended resolutions of 1280x1024?

That seems to be the standard resolution, but it doesn't even make sense. It's not a 4:3 aspect ratio, despite the fact that the monitors themselves are 4:3 (I even measured).

This results in non-square pixels and the image being all streched out (like running a regular 4:3 on a widescreen).

The closest 4:3 resolution to that would be 1280x960, but none of the monitors use that as the recommended resolution. Instead the other recommended resolution (which is 4:3) is 1600x1200 ,but there is no way I would run a 19" at that res because everything would be too small to read.

If anyone has any insights into this please fill me in.

Edit: Grammatical errors

[CPUonNO2]

Iis 4:3 really that far off from 5:4? Unless I'm missing something, it only stretches the image out .08 times wider.

Edit - I suppose .08 is a fair amount when dealing with a monitor that large.

[Quailane]

I have mine in 1280x960 right now. 1280x1024 is the maximum for a lot of crappy monitors, mostly 17 inch.

[Omega Destroyer]

Well it's actually 0.0666... times wider, but over the monitor it is about 64 pixels wider than it should be. It's not huge, but it's definitely noticable by a majority of people.

[sean478]

my monitor recomends 1600 1200 60hz for default i dont know y ur monitor doesnt

[JigPu]

I don't see any "recommended settings" in my book, though it certianly supports 1280x960 (which I run at). 1280x1024 is a crazy res...

JigPu

[Omega Destroyer]

There are two recommended resolutions for my monitor. 1280x1024 and 1600x1200, you have the choice of running at either but 1600x1200 is too high for a 19" monitor so you have to run it at 1280x1024.

It does support 1280x960 which is what I run it at, but that's not a standard resolution. Even Windows doesn't list that as a standard resolution, but it does list 1280x1024 as a standard. This seems to be true for all 19" monitors I've looked at, and while it seems most people run theirs at 1280x960, I'm just curious as to why all manufactures recommend using a 5:4 aspect ratio on a 4:3 monitor.

It's very odd.

[Restorer]

I've never grasped how 1280x1024 could become a standard resolution if it's out of aspect. I avoid playing games at 1280x1024 because they look compressed vertically. However, because it's now a standard resolution, LCD makers are using it as a native resolution, and because the "sheets" of LCD material they use have perfect 1:1 ratio pixels, the LCD display ends up having a native aspect ratio of 5:4. That's not bad if you'll only be working at the native resolution, but it really messes up the true standard. 1280x1024 on an LCD works wonderfully, but take a look at 1024x768 or 800x600. The display will have to artificially stretch those resolutions to fit the screen, or it will have to place black bars at the top and/or bottom of the screen to make up for the lost space. 1280x1024 is all in all a Very Bad Thing. I stick to 1280x960.

My 19" monitor supports up to 2304x1728, and every common 4:3 ratio lower than that. It also supports 1280x1024 out of aspect. I run at 1600x1200 for 2D work, 1600x1200 for older games, and 1280x960 for World of Warcraft.

[sean478]

ur monitor should suport 1600 1200 mabyur refresh is to high try it at 60hz mine can run 2048 1536 at 60hz and i think even some more dificult wide screen resolutions at lower refresh rates

[Omega Destroyer]

Yeah mine does 2048x1532@87 Hz, but I find that 1600X1200 on a 19" monitor is too high of a resolution. I have to squint to see things, so a more reasonable resolutions is 1280x960 which is not a standard....