Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

does display dpi size hurt video card or monitor

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 20, 2004 8:16:46 PM

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.”
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 20, 2004 11:21:57 PM

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
August 21, 2004 1:44:35 AM

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!!!
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 21, 2004 3:30:21 AM

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."
>
>
August 21, 2004 4:26:43 AM

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
August 21, 2004 8:54:13 AM

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
August 21, 2004 8:54:14 AM

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
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 21, 2004 10:55:53 AM

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
August 21, 2004 11:45:18 AM

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
August 21, 2004 11:48:48 AM

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
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 21, 2004 12:23:14 PM

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
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 21, 2004 2:34:02 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 21, 2004 2:36:51 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 22, 2004 5:50:36 AM

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
>
>
August 22, 2004 7:09:12 AM

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
!