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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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 :-)