mdocod
Flashaholic
DB post
Last edited:
I could, but if I make stuff bigger to compensate for the higher resolution, then what's the point of setting it to 1920x1080 at first place?
Some of you people accusing the others have having visual problems are being jerks - plain and simple. I don't wear glasses and have great vision, but....
I do a lot of computer upgrade from a corporate perspective, and not everybody gets nice, high contrast, state of the art +20inch native display when they retire their 19" CRT running at 1024x768 or even lower. This is especially stressful on older employees who now get to squint at the microscopic fonts on some cheesy 1400x whatever display.
You can screw around with ClearType, DPI and other tricks. You simply can't run a LCD at resolutions other than native without it having problems. I do what I can, including changing default colors in MS Office and such which defaults to that stupid aqua-velva scheme and drives people nuts.
I would say 60% of computer users older than 40 who are swapping out a large CRT don't like the transition to an LCD, unless the LCD is frikken huge. Typically the guys in the corner offices with the big budgets get themselves the big 21-24" displays while 'Maggy' the staff assistant has to suffer with the $99 special. Best incident I saw was this past winter where a sales mgr in is 50's and with mediocre vision was 'upgraded' to a budget LCD with typical nano-size fonts while he was on a road trip. When he got back he stormed over to the help desk which just got a couple nice new 24" iMacs, and that didn't help. "Either get me a damn monitor I can read without a telescope, or I will be taking yours". Glad I was on the network team.
The OP does have a valid issue because I've seen the complaints it causes many, many times.
Translation........ :toilet:y picture.Every pixel is used when running at a lower resolution that has been stretched, but the effective resolution becomes even lower than the selected resolution because several pixels are blended to produce the effect of the changed resolution.
Eric
Hi orbital,
LCD screens have a fixed number of pixels. It's not something that can be changed. CRTs could operate at a wide range of resolutions and frequencies. The same does not apply to LCDs.
When the GPU is set to run at 1425x825 on a monitor with a native resolution of 1920x1080, One of 2 things must happen:
1. The lower resolution must be letterboxed, (black around the used region, 495 pixels narrower, 255 pixels shorter).
or
2. The image must be stretched to fill the screen. When this happens, ~1.75 pixels of the LCD must be used for every 1 pixel being sent to the monitor. Since a pixel can not be broken up into fractions, the screen manipulates (blurs) the picture to compensate for the differential without causing very strange looking pixelated blockyness.
Every pixel is used when running at a lower resolution that has been stretched, but the effective resolution becomes even lower than the selected resolution because several pixels are blended to produce the effect of the changed resolution.
Eric
I believe you meant 960x540.If you ran your monitor at 920x540 then you wouldn't see distortions to the image because there aren't any. You'd just (linearly) doubled the size of everything and it now lines up perfectly with the pixels in your monitor again.
Ah thanks, typos!I believe you meant 960x540.
Although I've never tried this, I have to believe that you'll lose saturation.