|
Socoder -> Question of the Day -> Screen Resolutions? |
|
| Fri, 28 Dec 2007, 17:00 | |
HoboBen
|
It's not very useful googling this stuff, because technology moves so fast and last-year's information can be dated! So, what screen resolutions are you guys at? What ones do you know of? Because currently in my project I've only got options for the normalish ones: 800 x 600 1024 x 768 And the widescreen ones: 1280 x 720 1280 x 768 1280 x 800 What sort of resolutions do proper LCD screens do? Are they widescreen? I've been working with laptops and LCDs for so long, never being able to go above 1280 x 800 : I hear people go up above 2000 now? Am I right to feel safe not bothering to support 640 by 480? -=-=- blog | work | code | more code |
| Fri, 28 Dec 2007, 17:03 | |
spinal
|
1280x768 is my laptop, my desktop I have no idea what it goes up to, but I usually use 'standard' 4:3 resolutions, like 1024x768 or 800x600.
-=-=- Check out my excellent homepage! 
|
| Fri, 28 Dec 2007, 17:22 | |
Scherererer
|
its not *perfect* 4:3, but a lot of LCD screens ship with this as the max res: 1280x1024
-=-=- YouTube Twitter Computer Science Series: Logic (pt1) (part 2) (part 3) 2's Complement Mathematics: Basic Differential Calculus
|
| Fri, 28 Dec 2007, 17:23 | |
Jayenkai
|
Yeah, same here. Stick with 800 and 1024, and you can't really go wrong. Most systems will handle them without ever complaining.
-=-=- ''Load, Next List!''
|
| Fri, 28 Dec 2007, 19:34 | |
|
garand |
I use 1680x1050 (Widescreen,Desktop) and 1280x800 (Widescreen,Laptop). Although I would use 800x600 or 1024x1024 for Blitz.
|
| Fri, 28 Dec 2007, 19:47 | |
HoboBen
|
Did you really mean 1024x1024?
|
| Fri, 28 Dec 2007, 19:55 | |
|
garand |
Ummm.... what do yo think.
|
| Fri, 28 Dec 2007, 19:58 | |
|
HoboBen
|
 Well, I think a 1:1 screen ratio is a damn good idea.
-=-=- blog | work | code | more code |
| Fri, 28 Dec 2007, 20:03 | |
|
garand |
hell yea.
|
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 00:58 | |
JL235
|
Currently I run 1792*1344 on this duel monitor PC at home, but on my PC I run either 1280*768 or 1360*768. Not sure which cos I don't currently have access to it.
|
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 02:51 | |
|
garand |
1792x1344??? WTF
|
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 05:39 | |
Forklift_Fred
|
I've just replaced my mobo and stuck with the onboard gfx for the time being. The lowest it will go is 800 x 600 which is what I code to (for some archaic arbatery reason)my full range is as follows: 800 x 600 960 x 600 1024 x 768 1088 x 612 1152 x 864 1280 x 720 1280 x 768 1280 x 800 1280 x 960 1280 x 1024 Having said that, the NVIDIA Advanced settings gives me a shed load more! 320 x 200 320 x 240 400 x 300 480 x 360 512 x 384 640 x 400 640 x 480 720 x 480 720 x 576 800 x 600 848 x 480 960 x 600 1024 x 768 1088 x 612 1152 x 864 1280 x 720 1280 x 768 1280 x 800 1280 x 960 1280 x 1024 More information that you probably needed but I like to be thorough  I run at 1280 x 1024 by the way. My laptop is 1024 x 768. -=-=- Come rain or shine... |
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 05:41 | |
|
HoboBen
|
I *LOVE* you, Fred!
|
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 05:44 | |
Forklift_Fred
|
Aww shucks! :embarrassed:
|
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 06:22 | |
|
HoboBen
|
Okey doke, here's ye final list now: I reckon that'll do. Cheers folks! -=-=- blog | work | code | more code |
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 06:31 | |
Afr0
|
Anyone who's posted the resolution 1024x768 in here - shame on you! Do not use this resolution, it is EVIL! Smirnov posted a thread about this on Codersworkshop.com, and I just talked to him on Messenger, and he said this: 'Smirnov sa: just show them the maths behind it Smirnov sa: its blatantly a different aspect ratio Smirnov sa: you squeeze more pixels in vertically that makes everything look stretched horizontally' The gist of it is all images and persons within those images shown in 1024x768 ends up looking fat! Edit: Hobo, I'm not good at maths, but I tell you: DO NOT SUPPORT 1024x768 -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 06:35 | |
|
HoboBen
|
When it's 3D, it doesn't really matter, does it? It isn't scaling anything, it's just a different shape view.
-=-=- blog | work | code | more code |
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 07:56 | |
|
JL235
|
Afro  The gist of it is all images and persons within those images shown in 1024x768 ends up looking fat! I just did the maths and: 4 / 3 = 1.3333 800 / 600 = 1.3333 1024 / 768 = 1.3333 If your using it on a widescreen monitor then it would make things look fat. But not if your using monitor using the classic Hollywood 4:3 ratio. You shouldn't use resolutions designed for a different ratio then your monitor. You should also bear in mind HoboBen that many PC widescreen monitors are 16:10 (like mine) rather then 16:9. Both ratios should be supported. |
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 08:16 | |
Phoenix
|
If my computer was any good, I'd use something like 1600x1200, but for now I'm stuck with 1024x768. Works alright though
|
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 13:38 | |
|
Afr0
|
haha Turns out I was wrong 1024 x 786 is a good resolution However, the wrong and evil resolution is 1280 x 1024. HOBO DO NOT SUPPORT THAT SCREEN RESOLUTION I did the maths, and 1280 x 1024 = 1,25 I tried it too, I have seen the horrors Sorry for the slipup ^^ -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 13:39 | |
|
Jayenkai
|
I LOVE 1280x1024! It's such a nice squarer resolution.
-=-=- ''Load, Next List!''
|
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 14:00 | |
|
Scherererer
|
haha, that's why I said, 1280x1024 technically isn't a 4:3 res  . But! I use it anyway, haha.
-=-=- YouTube Twitter Computer Science Series: Logic (pt1) (part 2) (part 3) 2's Complement Mathematics: Basic Differential Calculus
|
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 14:44 | |
|
Forklift_Fred
|
Well, as I said, I use it and for my sanity I just measured a few squares on my screen and they all measured up perfectly... The problem, if there is one, is down to the coder's implementation of scaling which isn't really an issue when it comes to 3D as Hobo said. If you're watching 4:3 video and you have it stretched to fill the whole screen then more fool you for not retaining original aspect ration
-=-=- Come rain or shine... |
| Sat, 29 Dec 2007, 16:06 | |
|
dna |
My monitor settings go as low as 800x600. I currently use 1440x 1050 but the maximum for my monitor is 2048 x 1536 in 32 bit color. The monitor does also support 720P and 1080P which is what I use for doing graphics. -=-=- DNA |
| Sun, 30 Dec 2007, 11:42 | |
power mousey
|
I still like 320 x 240. But will stick usually with 640 x 480 and 800 x 600. |
| Sun, 30 Dec 2007, 13:12 | |
|
Nolan |
I use 1440x900 at home, which is a somewhat popular resolution.
-=-=- nolandc.com
|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||