does display dpi size hurt video card or monitor

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Do you know if I run my display that is meant to be run at 1280 x 1024 does
it hurt the video card or the monitor, to move it down to 1024 x 768? I
like larger fonts and stuff.

--
In His Name,
Martha
“Faith is exceedingly charitable, and believeth no evil of God.”
14 answers Last reply
More about does display size hurt video card monitor
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "zmartha" <zzizzzzith@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:cg5pnv02ena@enews3.newsguy.com...
    > Do you know if I run my display that is meant to be run at 1280 x 1024
    does
    > it hurt the video card or the monitor, to move it down to 1024 x 768? I
    > like larger fonts and stuff.
    >
    > --
    > In His Name,
    > Martha
    > "Faith is exceedingly charitable, and believeth no evil of God."
    >
    >

    I take it that you refer to an LCD which has a native resolution of 1280 X
    1024 then running it in a lower resolution which is not evenly divisible by
    some integer then you will probably some loss of display quality. Meaning
    that the display which looks fine in 1280 X 1024 will probably have somewhat
    ragged fonts in the proposed 1024 X 768. Note: CRT displays do not suffer
    from this effect. But, no, you won't physically "hurt" anything unless you
    include your eyes and sensibilities so if you don't find the scaling effect
    objectionable feel free to give it a shot and see if the results are hideous
    or not.

    Have you tried simply enlarging the display fonts and such? This is easily
    done in Windows and should be equally easy in any modern OS.
    --
    John McGaw
    [Knoxville, TN, USA]
    http://johnmcgaw.com
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    zmartha wrote:
    > Do you know if I run my display that is meant to be run at 1280 x 1024 does
    > it hurt the video card or the monitor, to move it down to 1024 x 768? I
    > like larger fonts and stuff.
    >
    Nope.....set it to whatever you want :)

    --
    Servo
    "You gonna do something? Or just stand there and bleed?"
    tservo100 at
    ameritech dot net
    Slow, fiery death to all spammers!!!
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    You did not say if you have an LCD or CRT type monitor. But assuming you
    are using an LCD monitor, then you will NOT "hurt anything" by running at a
    lower resolution, but the image quality will not be nearly as good as it
    whould be running at its native resolution.

    --
    DaveW


    "zmartha" <zzizzzzith@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:cg5pnv02ena@enews3.newsguy.com...
    > Do you know if I run my display that is meant to be run at 1280 x 1024
    does
    > it hurt the video card or the monitor, to move it down to 1024 x 768? I
    > like larger fonts and stuff.
    >
    > --
    > In His Name,
    > Martha
    > "Faith is exceedingly charitable, and believeth no evil of God."
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    > Picture size has nothing to do with vertical freq. You set the card to the
    > freq. you want to run, then use the monitor controls to adjust the picture
    > size, rotation, pincushion, etc.

    Not directly. The size is a function of the high voltage "tightness",
    and you can see it when changing vertical frequency. I just don't
    like the idea that 85 hz vertical is about 30 percent smaller than
    75 hz before any adjustments are made. I feel like the adjustments
    to expand the screen are bucking the high voltage. That can't be
    good because it must be a resistor devider trying to split that
    highV down to "bloom" the screen. At least that is what I think
    it is doing. I just fix 'em. I don't invent them.

    johns
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    A LOT of people see no flicker even at 70 Hz. The 85 Hz myth was started by the industry
    in order to sell new gear. Only a small percentage of the population need 85 Hz. I have
    yet to see flicker at 70 Hz, though I run my monitor at 1600x1200 @ 75 Hz.
    --
    Todd
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    > yet to see flicker at 70 Hz, though I run my monitor at 1600x1200 @ 75 Hz.

    Lordy! Knob it down to 1024 and see if you can
    hear the flyback stop whistling. If you hear a small
    squeal go away, then you are cooking your flyback.

    johns
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    How much contrast are you running? If the contrast is set too dark then the
    flicker won't be too apparent. Contrast should be set to 100% to get maximum
    picture clarity.

    Switch back and forth between 75 and 85 Hz. The difference is quite
    noticeable.

    --
    "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
    It can therefore be said that politics is war without
    bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


    "Todd" <nospam@abc.net> wrote in message
    news:VzAVc.169004$gE.58720@pd7tw3no...
    > A LOT of people see no flicker even at 70 Hz. The 85 Hz myth was started
    by the industry
    > in order to sell new gear. Only a small percentage of the population need
    85 Hz. I have
    > yet to see flicker at 70 Hz, though I run my monitor at 1600x1200 @ 75 Hz.
    > --
    > Todd
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    I set up my NEC MultiSync FE950+ monitor according to the instructions and charts
    available here:

    http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html

    It is matched to the desired 2.2 on the gamma scale. Follow the instructions and your
    monitor also will be properly calibrated. Refresh rates over 70 Hz work perfectly with
    this Diamondtron monitor.

