Resolution conspiracy

[PCBEater]

I am having a bit of a delima here, My monitor is an early Emachines flat panel 1440x900 monitor(came with bought PC) and the resolutions being reported are conflicting.

Well..its not a delima, more of an observation that I have not come to a conclusion on.

To start of I had used this monitor on another Emachines my family had bought that was much little better than the last one.we also put a low profile GPU in it for kicks.
I had installed Windows XP on it since the Windows 7 was corrupt, and I could also install the Radeon Omega drivers as well since I had done so on an older PC with a Radeon 9500.
An interesting observation from the Omega drivers display properties is that it looks at the maximum horizontal and Vertical resolution the display reports, not from the EDID like windows does, and according to Windows(on the Radeon 9500) the maximum resolution on this old CRT display I had it on reported 1024x768, but the Radeon Omega said it reported 1440x900, which is the same as this Emachines monitor, so I was thinking the same thing you probably are now, thats impossible this is a 4:3 CRT monitor that must be a glitch(keep im mind thats whats being reported to the display adapter through the VGA so nothing is being scaled) so what I did was disable the "hide modes this monitor cannot display" and set what was reported and....!!!!!!!!! perfect fit, and not only that, no blurryness or artifacts either, like that was its native resolution.

Now I initially assumed that was a fluke and though absolutely nothing of it, but later on when I got a chance to these Omega drivers on the Emachines I tinkered around like I did on the other one and according to that display adapter(Radeon HD 4550) the maximum of THIS monitor(the Emachines one) was 1920x1080..???????? So I again passed it off as a mistake or typo or something, even after what I experienced before, but I checked ATI Catalyst and it said the same thing(from what I remember). I even try to set that resolution and of coarse it doesnt work(or does it? the screen shows up, but not fit to the screen or scaled, as if Windows only scales whats in the monitors EDID, but the CRT monitor had no EDID..hmmm)

What I did next was swap monitor and use the Emachines with the old Radeon 9500, and NOW it reports 1776x1000........and whats funny is thats not even a standard resolution, AND its not even supported by the monitor(say"FREQUENCY OUT OF RANGE") thats just the maximum the old graphics card can go, So at that point I was sure something was wrong with this monitor until recently

My PS3 had nowhere to be played on and in a last ditch effort I used that Emachines monitor(with a HDMI/DVI adapter of coarse) So I immediately expected it to be set to 720p...but lo and behold..full 1080, now at this point I am convinced that what Radeon Omega was reporting from 2 different GPU's(using VGA cord at that!!) was indeed telling the truth, or maybe the monitor was scaling itself down, but thats impossible since like I said before its only a report of vertical and horizontal resolution and stated by the display properties within the graphics properties, so it cant report whats its scaling down to since that wasnt a current setting, just a reading

Or maybe the monitor is fooling all three GPU's?? whats do you guys think?

 

[ssddx]

this is a crt?

crt screens can support various resolutions. yes, even non standard ones. check the manual to see minimum and maximum.

you should set your resolution to be at the aspect ratio of the monitor. ie 4:3 on 4:3 screens, 16:9 on 16:9 screens, etcetera. the actual resolution while bound by min/max specs on the crt can be controlled by the user. for example someone with bad eyesight could use 1024x768 while someone with better eyesight might like 1280x1024 better.

as far as 1080p and the like... the crt might be able to display it, but either with black bars or "squished". i've seen stranger.

 

[PCBEater]

this is a crt?

crt screens can support various resolutions. yes, even non standard ones. check the manual to see minimum and maximum.

you should set your resolution to be at the aspect ratio of the monitor. ie 4:3 on 4:3 screens, 16:9 on 16:9 screens, etcetera. the actual resolution while bound by min/max specs on the crt can be controlled by the user. for example someone with bad eyesight could use 1024x768 while someone with better eyesight might like 1280x1024 better.

as far as 1080p and the like... the crt might be able to display it, but either with black bars or "squished". i've seen stranger.

