Run LCDs at "non native" resolutions?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

I'm finally shopping for an LCD monitor and looking at the online
documentation, most of them specify a "native resolution" of 1280x1024 and
suggest running them at 1280x1024@60HZ for "best results".

My eyesight (and preferences) have always led me to set my 17" CRT at
1024x768 with WinXP. I'm also running a refresh rate of 85HZ, but I don't
suppose that matters much with LCDs, does it?

So, what happens if I run at 1024x768? Strange artifacts? Flicker?

I ->suppose I could run at 1280x1024 and spend a few days tweaking font
and icon sizes to get a readable display, but do I have to?

BTW: I've just about settled on a ViewSonic VP171B/S.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@visi.com
14 answers Last reply
More about lcds native resolutions
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    > Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote:

    > So, what happens if I run [a native 1280] at
    > 1024x768? Strange artifacts? Flicker?

    Interpolation.

    Data that would precisely display as 4 pixels on a
    native 1024 display is smeared across 5 pixels.
    LCDs can be dramatically less elegant about this
    than CRTs.

    On fonts with single-pixel strokes, this can be a
    significant readability issue.

    Can you try it on some store PC? Find one with a
    1280 LCD. Get into screen properties and select
    1024 res. See what you think about the results.

    In general, I'd recommend finding a native 1024
    with larger dot pitch.

    --
    Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
    http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
    NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bert Hyman wrote:

    > I'm finally shopping for an LCD monitor and looking at the online
    > documentation, most of them specify a "native resolution" of 1280x1024 and
    > suggest running them at 1280x1024@60HZ for "best results".
    >
    > My eyesight (and preferences) have always led me to set my 17" CRT at
    > 1024x768 with WinXP. I'm also running a refresh rate of 85HZ, but I don't
    > suppose that matters much with LCDs, does it?
    >
    > So, what happens if I run at 1024x768? Strange artifacts? Flicker?
    >
    > I ->suppose I could run at 1280x1024 and spend a few days tweaking font
    > and icon sizes to get a readable display, but do I have to?
    >
    > BTW: I've just about settled on a ViewSonic VP171B/S.

    In practical terms the results are going to vary from "OK" to "horrid"
    depending on your particular display, display adapter, etc. In general you
    should buy an LCD whose native resolution is the one that you most often
    plan to use--there's usually a very noticeable loss of display quality when
    running an LCD off design resolution.

    You won't get flicker, but depending on how good the interpolation
    algorithms are you may get a good deal of noticeable artifacting.

    It's not all bad news though--remember that an LCD typically gives you
    viewable area an inch or so larger than the equivalent CRT, and at the
    design resolution an LCD is, compared to even a very good CRT, quite
    remarkably sharp, so you may find the higher resolution to be less of a
    problem than you expect. OTOH, it might be worthwhile to consider a 19".

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    In news:opsjv1dyrnft8z8r@news.individual.net Bob Niland
    <email4rjn@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >> Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote:
    >
    >> So, what happens if I run [a native 1280] at
    >> 1024x768? Strange artifacts? Flicker?
    >
    > Interpolation.
    >
    > Data that would precisely display as 4 pixels on a
    > native 1024 display is smeared across 5 pixels.
    > LCDs can be dramatically less elegant about this
    > than CRTs.

    Thanks; that's what I thought might be the case.

    > ...
    > In general, I'd recommend finding a native 1024
    > with larger dot pitch.

    Have I missed the market window for something like this? I didn't find any
    among the "major maker" 17" monitors I looked at.

    --
    Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@visi.com
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    In news:opsjv1dyrnft8z8r@news.individual.net Bob Niland
    <email4rjn@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >> Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote:
    >
    >> So, what happens if I run [a native 1280] at
    >> 1024x768? Strange artifacts? Flicker?
    >
    > Interpolation.
    >
    > Data that would precisely display as 4 pixels on a
    > native 1024 display is smeared across 5 pixels.
    > LCDs can be dramatically less elegant about this
    > than CRTs.

    Thanks; that's what I thought might be the case.

    > ...
    > In general, I'd recommend finding a native 1024
    > with larger dot pitch.

    Have I missed the market window for something like this? I didn't find any
    among the "major maker" 17" monitors I looked at.


    --
    Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@visi.com
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bert Hyman writes:

    > I'm finally shopping for an LCD monitor and looking at the online
    > documentation, most of them specify a "native resolution" of 1280x1024 and
    > suggest running them at 1280x1024@60HZ for "best results".

    The pixels on a flat panel are permanently designed into the panel when
    it is made. So only one resolution truly fits the existing pixels
    ideally. For all other resolutions, some sort of interpolation is
    required, which usually reduces image quality.

