Image Distortion Reletive to Resolution?

Downsizer

Just a quick question. I have concept monkeys pushing out peices of art faster then I can keep track of, and the 2d side of things is not my forte. I'm even an engineer : /

I'm assuming that when you view a document that is non-vector (does not scale) that it is visually deformed by a resolution change. I recently upgraded my monitor to 21 inches, and upped the res considerably. The images look squahed. If I'm going to be using these as image planes or 1:1 references, how will this affect the creation of a model?

I'm assuming that in 3D space, everything can be handled, and that the document will be viewed correctly, BUT is'nt 3d space still just composed of screen pixels? So even in 3d space, i'm viewing it from a different 2d space?

How do 3d engines handle resalutions altering visual views of the game environment or characters? I can't simply slap "best if used in 1024x768" on the demo. I know I don't see distortion when upping game resalutions, so i'm sure this is a simple question, and has been dealt with before.

The science of why our screens are not square escape me. It would make things so much easier.

MoP

Sounds like someone might be running in 1280x1024. If your concept artists are working on a screen res of 1280x1024, it's not a "real" (4:3) aspect ratio, but for some reason it's an option on most monitors. The proper resolution to preserve the accepted 4:3 ratio on a standard monitor is 1280x960.

Check if you (or any of your team) are running a resolution that isn't a 4:3 ratio, this will probably explain why the images appear slightly squashed on different resolutions.

I think LCD monitors often have a resolution of 1280x1024, so if they have an LCD with a fixed-resolution, you might just have to tell your artists to stretch their images a little before declaring them "final" ...

Eric Chadwick

Whenever I get a new monitor I always try to calibrate it. First thing for me is bright/contrast. Someone posted this recently...
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/calibration/blackpoint/crt_brightness_and_contrast.htm

After that I check for squareness, by making a screen-res bitmap with big hollow circles in the corners. I then adjust the wdith/height monitor controls until it looks like a circle, and I also til my head 90 degrees to check again.

Some monitor res-es don't use square pixels. I can't get into all that, but try to use a standard 4:3 ratio.

Sett

If the 3d engine programmer did his job right res. should not be an issue. If you are resizing screencaps they should be resized at 1:1.

I not sure if this is what you are looking for but...

What is the end point for this piece of art?

eg. working on my car in Max I tried different lengths, heights and whatnot.

Q.What is the end point for this car?
A.The unreal engine.

Now the Unreal engine had a slightly funky perspective. So I based all my changes according to how the engine rendered my car.

Hope that helps.

Downsizer

Actually I'm the one running in 1280x1024, it's the highest resalution I can get with 75hz or more. I have meniere's disease and with it, a constant low level dizzyness that can sometimes be triggered by some 3d engines and low refresh rates of some console games.

The 4:3 aspect ratio answered my question, this new monitor can handle 1800x1600, but only at 60-65hz. I'm not sure of the highest 4:3 ratio, but i'll look it up.

I'm still curious how a 3d app handles this, since the image place would be in virtual space, does it compensate for the altered ratio? I'm guessing that it imports 1:1, which means that it would indeed be skewed with a non 4:3 ratio, regardless of virtual space.

The end result of the model is my studios first presentation peice. A fully functional normal mapped character with advanced bone structure, capable of lip syncing and emotion blending similar to half life 2. The character will also have an experimental clothing and hair physics system. We are using the Reality Engine for the project. The studio goes LLC in July, with a full game prototype using this character due this winter. I'd show you the concept, but I don't want to give away anything yet. It will still be about a month before the finish model can be shown.

i belive that UT's funky perspective is thier use of a default 90 degree FOV. Most 3d applications don't have this as the default perspective view setting. Just a thought.

Thanks for everyones help, it was an embarresingly simple question.

MoP

Switch your resolution down to 1280x960, you won't notice a difference, and you'll still be able to have a high refresh rate. That should also mean the images go back to looking right.
As for 3d modelling, since the software package doesn't "know" what resolution you're running at, anything in 3d will also appear slightly squashed to you, while the exact same model will look fine when running at a 4:3 aspect ratio.

