Native Resolution?

[chaikovski2002]

So hang on lemme get this straight, every LCD has a native resolution, so what if some games dont support that native resolution, what is the sacrifice of not running display in native resolutions during games? image quality? does it damage the LCD?

 

[dabomb]

So hang on lemme get this straight, every LCD has a native resolution, so what if some games dont support that native resolution, what is the sacrifice of not running display in native resolutions during games? image quality? does it damage the LCD?

Image quality, native resolution = razer sharp image. All lower resolutions still work just like any other monitor, however you cannot go higher than native. When running non native the image will be slightly blurry comparitively, kind of like an average quality crt. During games its not really noticable, until you play at native and are amazed at the razor sharp image

No it does not damage the lcd, we bought 120 19" dell 1901fps at my job, maybe 1 or 2 people run at native 1280x1024, the rest at lower non native resolutions because everything is "too small".

 

[Synful Serenity]

If your native resolution is 1600 x 1200, everything will be just perfect at that resolution. But what if you want to display 1280 x 1024? CRTs would just change the operating frequency, the pixels will appear a little bigger, and you're done. But on LCDs, there is no multiscan, no pixel resizing, nothing. You're stuck with that physical 1600 x 1200. What you're trying to do is fit 1280 x 1024 pixels onto 1600 x 1200 pixels. Your first option is to use 1280 x 1024 *actual* pixels, which would leave a border since you would not be using the full 1600 x 1200. Instead the amount of pixels not used would be (1600-1280) x (1200-1024) = 320 x 176 pixels. Centered on the screen, you'd have a border of 88 rows top and bottom, and 180 columns on each side. So everything will look smaller. But what's the fun in that? We want to use the full screen, don't we? In order to stretch the image out to fill the screen, those pixels would have to be bigger. But they cannot change, we are always at 1600 x 1200 pixels. This is where the problem in displaying non-native resolution occurs.

Let's assume we have a screen 16 inches wide. Each pixel would be 16 divided by 1600 inches wide, or 1/100th of an inch. Yes, I know there are things to worry about like dot pitch, space between pixels, etc., but I'm just simplifying things for an example. Since the screen would be 12 inches vertically to maintain the correct 4:3 ratio, each pixel would be 12 divided by 1200 inches high, which is also 1/100th of an inch (pixels are square remember!) This can't change. But 1280 pixels would have to fit into an area 16 divided by 1280 inches wide, leaving each pixel a width of 1.25/100th inches! Thats too big to fit in a space 1/100th inches wide, but the only larger option is to use 2 screen pixels, which are 2/100th inches wide. See the problem? They just don't match up! The pixel 1.25/100th inches wide would have to terminate somewhere between the 1st and 2nd pixel, and you cannot split pixels. The same problem happens on the vertical also.

The only way around it is complicated interpolation algorithms, and scaling issues show up because you are forced to use pixels that don't match up evenly to approximate . Some LCDs do a better job at it than others. The usual symptom is "softness" because neighboring pixels are forced to dither in varying patterns around an onscreen image which leaves borders not as clearly defined so you don't have a jagged mess.

But as long as you have the hardware to always run in 1600 x 1200, then this shouldn't be a problem. It's really only an issue if you have older games that can't run that high, or if your computer is too slow to run current games as 1600 x 1200.

 

[chaikovski2002]

I have vp171b and the native resolution is 1280x1024

 

[Giturar]

question then, if i get a moniter that runs natively at 1280x1024, and a certain game runs 1280x960, then would I get stretched/distorted/blurred images, or a sort of letterbox along the sides of the screen?

 

[dabomb]

question then, if i get a moniter that runs natively at 1280x1024, and a certain game runs 1280x960, then would I get stretched/distorted/blurred images, or a sort of letterbox along the sides of the screen?

What the hell kinda game runs 1280x960 but not 1280x1024

Anyway it would stretch it to fit, the stretching would not be noticeable at all probably, but the picture would lose a bit of sharpness due to running at a non native resolution.

 

[7th Angel]

I have vp171b and the native resolution is 1280x1024

Sorry for asking a dumb question, but I need to know BEFORE I make a mistake.

Is running 1280x1024 on a 17" LCD going to give me the same *microscopic* size lettering I get when I try to run my 17" CRT at that resolution? Normally I run at 1024x768, and at my age, anything smaller gives me a headache...

Thanks!

Doug aka 7th Angel

 

[Synful Serenity]

Well since the the average 17-inch crt is really only 16" viewable, the 17-inch LCD is a full 17" so yes, it should appear a bit larger. How large enough it is to not be microscopic to you is a matter of your own personal preference, so I suggest you go down to the nearest Circuit City, Best Buy, etc. and check out a 17-inch LCD there at 1280 x 1024, preferably the model you are thinking to buy, and see how it looks. You could always increase the text size in Windows if it's too small also. There may or may not be some scaling issues involved with that, but again, try it out for yourself to see how it looks.

 

[Surly]

Sorry for asking a dumb question, but I need to know BEFORE I make a mistake.

Is running 1280x1024 on a 17" LCD going to give me the same *microscopic* size lettering I get when I try to run my 17" CRT at that resolution? Normally I run at 1024x768, and at my age, anything smaller gives me a headache...

Thanks!

Doug aka 7th Angel

A 17" LCD @ 1280x1024 will definitely display on screen text larger than a 17" CRT at the same resolution. If thats too small you could jump up to a 19" LCD which still has the 1280x1024 resolution but is larger yet.

 

[tim_m]

btw, i have a viewsonic vp201mb and i run it at 1024x768, 1600x1200 is just too damn small for me, and i noticed a significant difference in quality between using the vga input (which i had to use before i got my ti 4200) and the dvi input. so basically if your vid card has dvi, be sure to use it.