Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Why still use 1024 x 768 resolution

  1. #1

    Default Why still use 1024 x 768 resolution

    I notice its quite common to post photo to the forum using 1024 x 768. I believed this is a SXGA resolution (not sure is it still available now). But why not use 1000 or 1100 on the long side?

    Even in competition, photographic club sometimes request submission in 1024 x 768 for prelim assessment before sending a bigger file.

    Now modern screen comes in all kind of resolution assortment. Why still stick to 1024 x 768?

    Can someone enlighten?
    Last edited by divinemoment; 18th November 2010 at 03:12 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by divinemoment View Post
    I notice its quite common to post photo to the forum using 1024 x 768. I believed this is a SXGA resolution (not sure is it still available now). But why not use 1000 or 1100 on the long side?

    Even in competition, photographic club sometimes request submission in 1024 x 768 for prelim assessment before sending a bigger file.

    Now modern screen comes in all kind of resolution assortment. Why still stick to 1024 x 768?

    Can someone enlighten?
    nobody said must stick to 1024 x 768 wat... who said that?
    The idea to restrict the long side was so that the image file size is not too large, firsly, and also that the image itself is not too large that you have to scroll here and there to see.

    Some laptops and notebooks still having screens of about 1200 plus-minus resolution on the long side. Allowing for some 'wasted space' on either side for browser's scroll bar, etc... just nice wat...

    But I won't choose 1024 x 768 unless my photo is 4:3 crop.
    Mine is 3:2, so usually about 900 x 600 or less when posting to CS.
    Exploring! :)

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by divinemoment View Post
    I notice its quite common to post photo to the forum using 1024 x 768. I believed this is a SXGA resolution (not sure is it still available now). But why not use 1000 or 1100 on the long side?

    Even in competition, photographic club sometimes request submission in 1024 x 768 for prelim assessment before sending a bigger file.

    Now modern screen comes in all kind of resolution assortment. Why still stick to 1024 x 768?

    Can someone enlighten?
    err... magic numbers that will somehow make your photos look better in the forum??

    PS. I guess it could be just habit.
    Coolthought - 冷静思考 - クールだ http://xaa.xanga.com/0aba0666d143253.../t35917343.gif

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZerocoolAstra View Post
    nobody said must stick to 1024 x 768 wat... who said that?
    You may have misread my question intend.

    Of course no one restrict what size to post. It comes in various sizes that I know. But I do notice photos that exceed 1000 resolution normally stick to 1024 x 768. Just make some random check in exif and you will notice quite plenty.
    Last edited by divinemoment; 18th November 2010 at 03:54 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by divinemoment View Post
    You may have misread my question intend.

    Of course no one restrict what size to post. It comes in various sizes that I know. But I do notice photos that exceed 1000 resolution normally stick to 1024 x 768. Just make some random check in exif and you will notice quite plenty.
    it could be a standard image size for a 4:3 JPG hosted on Flickr or some popular image hosting site....
    Exploring! :)

  6. #6
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by divinemoment View Post
    You may have misread my question intend.

    Of course no one restrict what size to post. It comes in various sizes that I know. But I do notice photos that exceed 1000 resolution normally stick to 1024 x 768. Just make some random check in exif and you will notice quite plenty.
    sorry for misunderstanding your point.
    You're trying to figure out why this image resolution seems to be prevalent?
    Exploring! :)

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZerocoolAstra View Post
    it could be a standard image size for a 4:3 JPG hosted on Flickr or some popular image hosting site....
    Doubt this being the case.

    The nearest I can think of is in binary code, it is:
    1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024....

    But still my guess is no logic at all.

    As someone mentioned earlier, its habit?

    Being so precise to put it 1024 equate in using 25.4mm instead of 25mm for 1 inch or 304.8mm for a foot instead of 300mm rounding off in casual measurement. Sorry, went off shoot but just an analogy of my case in question. Sometimes this kind of silly thing bugs me as it got to have a more technical reasoning, though the issue is trivial.
    Last edited by divinemoment; 18th November 2010 at 05:08 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by divinemoment View Post
    Doubt this being the case.

    The nearest I can think of is in binary code, it is:
    1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024....

    But still my guess is no logic at all.

    As someone mentioned earlier, its habit?

