Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Flashy flashy?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 12, 2003 10:56:43 PM

Ok, my quadro dcc seems to support up to 1280x1024 on the dvi max, and I may be getting <A HREF="http://www.lge.co.uk/mod_perl/go.pl/site/products/pc/mo..." target="_new"> one of these bad boys</A> soon, so I'll need 1600x1200. Would flashing its bios help at all?

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.

More about : flashy flashy

June 13, 2003 4:54:45 AM

Im not sure how this would be done with an nVidia card, but the same thing (kinda) happened to me. It said my monitors max res was 1280x1024, i was like bs (its 1600x1200). But by default vid cards use the DDC (display data channel) information that newer monitors contain. This information can sometimes be wrong or corrupt, or misinterpereted.

With my ATI, in the displays tab, clicking on the monitor button, I can override the DDC information.

Im sure theres some way to do it with nVidia cards too though. It might even be in your control panel also.

But if youre saying its hardware limited, then you might have a problem, but I dont remember the DVI having a lower res than the VGA output. Drivers or BIOS could fix that.
Do they make a VGA to DVI adapter? I know they make the reverse.

Neways, thats one KICK ASS monitor!

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Willamette_Sucks on 06/13/03 00:58 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 13, 2003 5:19:41 PM

If I were to get the analog to dvi converter, I might as well hook it up to the analog. I just like dvi better cause you don't have to adjust and do other annoying things like that. I truly do wonder if the hardware is capable, hmm.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
Related resources
June 13, 2003 6:13:32 PM

Yeah, ok, i thought there was an adapter. But like you said you might as well just hook it up to analog.
Well, im not sure if the hardware really is limited in this area or not, but either way, i think you should hook it up to the analog output.
I read the specs on that monitor, and if you want 75hz at 1600x1200, it has to ba analog. Otherwise its 60hz at max res.
Just my 2 cents, but I use 1600x1200 for games alot and would want 75hz.

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2003 6:26:02 PM

DVI IS limited to the setting by the manufacturer it has something to do with the way the bits flow (amount of bandwidth). If I remember correctly it runs out of room quickly (and for the life of me I can't remember why right this moment). What you end up needing is multiple DVI connectors running 1 monitor whereas 1 DB-15 would be able to push the bits through at that res. The QUXGA IBM LCD monitor runs on 4 DVI connectors. But I thought the max. was a little higher like 16x12. PErhaps your card sticks to the monitor defaults (stupid question I know, but did you try uninstalling the display drivers and running a generic display setting?) If that doesn't work, then it MAY be the card that sets the max for the DVI connector.
Sorry I couldn't give you more help, but that's all I can remember.
I know it has something to do with more info/pixel flowing down the DVI vs DB-15. IIRC that is why most High End monitors use BNC, to achieve the same quality through the analog path (usually for CRTs as I'm sure you know).


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red> :tongue: GA to SK
June 13, 2003 8:54:23 PM

I don't have the monitor yet, just checking what my options r before I get it. The manufacturer says 1280x1024, so if it possible to do 1600x1200 w/ some sort of hack it'd be great.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
June 13, 2003 10:46:20 PM

I guess I haven't been watching for a long time.

I was going to say something like only the rich can afford a 1600x1200 flat panel but I see 20" panels are now $1100-$1500.

They've come way down in price since their introduction.

I remember when 21" CRTs cost that much and more but they were still favored by professionals.



<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
June 14, 2003 4:16:15 AM

Yeah, I started the argument with my dad on getting this lcd with "Ok, you know how 20" LCD's were $3000 to $4000 and even higher before?" hehehe.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
June 14, 2003 6:53:07 AM

Imo, a good CRT is still the way to go. I hate those dead pixels, and blur when playing games on LCD. Sure LCD are cool, but i would never pay that much for a LCD. What are the benefits...size..ok. worth 1000$???, when for 400$ you can have a great sony or viewsonic crt...

Just an opinion, no critic here..
June 14, 2003 7:00:52 AM

If you pay enough, you can get an LCD with unnoticable trailing (afterimage). I.E. no more blur than a CRT.
This is not one of those monitors however. It is very good (not to mention big), but its medium range, youd still have to pay 3k or more for something like I'm talking about.

But I totally agree with you Ganache, because of the nature of CRTs (flatscreens) they just look better than LCDs.
With LCDs you can more easily notice pixel separation, and aliasing. All CRTs blur just a little, but its kind of like hardware AA.

I want a Viewsonic.. I forget the model name, but its a 21" flatscreen CRT, can do up to 2048x1536, and can do 1600x1200 at 85hz.
It costs around 600.

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2003 5:53:15 PM

WS, you don't have to pay that much anymore, Hitachi and some others have come out with GAMING LCDs whos response time is 12ms or less. And therefore have very little decernable ghosting and they are less than $1000 US for a 17in. Of course that's stil 1280x1024, but not bad. The BENQ (now Acer) monitors always had low refresh response in the 17ms range for their 20in 16x12. However is is about $2000, but arguabely the best or in the top 3 monitors out there for that size. The only other ones close, Apples HD series and IBMs professional LCDs. IMNHO
Prices remember are list and likely can be found for cheaper. I'm looking at getting another LCD, but I'm going to wait for the new technology to pervade the marketplace so I can get a good 16x12 one at NCIX or locally for less than $1200 -1500 CDN.
But I will always run dual CRT/LCD just because it's SOoo flexible (I'm hurting right now with dual CRTS and using a laptopp to get my LCD fix).

I just can't wait for OLED monitors to hit the market in a few years (expect mid-2005/2006) they will have a response time measured in nanoseconds (like less than 1 ms) according to the articles I read. However they may (currently) have a problem with contrast. We shall see when they hit the market. And may by 2007+ I'll have a printed on plastic film WALL-SIZEd OLED monitor for my computer/TV. On a curved wall that could be VERY cool!

And <b>Ganache</b> not everyone wants to clutter their desk with 2 19/20/21 inch CRTs. And if you work in front of a CRT all day like myself, you LOVE using the LCD when you're done. I just wouldn't game on it (yet!).

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red> :tongue: GA to SK
!