I was referencing between two different monitors actually, the old CRT(which drivers stated its maximum was 1024x768 even though it comfortably sat at 1280x1024....and 1440x900 with NO BAD EFFECTS) and the 1440x900 flat panel LCD from Emachines which reported highest as 1080p from the Radeon Omega display properties, and the PS3 as well

 

[ssddx]

i wonder what the actual physical limitations of the monitor are and not just what the drivers state. the phsical limitations are the end of the line.

lcd screens have a static resolution. either the image is stretched to fit, you have inactive areas on the screen and a small image or the desktop extends past the edges of the screen.

in both cases the appropriate resolutions should be automatically selected. it seems that there is a problem with emachines monitors reporting their min/max values. what most likely is happening is that the image is being stretched to fit. if a panel has 1440x900 pixels there is no way it can display 1920x1080 without stretching. lcd panels can not just create the extra pixels.

i agree that this is strange behavior. most of the midlevel and above brands i've used though have no issues autodetect. i would suggest you do the research or read the manual and get the min/max values there and set your system between those values.

 

[PCBEater]

i wonder what the actual physical limitations of the monitor are and not just what the drivers state. the phsical limitations are the end of the line.

lcd screens have a static resolution. either the image is stretched to fit, you have inactive areas on the screen and a small image or the desktop extends past the edges of the screen.

in both cases the appropriate resolutions should be automatically selected. it seems that there is a problem with emachines monitors reporting their min/max values. what most likely is happening is that the image is being stretched to fit. if a panel has 1440x900 pixels there is no way it can display 1920x1080 without stretching. lcd panels can not just create the extra pixels.

i agree that this is strange behavior. most of the midlevel and above brands i've used though have no issues autodetect. i would suggest you do the research or read the manual and get the min/max values there and set your system between those values.

The Emachines monitor actually has no problems reporting its max res to Windows(1440x900 through EDID), i was just confused as to what the Radeon Omega drivers were reporting as the absolute maximum(and not through EDID like Windows) and what the PS3 was automatically setting its resolution to. with regards to that, who's doing the scaling? the PS3 or the monitor??? and what about what the Radeon Omega reports through VGA?(and not HDMI like the PS3) its obviously beyond specs, either that or somebody is lying here.

 

[ssddx]

again, the only specs you should believe are those of the actual hardware components. i dont care if it says you have a 10,000 by 10,000 pixel display in the software settings if the actual lcd is physically 1440x900 pixels.

what are these radeon omega drivers? the only drivers i know of in the consumer market now are nvidia's nview and ati/amd's catalyst. unless of course ati changed the name of their drivers... i dont buy ati anymore so i wouldnt know. in any case, for some reason it appears that there is some sort of issue with the driver in reporting resolutions of devices. if windows detects panels fine but the drivers do not it seems that this is the case. the ps3 reporting issue may be a different issue entirely.

i know the ps3 is set up for 1080p, 720p and possibly 480p which are standard television resolutions. odd resolutions used on computer screens might not be part of the programming on the ps3 and i could well imagine issues arising.

i'm not sure exactly where the scaling is happening.

 

[PCBEater]

again, the only specs you should believe are those of the actual hardware components. i dont care if it says you have a 10,000 by 10,000 pixel display in the software settings if the actual lcd is physically 1440x900 pixels.

what are these radeon omega drivers? the only drivers i know of in the consumer market now are nvidia's nview and ati/amd's catalyst. unless of course ati changed the name of their drivers... i dont buy ati anymore so i wouldnt know. in any case, for some reason it appears that there is some sort of issue with the driver in reporting resolutions of devices. if windows detects panels fine but the drivers do not it seems that this is the case. the ps3 reporting issue may be a different issue entirely.

i know the ps3 is set up for 1080p, 720p and possibly 480p which are standard television resolutions. odd resolutions used on computer screens might not be part of the programming on the ps3 and i could well imagine issues arising.

i'm not sure exactly where the scaling is happening.

My PS3 isnt damaged at all, neither are these drivers(which REPORTED the SAME thing from TWO different computers if you read my OP..just a MEASURE of the monitors maximum H res and V res) so im rightfully inclined to believe beyond what the specs of this Emachines monitor states, since manufacturers actually are not obligated to be truthful anyways, I just need somebody who knows more about lcd flat panel technology that can give me some insight from a scientific perspective why this is happening, or somebody who has experienced similar things

 

[ssddx]

i never stated the ps3 is broken if you read. i said that it might not recognize the resolution and might not know how to handle it. as far as the drivers being botched, if you use the same exact driver on both pcs then how is this proof that there is not an issue? i merely suggested that there might be a problem in how it detects the resolution. this does not mean that it does not work.

if you do not believe the manufacturer specifications then why do you believe a drivers listed specifications? it sounds like wishful thinking to me.

believe what you want to believe. common sense dictates that you cannot exceed the physical limits.

i at least am done with this thread.