[M. J. Iverson]

Maybe some of you guys can help me comprehend this. I've been trying out some of higher resolutions on my monitor and I've noticed some peculiarities with regard to certain images I've uploaded to the Web.

For instance, when I was in 1280 x 1024 res., I thought some of the images looked awfully long... out of scale. I switched to 1600 x 1024 and noticed the opposite - that they appeared to be crunched. In every other resolution they looked as I'd expect.

I then did a little math and realized that all of my available resolutions are a perspective ratio of 1.33 - except for the two mentioned above. Will images viewed on the web actually change appearance depending on each viewer's monitor resolution? Or is it just my monitor? Thanks for helping me understand this!

[Blade]

The only reason those two do that is because they both have the same second resolution number, thats all. The 1280x1024 should work just like the other resos but when compared to the 1600x1024 it is going to change the height and not the length because only the hieght numbers changed there and the length stayed the same. ......and if your able to run it like that all the time on your computer then.....i want that monitor!!! =P

[c]

1280x1024 is often regarded as the bastard resolution.

it isn't the standard 1.33 aspect ratio as you mentioned. therefore if you create perfect circle in that res and have others view it, they will see an ellipse instead.

doesn't matter for programmers/writers/casual web surfers, but for artists and such it's best to stick to 1280x960.

[gLitterbug]

1600x1024? thats far away from the right ratio. It should be 1600x1200.

I prefer 1920x1440

[Slicer]

Just thought I would add that you can adjust the size of the screen so that you get correct aspect ratios. So you can have black lines in the top and bottom of the screens and use 1600*1024 and still get the right aspect ratio. Though that would be a waste of screen space.