    The exception is a lower resolution that is a factor of the native
    resolution. For example, 1600x1200 can display 800x600 very nicely,
    because the latter resolution is exactly two times smaller than the
    native resolution.

    > My eyesight (and preferences) have always led me to set my 17" CRT at
    > 1024x768 with WinXP. I'm also running a refresh rate of 85HZ, but I don't
    > suppose that matters much with LCDs, does it?

    LCDs usually don't show any flicker, so the refresh rate need not be
    high.

    > So, what happens if I run at 1024x768? Strange artifacts? Flicker?

    Most some loss of sharpness for certain pixels at certain points on the
    screen. You'll see "jaggies" in some spots, under certain conditions.
    It's not necessarily intolerable. Try it and see (the LCD doesn't
    care).

    Some flat panels will interpolate lower resolutions to make them look
    smoother on the screen, too.

    > I ->suppose I could run at 1280x1024 and spend a few days tweaking font
    > and icon sizes to get a readable display, but do I have to?

    Try the lower resolution first and see if it looks okay to you. If it
    does, you're all set. If it doesn't, then work with font and icon sizes
    (almost everything in Windows can be resized).

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bert Hyman writes:

    > Have I missed the market window for something like this? I didn't find any
    > among the "major maker" 17" monitors I looked at.

    Try choosing a display resolution that fits evenly (or almost evenly)
    into the native resolution, if you must. For example, 1000x800 would
    accommodate 500x400 without any problem, and 750x600 might be readable
    as well.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bert Hyman wrote:
    > I'm finally shopping for an LCD monitor and looking at the online
    > documentation, most of them specify a "native resolution" of 1280x1024 and
    > suggest running them at 1280x1024@60HZ for "best results".
    >
    > My eyesight (and preferences) have always led me to set my 17" CRT at
    > 1024x768 with WinXP. I'm also running a refresh rate of 85HZ, but I don't
    > suppose that matters much with LCDs, does it?

    No, the refresh rate is totally irrelevant on an LCD monitor.

    > So, what happens if I run at 1024x768? Strange artifacts? Flicker?
    >
    > I ->suppose I could run at 1280x1024 and spend a few days tweaking font
    > and icon sizes to get a readable display, but do I have to?

    There's two things that can happen at that lower resolution: (1) they
    put the picture in the centre of the screen and they put black bars
    around the top, bottom, and sides to fill out the area you're not using;
    (2) they try to upconvert the lower resolution into the higher
    resolution, and you'll see lots of little jaggies. LCDs are pretty much
    limited to their native resolutions. CRTs are still the most flexible in
    that respect.

    Yousuf Khan
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    news:H4Wdnaqu4IeGvkXcRVn-sA@rogers.com...
    > Bert Hyman wrote:
    >> > My eyesight (and preferences) have always led me to set my 17" CRT at
    > > 1024x768 with WinXP. I'm also running a refresh rate of 85HZ, but I
    don't
    > > suppose that matters much with LCDs, does it?
    >
    > No, the refresh rate is totally irrelevant on an LCD monitor.


    On my Analog-Only BenQ FP731, the manual shows a list of operating modes in
    different resolutions.

    For example, if I have the video card set for 60Hz refresh, and try
    1152x864, the monitor will refuse to display. However, if I set the vertical
    freq to 75Hz, it WILL ACCEPT that combination. Therefore, you might want to
    have a look at your documentation and see what combinations of resolution
    and vertical freq are good together.

    Having just tested some resolutions that I previously had no luck getting to
    work, it brings up the issue of WHY. Why is the horizontal and vertical
    frequency settings important when changing resolution? I think the answer
    has to do with the electronics of your LCD and how it trains on the input
    signal (dot clock) etc. It has more to do with properly training on the
    analog video signal and then displaying it on the monitor which will be done
    at some rate, probably 60hz. Perhaps, better LCD monitors automatically
    handle more combinations of input resolutions and frequencies.

    In summary, I am only talking about my analog BenQ and how it seems to work.
    Hey, maybe what I described above is only true for my make and model. Then
    again, it may have some application to others who might have given up on
    displaying certain resolutions. If so, just try experimenting with different
    refresh rates, you might get lucky.

    Gary
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns95D09A06C4625VeebleFetzer@news.octanews.com...
    > In news:opsjv1dyrnft8z8r@news.individual.net Bob Niland
    > <email4rjn@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > >> Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> So, what happens if I run [a native 1280] at
    > >> 1024x768? Strange artifacts? Flicker?
    > >
    > > Interpolation.
    > >
    > > Data that would precisely display as 4 pixels on a
    > > native 1024 display is smeared across 5 pixels.
    > > LCDs can be dramatically less elegant about this
    > > than CRTs.
    >
    > Thanks; that's what I thought might be the case.