KDR_11k

I want to thank the idiot who decided 1280x1024 shall be standard with a baseball bat. There is zero reason for that resolution to exist.

The behaviour at a 5:4 ratio isn't standardized. Some assume you're using a CRT at an improper aspect ratio (i.e. they'll tell the API that they're using an aspect ratio that compensates for 5:4), others assume you're running it on a 5:4 LCD and behave accordingly. Bottom line: Stay away from 1280x1024 for it is the devil's child.

rooster

shit, when i changed down to 1280x960 the screen went slightly blurry.. thats not good :-/

KDR_11k

LCD or CRT?

rooster

lcd

MoP

LCD screens have fixed-resolution, so there's nothing you can do about that - the pixels on the screen are set up to work at the standard resolution (in your case 1280x1024) ... so if you switch to a different resolution, it has to blur the pixels to fit the new resolution into that.
You could always measure the horizontal and vertical lengths of your monitor, and work out if they're a 4:3 ratio... if you're lucky, the horizontal width will be slightly bigger than usual, meaning your screen isn't squashing any images with its weird ratio.

I'd also like to join in KDR's "thanking" with baseball bats for whoever thought 1280x1024 was a sensible resolution. It's not clever!

malcolm

Mop and KDR, I agree, where the hell did 1280x1024 come from? I've always wondered why people run this res and don't notice their screen is squashed. The worst part is a lot of pc games don't even have 1280x960 in their resolution options? I think Doom3 doesn't even have this resolution. One thing I should note though which is very strange is I have an older CRT monitor running my girlfriend's computer and that particular monitor actually needs 1280x1024 to have square pixels, if I switch to 1280x960 it gets squished.

JKMakowka

Maybe it is because the 1024x786 and the 1280x1024 lcds can be produced in the same machine, just turned?

Thermidor

so is 1600x1200 ok? coz thats wot i work in ...

MoP

Yeah, 1600:1200 divided by 100 = 16:12 divided by 4 = 4:3 (aspect ratio). Which is standard.

If you can divide the first number by 4 and the 2nd number by 3, you should be safe (16:9 for widescreen monitors usually).

1280 divides by 4, 960 divides by 3 ... 1024 does not divide by 3, so it's not a true 4:3 aspect.

Snowfly

A better equation is h/w, if your screen dimensions are w:h.

3:4 = 0.75 standard aspect ratio
16:10 = 0.625 most widescreen monitors
16:9 = 0.5625 msot widescreen televisions / letterbox format
5:4 = 0.8 that weird one

Just grab a ruler, figure out the dimensions of your screen in inches, divide the width by height, and choose a resolution with a similar aspect ratio.

Downsizer

Geez, you guys really know how to answer questions. I spoke to one of my programmers, he says that the distortion would still be present within a 3d engine, even though 3d space is relative. The reason why is because the pixels are the eventual output and they are physical. Just FYI for anyone thats curious. I mean, it's common sense, but I felt the need to get a 100% answer.

Sage

1280 x 960 res makes my monitor get darks looks bad on my monitor. I work in at 1280 x 1024 and all the work I do seems to look fine? What the hell am I missing something? If I make a square in a 640 x 480 res it looks square at 640 x480 and 1280 x 1024....

Alex

GoK

Basical what mop is saying is that 1280 x 1024 stretches your work so you are not viewing it properly if you work on something at 1280 x 1024 your images will look WRONG on a correct resolution monitor! i used to use 1280 x 1024 but i soon switched to 1280 x 900 when i realised that my models were looking oddly fat on other peoples monitors! just switch to 1280 x 900 and make it easyer on yourself! If you make a square at 640 by 480 it will be a rectangle at 1280 x 1024 but it will prob be quite hard to actualy notice but it WILL NOT DYSPLAY SQUARE it WILL be square but it WIll dysplay rectangular at 1280 x 1024 cos the resolution is not "normal" i think its silly to even have the option to have this res. Whats the point in this res?? i still havnt found any logical reason for it?

Jody

Jody

Snowfly

The point of 1280 x 1024 is it's a 5:4 resolution, and many LCD's are built with that aspect ratio. Do you know what 4:3 aspect ratios are to me on an LCD? Useless.