mdocod
Flashaholic
DB post
Last edited:
Fancy new 1080HD LCD monitors, really?
- Thread starter jzmtl
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
mdocod
Flashaholic
LCDs only run natively in 1 resolution. When you set the output of your GPU to another resolution, it manipulates the lower resolution through a sort of fast and dirty interpolation of sorts to simulate what the alternative resolution would look like. The result is a blurred imagine to make up for the fact that the pixels flying down the pipe from the GPU are not going to line up with the physical pixels of the LCD.
Turn up font sizes and/or zoom in on web-pages until it's large enough. Pretty much every place that there is text on a computer can be adjusted through settings.
More font size + high resolution = easiest to read.
Eric
PS: I'm using a 21.5" 1920x1080 also.
Colorblinded
Enlightened
Increasing font sizes will also look better than running a lower than native resolution on an LCD monitor as well.
blasterman
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,802
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.
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.
Colorblinded
Enlightened
Put simply I think for many of the "wiser" members of the community increasing font & display size is the best thing to do. In fact it can solve the problem in most cases because things have improved with the latest operating systems as far as handling the scaling of fonts. Unfortunately nobody seems to think to do that when handing these poor folks new high density monitors and the settings are hard enough for average joe to find in Windows, OSX or say Ubuntu that someone needs to help them out.
+
Please explain what problems one might have if not running native?
I have a widescreen 1920x1080 native, and run 1425x825 for general use, without any issues.
There is zero distortion at this resolution, and stuff isn't silly small.
Last I checked, all my pixels were still On
mdocod
Flashaholic
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
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
Lite_me
Flashlight Enthusiast
Translation........ :toilet:y picture.
StarHalo
Flashaholic
LotusDarkrose
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 74
I love my Viewsonic 24" lcd monitor. Got it for 150 bucks beginning of this year. I have my desktop set at 1280x800 for normal use, but I pretty much always game at 1920x1080. Definitely better than my old lcd that maxed out at 1440x900. (I use an ATI HD 5770 1gb pci-e card btw)
And you havent lived until you've played a gameboy advance emulator on a 46"+ hdtv, lmfao.
And you havent lived until you've played a gameboy advance emulator on a 46"+ hdtv, lmfao.
+
Hi Eric, thanks for your reply
The 1425x825 does not show any stretched image, guess I have an issue w/ anything stretched.
Forced myself to learn custom resolutions to eliminate this, spent many 'o hours finding what works best for me
guess this is key regarding said thread.
also, there is no blurr in my text using ClearType.
For other applications, of course I'm using full 19x10...:thumbsup:
Colorblinded
Enlightened
Sadly running 1425x825 on a 1920x1080 monitor isn't a question of whether you are degrading image quality. Fortunately for you though you might not be noticing it!
I don't know what additional features cleartype has but perhaps it tries to optimize text quality when run at lower than an LCD monitor's design resolution.
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.
I don't know what additional features cleartype has but perhaps it tries to optimize text quality when run at lower than an LCD monitor's design resolution.
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.
Lite_me
Flashlight Enthusiast
I believe you meant 960x540.
Although I've never tried this, I have to believe that you'll lose saturation.
................................
I don't know how many times it's been said in this thread but again, running an LCD at anything other than at it's native resolution, image quality will suffer. If it's easier for someone to just lower the resolution to make the fonts bigger and easier to read, as opposed to adjusting Windows and program settings, then I guess that's ok, for them. Just be aware that things will not look as good as they could. An example would be like zooming in on a jpg. Things begin to get blurry and edges get jagged. It's actually for different reasons but it makes a good example.
Colorblinded
Enlightened
Ah thanks, typos!