    *But* it is highly recommended that you try to experience
    the case - depending on the monitor, the scaling often comes
    out remarkably well. Buying any display without ever actually
    seeing and using it can be risky, for a number of reasons.
    ('course some of us *are* more daring than others...)

    > > ...
    > > In general, I'd recommend finding a native 1024
    > > with larger dot pitch.
    >
    > Have I missed the market window for something like this? I didn't find any
    > among the "major maker" 17" monitors I looked at.

    Nope - if there *is* any "window" it has yet to happen. (Maybe
    in the TV market, which is still trying to "find its' sea legs".)

    For now, 15" LCD's are typically 1024 by 768, 17" and 19" are
    1280 by 1024, with a few 19" going to even higher pixel formats
    (and accompanying higher costs) in the PC monitor market.
    If you were condsidering a 19 inch, running 1280, the icon sizes
    will be fairly close to those on a 17" CRT running 1024, and you
    may not have any issues at all. For the 17", the icons will be a bit
    smaller than on a 19", but still larger than on a 17" CRT because the
    image size on the LCD is a true 17", and the CRT is never more
    than 16".
    Also, because the pixels in a LCD have a different spatial frequency
    content, they do tend to look "sharper" than the Gaussian distribution
    spot of a CRT, so many users are quite happy with the larger formats,
    vision issues notwithstanding. So, if possible, try it - you may like it...

    Regards,
    NGA

    >
    > --
    > Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@visi.com
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    nospamREMOVplease@msn.net (Not Gimpy Anymore) wrote in
    news:VPVCd.69286$uM5.58124@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

    > If you were condsidering a 19 inch, running 1280, the icon sizes
    > will be fairly close to those on a 17" CRT running 1024, and you
    > may not have any issues at all.

    Thanks.

    I've already used this line of reasoning as leverage to convince my
    wife that a 19" monitor is ->just what we need :-)

    --
    Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bert Hyman wrote:

    > nospamREMOVplease@msn.net (Not Gimpy Anymore) wrote in
    > news:VPVCd.69286$uM5.58124@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
    >
    >> If you were condsidering a 19 inch, running 1280, the icon sizes
    >> will be fairly close to those on a 17" CRT running 1024, and you
    >> may not have any issues at all.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > I've already used this line of reasoning as leverage to convince my
    > wife that a 19" monitor is ->just what we need :-)

    Now, can you leverage her into a 21"? <waggling cigar ala Groucho>


    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    In news:Xns95D57DB7D36BFVeebleFetzer@news.visi.com Bert Hyman
    <bert@visi.com> wrote:

    > nospamREMOVplease@msn.net (Not Gimpy Anymore) wrote in
    > news:VPVCd.69286$uM5.58124@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
    >
    >> If you were condsidering a 19 inch, running 1280, the icon sizes
    >> will be fairly close to those on a 17" CRT running 1024, and you
    >> may not have any issues at all.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > I've already used this line of reasoning as leverage to convince my
    > wife that a 19" monitor is ->just what we need :-)

    My Viewsonic VP191B arrived yesterday and is quite nice; thanks to all for
    the information (and ammunition) I needed to make the decision.

    My arm is getting tired from pushing the mouse cursor around all that
    additional real estate though.

    --
    Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@visi.com
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    > Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote:

    > My arm is getting tired from pushing the mouse cursor
    > around all that additional real estate though.

    Get into the mouse properties.
    Select a higher Acceleration.
    You might need to drop the Speed a tad.

    --
    Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
    http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
    NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Installing XP Clear Fonts help? I know it helped when I installed them
    using my 19" Sony yTrinitron monitor?

    Mike

    "Bob Niland" <email4rjn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:opsjv1dyrnft8z8r@news.individual.net...
    >> Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote:
    >
    >> So, what happens if I run [a native 1280] at
    >> 1024x768? Strange artifacts? Flicker?
    >
    > Interpolation.
    >
    > Data that would precisely display as 4 pixels on a
    > native 1024 display is smeared across 5 pixels.
    > LCDs can be dramatically less elegant about this
    > than CRTs.
    >
    > On fonts with single-pixel strokes, this can be a
    > significant readability issue.
    >
    > Can you try it on some store PC? Find one with a
    > 1280 LCD. Get into screen properties and select
    > 1024 res. See what you think about the results.
    >
    > In general, I'd recommend finding a native 1024
    > with larger dot pitch.
    >
    > --
    > Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
    > http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
    > NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Graphics