Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: ZmaN on October 24, 2005, 06:16:34 pm
-
Im getting an LCD monitor in a few days, and well i was wondering, is it possible to make a 15" LCD monitor do 1280x960 on the windows desktop and 1600x1200 and 1280x960 in gmaes as well??
-
No. 15" LCDs can pull of 1024x768, with most 17" and 19" LCDs maxing out at 1280x1024.
-
There are hardly any 15" LCDs around these days anyway. Unless you're talking about a laptop LCD.
-
Laptop LCDs are an entirely different matter. For those, you have to check with the manufacturer.
-
no its a desktop lcd flat screen... couple years old. I did a google search "1280x1024 15" LCD Monitor" and i got some 15 inch monitors that did 1280 by 1024, but idk....
-
I wouldn't recommend it. Not unless you like your eyes in searing pain.
-
I have an LCD screen that does 1400x1050 that's 14.1" large. It's on the Thinkpad...rather nice actually.
-
Originally posted by vyper
I wouldn't recommend it. Not unless you like your eyes in searing pain.
how does that happen?
-
Originally posted by ZmaN
no its a desktop lcd flat screen... couple years old. I did a google search "1280x1024 15" LCD Monitor" and i got some 15 inch monitors that did 1280 by 1024, but idk....
LCD monitors should really only be run at their native resolution. Most 15" LCD's native res is 1024x768 or 1280x1024.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
LCD monitors should really only be run at their native resolution. Most 15" LCD's native res is 1024x768 or 1280x1024.
My question isnt getting answered!!! what happens if you DONT run it at its native resolution?!?!?!?!
-
First, calm down. You've been here long enough to know that people can get off on tangents, especially when the original question wasn't worded particularly clearly.
Secondly, I'll answer your question. One of two things happens. Either the monitor interpolates a scaled-up version of your chosen resolution and pixilates EVERYTHING (very bad) or you wind up with a little visible box surrounded by black. And under no circumstances can you run a LCD monitor at any resolution higher than its native resolution.
And for the record, I've got a laptop that can do 1600x1200 on a 15 inch screen. Quite nice, if a little hard to read outside of a game.
-
Exact factors of or things close to the native resolution will look fine. So on a 1280x1024 LCD, things like 1280x960, 1152x864 or 640x480 will look okay, but for most resolutions you will have to either have a sizeable black border around the image or the muddy, off-color look of scaled images.
I have an LCD screen that does 1400x1050 that's 14.1" large.
That's what I have too and I hate it. I can't understand the logic behind such laptop screens. The text size drives a lot of people nuts and nobody's going to be playing games at that resolution with the crippled 64-bit Radeon 9000 used in the computer.
-
You have a Radeon 9000? :eek:
I have an 8MB S3 Sirge.
-
wow, that thing is pretty ancient, like '96 or something. I didn't know they still used those. (I suppose you meant virge)
But does it overheat after about 10 minutes in any 3D accelerated game and cause the processor to throttle? Mine does. :p
-
3D Accelerated game?
IIRC it was hard-pressed to manage a 2D accelerated game @ 1400x1050 :p
-
For the record, when running an LCD at a resolution lower than its native resolution, you generally have 2 (or 3 if the LCD is a widescreen) options.
The first is to display the image where one LCD pixel equals one pixel being sent from the computer. So if you have a 1280x1024 native LCD, and you view a 640x480 pixel image at 100% zoom, the actual size of that image in inches or cm will be identical to the size the display would be if you ran it at 640x480 without it being stretched to fill the screen.
The second option is to have the LCD automatically stretch any undersized picture to fill the screen. This will look about as good (or as bad, depending on how picky you are) as taking a 640x480 image in Photoshop and resizing it to 1280x1024. Pixels are generated out of thin air (interpolated from existing pixels, actually), and the result often looks blurry and indistinct. Unacceptable on the desktop, but usually quite bearable in gaming.
The third option, which is generally only relevant for widescreen displays, maintains the aspect ratio of the image while stretching it to the first edges of the screen it encounters. So instead of a 4:3 ratio image being shown stretched to the sides when full-screen on a 16:10 ratio monitor, it'll be shown as 4:3, with black bars running on the sides to "fill" up the rest of the space.
-
thanks guys.... i may just stick to my 17" CRT monitor... till i have money to get either a 17 or 19" LCD or CRT
-
i've got a 19" Viewsonic CRT for sale for cheap, ZmaN. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The third option, which is generally only relevant for widescreen displays, maintains the aspect ratio of the image while stretching it to the first edges of the screen it encounters. So instead of a 4:3 ratio image being shown stretched to the sides when full-screen on a 16:10 ratio monitor, it'll be shown as 4:3, with black bars running on the sides to "fill" up the rest of the space.
Or 17" LCDs, as they're 5:4. Also, I'd suggest having your video card scale it, not your monitor.
-
Does that make a difference? I thought it gives you more options but the actual scaling looks about the same. Unfortunately the ATI driver on my laptop (some OEM thing, not catalyst) doesn't seem to support it. The standard nvidia drivers on my desktop do but I don't need it on the CRT.
-
I've got a Mobility X700 powering a 15.4" widescreen at 1200x800 res. Half-Life 2 in glorious native widescreen :D
When buying this laptop I made sure the graphics would be powerful enough for native res.
-
LCD question for you all. I just bought a Samsung 173P Plus (+) and its a fantastic screen so far. My only question is should I run it with DVI or VGA?
I have noticed a few oddities so far...some videos seem to show some minor colorbanding (perhaps the videos errors just come out clearer on this?) and some games seem to blur a bit even when others seem to be just fine...
-
DVI should be best in theory...
-
DVI will be at least as good as VGA. If that monitor has a DVI connection you might as well use it.
The color banding appears slightly on most LCDs, even 8-bit ones. It's only the 10-bit professional ones that get rid of it altogether.
When buying this laptop I made sure the graphics would be powerful enough for native res.
I wanted at least a mobility 9600 for mine (was one of the better cards about 18 months ago). I didn't actually buy mine but got it at a competition, so I didn't get to choose the specs. The other specs were very good for the time but the video card was low end. Then again, the image quality on this laptop screen is absolute trash compared to my main computer's monitor, so I'm not sure I would want to play games on it even if I could. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Does that make a difference? I thought it gives you more options but the actual scaling looks about the same. Unfortunately the ATI driver on my laptop (some OEM thing, not catalyst) doesn't seem to support it. The standard nvidia drivers on my desktop do but I don't need it on the CRT.
It depends on the algorithms used. I know the nVidia's resizing looks better than my BenQ monitor's.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
I have noticed a few oddities so far...some videos seem to show some minor colorbanding (perhaps the videos errors just come out clearer on this?) and some games seem to blur a bit even when others seem to be just fine...
Yeah... when I upgraded to an LCD, all my... erm... perfectly legally downloaded 175Mb Enterprise episodes, which were quite watchable on the 17" CRT, are now painful to look at. Same with most of my (completely legal... :nervous: ) DivX/Xvid movies that are only 1 CD, not 2.
Try a few DVDs. If you still see colorbanding, it's the monitor's crap 6 or 8-bit image processor. If DVDs look fine, breathe a sigh of relief, and go... purchase some higher-quality, 2-CD movies. :D