    My understanding of contrast is that it is merely another tool in calibrating the monitor,
    not something to arbitrarily set at 100%. I've heard that compared to redlining your
    engine 100% of the time. In fairly short order you will do damage to the device.
    --
    Todd
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    It's a 19" trinitron style monitor. It runs fine at this resolution and refresh rate and
    has for years.
    --
    Todd
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    John,
    I have used the lower resolution on the LCD since I got it last Nov. and
    have noticed No distortion. But I am trying a new 64mb (ATI this time)
    video card as I was having more and more trouble with all distortion at
    morning startups. So far, so good. But I wondered if the lower resolution
    wore the card out. I used it also on my CRT. Thanks for the help.
    "John McGaw" <nowhere@at.all> wrote in message
    news:jaFVc.3$0o5.1@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
    > "zmartha" <zzizzzzith@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:cg5pnv02ena@enews3.newsguy.com...
    > > Do you know if I run my display that is meant to be run at 1280 x 1024
    > does
    > > it hurt the video card or the monitor, to move it down to 1024 x 768? I
    > > like larger fonts and stuff.
    > >
    > > --
    > > In His Name,
    > > Martha
    > > "Faith is exceedingly charitable, and believeth no evil of God."
    > >
    > >
    >
    > I take it that you refer to an LCD which has a native resolution of 1280 X
    > 1024 then running it in a lower resolution which is not evenly divisible
    by
    > some integer then you will probably some loss of display quality. Meaning
    > that the display which looks fine in 1280 X 1024 will probably have
    somewhat
    > ragged fonts in the proposed 1024 X 768. Note: CRT displays do not suffer
    > from this effect. But, no, you won't physically "hurt" anything unless you
    > include your eyes and sensibilities so if you don't find the scaling
    effect
    > objectionable feel free to give it a shot and see if the results are
    hideous
    > or not.
    >
    > Have you tried simply enlarging the display fonts and such? This is easily
    > done in Windows and should be equally easy in any modern OS.
    > --
    > John McGaw
    > [Knoxville, TN, USA]
    > http://johnmcgaw.com
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    First of One wrote:

    > How much contrast are you running? If the contrast is set too dark then
    > the flicker won't be too apparent. Contrast should be set to 100% to get
    > maximum picture clarity.
    >
    > Switch back and forth between 75 and 85 Hz. The difference is quite
    > noticeable.

    For some people. I've had students who could see flicker at 85 and others
    that couldn't at 60. All depends on individual response. Dammme I should
    have had a segment in which they determined their own flicker limits. NOW
    I think of it.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    johns wrote:

    >
    >> Picture size has nothing to do with vertical freq. You set the card to
    >> the freq. you want to run, then use the monitor controls to adjust the
    >> picture size, rotation, pincushion, etc.
    >
    > Not directly. The size is a function of the high voltage "tightness",
    > and you can see it when changing vertical frequency. I just don't
    > like the idea that 85 hz vertical is about 30 percent smaller than
    > 75 hz before any adjustments are made. I feel like the adjustments
    > to expand the screen are bucking the high voltage. That can't be
    > good because it must be a resistor devider trying to split that
    > highV down to "bloom" the screen. At least that is what I think
    > it is doing. I just fix 'em. I don't invent them.

    Huh? Image size is controlled by the amount of horizontal and vertical
    deflection and has nothing to do with the high voltage. Increase the
    current in the deflection coils a little and the image gets larger.

    > johns

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    The directions on the web site are for setting up the monitor for
    print-proofing, to "humble" the displayed picture to match the eventual
    print output. The guide is good desktop publishing, but not if you use the
    computer for games, videos, and the web. For that, a dedicated monitor
    calibration/testing program like Nokia Monitor Test or DisplayMate should be
    used. (At least so you could adjust RGB convergence and check for moire...)
    In those programs, most monitors invariably end up at 100% contrast...

    Remember, the monitor is a luminous light source; paper can only reflect
    light. Just because something looks decent on paper under yellowish
    incandescent lighting doesn't mean it can't look better onscreen. Hell, even
    paper comes with different brightness indices. 96-bright paper is regarded
    as a higher grade than 88-bright paper, because brighter paper reflects more
    light, *providing better contrast*.

    The monitor is not a car engine. Using max contrast is more like running a
    variable-speed cooling fan at full-speed all the time. Any monitor worth its
    desktop footprint can handle 100% contrast with safety margins built-in.
    During the development and testing cycle, the test engineer would crank up
    the contrast until it fails, then back down several notches and set that as
    the max value in the OSD. As power users we do far worse things to hardware,
    like cranking up RAM voltage to over 3 V for overclocking...

    --
    "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
    It can therefore be said that politics is war without
    bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


    "Todd" <nospam@abc.net> wrote in message
    news:i4DVc.170591$gE.154105@pd7tw3no...
    > I set up my NEC MultiSync FE950+ monitor according to the instructions and
    charts
    > available here:
    >
    > http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html
    >
    > It is matched to the desired 2.2 on the gamma scale. Follow the
    instructions and your
    > monitor also will be properly calibrated. Refresh rates over 70 Hz work
    perfectly with
    > this Diamondtron monitor.
    >
    > My understanding of contrast is that it is merely another tool in
    calibrating the monitor,
    > not something to arbitrarily set at 100%. I've heard that compared to
    redlining your
    > engine 100% of the time. In fairly short order you will do damage to the
    device.
    > --
    > Todd
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    I have used the Nokia Monitor Test and its test displays and gray scale show perfectly
    tuned with my monitor as calibrated from the so-called desktop publishing site. It is
    tuned to 6500 degrees and is in perfect shape.

    It works wonderfully for games or anything else.

    But suit yourself.
    --
    Todd
Ask a new question

Read More

Radeon Graphics Cards Monitors Graphics Displays