    Being so precise to put it 1024 equate in using 25.4mm instead of 25mm for 1 inch or 304.8mm for a foot instead of 300mm rounding off in casual measurement. Sorry, went off shoot but just an analogy of my case in question. Sometimes this kind of silly thing bugs me as it got to have a more technical reasoning, though the issue is trivial.
    i remember when 15" LCDs were the rage, 1024 x 768 was a very common resolution. That was the native screen size of those monitors.

    I think a lot of digi cams that output in 4:3 aspect ratio do have 1024 x 768 as the smallest image size... well at least during the time when resolutions were around 6-8 MP
    Exploring! :)

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZerocoolAstra View Post
    i remember when 15" LCDs were the rage, 1024 x 768 was a very common resolution. That was the native screen size of those monitors.

    I think a lot of digi cams that output in 4:3 aspect ratio do have 1024 x 768 as the smallest image size... well at least during the time when resolutions were around 6-8 MP
    As I like to get to the bottom of this "mysterious size" why people rampantly resized to 1024 for posting their photo, I post a similar question to another forum and I think this chap nailed it.

    "1024x768 was the standard resolution of many Mac and PC laptops, desktop screens...about ten years ago and the standard stuck around even as technology moved on to higher-resolution widescreen display. So those days they resized to 1024x768 to fill the entire screen.

    But now laptops comes in wide screen with resolution on the long side as 1280, 1440, 1600, 1680, 1920. Even the smaller 12 to 13' screen has 1366. Nothing on 1024 anymore (I think)

    I supposed old habit died hard but just beats me why still stick to 1024. 1000 would make a nice figure if any common sense to go by unless its posting straight out from an old stock photos already resized many yrs ago, but we are currently seeing new edited photos resized to old native resolution !
    Last edited by divinemoment; 18th November 2010 at 06:55 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by divinemoment View Post
    As I like to get to the bottom of this "mysterious size" why people rampantly resized to 1024 for posting their photo, I post a similar question to another forum and I think this chap nailed it.

    "1024x768 was the standard resolution of many Mac and PC laptops, desktop screens...about ten years ago and the standard stuck around even as technology moved on to higher-resolution widescreen display. So those days they resized to 1024x768 to fill the entire screen.

    But now laptops comes in wide screen with resolution on the long side as 1280, 1440, 1600, 1680, 1920. Even the smaller 12 to 13' screen has 1366. Nothing on 1024 anymore (I think)

    I supposed old habit died hard but just beats me why still stick to 1024. 1000 would make a nice figure if any common sense to go by unless its posting straight out from an old stock photos already resized many yrs ago, but we are currently seeing new edited photos resized to old native resolution !
    I just checked that the Panasonic GF1 has the smallest 4:3 jpg size as 2048 x 1364, exactly double on both sides.
    I would assume other makers of 4/3 cameras also adopt similar "standards"
    So obviously this "common denominator" is still used, for whatever reason. It could be, as you an coolthought said, "old habits die hard"...
    Exploring! :)

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZerocoolAstra View Post
    I just checked that the Panasonic GF1 has the smallest 4:3 jpg size as 2048 x 1364, exactly double on both sides.
    I would assume other makers of 4/3 cameras also adopt similar "standards"
    So obviously this "common denominator" is still used, for whatever reason. It could be, as you an coolthought said, "old habits die hard"...
    It would be perfectly saved to assume people use the highest resolution or even RAW to take photos. Even nowadays P&S exceed 3,000+. Most 4/3 camera, if I'm not wrong has resolution of 4,000x3000 (at least mine is) and I'll be amazed if they choose the lowest res as their default just for the sake of posting. No, can't be.

    I remembered during those film days when we are using 35mm film, the aspect ratio is 3:2 and shops are offering 8R (8"x10") and super 8R (8"x12" which is exactly 3:2). I think same is still available today. In those days competition, most organisation asked to submit size of 8x10 only. It just blow my mind why must it be so since 8x12 is a right ratio to the film. We framed the pic so carefully thru our view finder in 3:2 aspect and at the end we have to chop of the left or right just to accede to the rules. So one fine day I raised the question and none of the judges in the panel were able to give a decent answer. Later, not sure whether because of the point that I raised, had a few organisations started to accept anything between 8R or super 8R.

    Maybe some management guru can explain this supposingly part of human behaviour. Just follow law. Maybe just follow lah.
    Last edited by divinemoment; 18th November 2010 at 09:41 PM.

  12. #12
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by divinemoment View Post
    It would be perfectly saved to assume people use the highest resolution or even RAW to take photos. Even nowadays P&S exceed 3,000+. Most 4/3 camera, if I'm not wrong has resolution of 4,000x3000 (at least mine is) and I'll be amazed if they choose the lowest res as their default just for the sake of posting. No, can't be.

    I remembered during those film days when we are using 35mm film, the aspect ratio is 3:2 and shops are offering 8R (8"x10") and super 8R (8"x12" which is exactly 3:2). I think same is still available today. In those days competition, most organisation asked to submit size of 8x10 only. It just blow my mind why must it be so since 8x12 is a right ratio to the film. We framed the pic so carefully thru our view finder in 3:2 aspect and at the end we have to chop of the left or right just to accede to the rules. So one fine day I raised the question and none of the judges in the panel were able to give a decent answer. Later, not sure whether because of the point that I raised, had a few organisations started to accept anything between 8R or super 8R.

    Maybe some management guru can explain this supposingly part of human behaviour. Just follow law. Maybe just follow lah.
    hahahah I think you have a point...

    using the title of a recent Jack Neo movie....

    "Just Follow Law"........
    Exploring! :)

  13. #13
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by divinemoment View Post
    As I like to get to the bottom of this "mysterious size" why people rampantly resized to 1024 for posting their photo, I post a similar question to another forum and I think this chap nailed it.

    "1024x768 was the standard resolution of many Mac and PC laptops, desktop screens...about ten years ago and the standard stuck around even as technology moved on to higher-resolution widescreen display. So those days they resized to 1024x768 to fill the entire screen.

    But now laptops comes in wide screen with resolution on the long side as 1280, 1440, 1600, 1680, 1920. Even the smaller 12 to 13' screen has 1366. Nothing on 1024 anymore (I think)

    I supposed old habit died hard but just beats me why still stick to 1024. 1000 would make a nice figure if any common sense to go by unless its posting straight out from an old stock photos already resized many yrs ago, but we are currently seeing new edited photos resized to old native resolution !
    I still have one laptop and a 15" LCD screen where the max resolution for the screens is 1024x768.

    Not everyone is on new systems. Especially in countries like the USA, where people tend to like to keep and use their equipment a lot longer than the average singaporean.

    The key is to have picture sizes at the lowest common denominator so it will be ok for all to see without the need to zoom smaller.
    Last edited by daredevil123; 18th November 2010 at 10:51 PM.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    I still have one laptop and a 15" LCD screen where the max resolution for the screens is 1024x768.

    Not everyone is on new systems. Especially in countries like the USA, where people tend to like to keep and use their equipment a lot longer than the average singaporean.

    The key is to have picture sizes at the lowest common denominator so it will be ok for all to see without the need to zoom smaller.
    Your reasoning is very logical.

    So for people with larger resolution and purposely resized to 1024 must be very considerate to suit people with older version screen. Hmmm....food for thought!

    Cheers

  15. #15
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default Re: Why still use 1024 x 768 resolution

    Quote Originally Posted by divinemoment View Post
    Your reasoning is very logical.

    So for people with larger resolution and purposely resized to 1024 must be very considerate to suit people with older version screen. Hmmm....food for thought!

    Cheers
    yeah I agree... I was on the 'right track' with the "lowest common denominator", but my reasons were out of whack
    Exploring! :)

  16. #16
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Why still use 1024 x 768 resolution

    Quote Originally Posted by divinemoment View Post
    Your reasoning is very logical.

    So for people with larger resolution and purposely resized to 1024 must be very considerate to suit people with older version screen. Hmmm....food for thought!

    Cheers
    That is how we do it in the software and internet design industry.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Why still use 1024 x 768 resolution

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    That is how we do it in the software and internet design industry.
    Coincidentally I asked one bloke 2 days ago why he constantly post photo in size of 1024 despite he has a much higher res laptop. His reply was he just follow what others do.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Why still use 1024 x 768 resolution

    I'm still using an ancient 19" CRT at 1024x768 resolution.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •