Talk:Native resolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

how native resolution affects text[edit]

It would be useful to include a description/picture of how text is affected. i.e. in certain cases, running an LCD at non-native resolutions causes full text lines to be fuzzy/blurry at regular intervals. This is particularly visible at when running 1024*768 on a 1280*1024 flat screen.

text as displayed as 800x600 on a native 1024x768 LCD

--MOAltmann 15:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

terminology[edit]

when referring to LCD or TFT we are referring to a technology rather than the general idea of a flat screen. am i pedantic?

--MOAltmann 15:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

looking at Wikipedia entry for LCDs, above comment is incorrect as LCD is the most general term.

Add section about CRTs?[edit]

I'm still trying to understand why CRTs work much better. They too have native resolution in the end -- that of the shadow mask (not sure about AG). If someone knows the answer, adding it to the article will be useful. 88.155.54.167 16:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

CRTs do have a 'native resolution' of sorts which is the density of the RGB triads on the screen. However, a CRT is inherently analog so it can display a single line of logical pixels over a fractional number of RGB triad lines. LCDs are not able to do this because they are strictly digital. That same line of logical pixels has to be represented with a whole number of physical pixels on the LCD panel. LCDs compensate for this by using anti-aliasing algorithms, which make the image look better than it would otherwise, but nevertheless blurrier than a CRT of equal 'dot density'. That's the main difference between a CRT and an LCD, and why CRTs look usually better at multiple resolutions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.194.139.219 (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Any Pixel Perfect Software Res Changer?[edit]

Is there a software resolution changer that enables changing to different aspect ratio (from 5:4 to 4:3) without interpolation, or in other words doing it pixel perfect? I think the effect would be like opening a window the size of 1024x768 in a 1280x1024 display then render everything except the window black. If there is, it'd be great. I just got myself a native 5:4 lcd but wanted to have it on 4:3 without the ugly interpolation effect. I don't mind losing some viewing area for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.36.79 (talkcontribs)

I suppose that PowerStrip for Microsoft Windows should be able to do this. DisplayConfigX for Mac OS X is able to show pixel perfect 1024x768on a 1366 x 768 display.
There is however an "Articles for deletion" discussion going on about the article on DisplayConfigX. If you feel that Wikipedia should cover individual software products, go cast your vote in favour of keeping the article. -- Petri Krohn 14:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Filter and simulation[edit]

From what I’ve seen so far, the interpolation filter used by LCDs is the box filter. The reason for this is, in all probability, the simplicity of that filter—“one of the poorest filters […] The only thing poorer is no reconstruction at all”, to quote Alvy Ray Smith.

On a monitor at its native resolution, or a CRT, the interpolated look of a particular resolution (almost always lower than the native one) can be simulated by scaling the image to the quotient of the native and the non-native resolution. For example, to simulate the look of 1024×768 resolution on a monitor with a native resolution of 1280×1024 (my current configuration), do the following:

pngtopnm source.png | pamscale -xscale 1.25 -yscale 1.33333 -filter box | pnmtopng > target.png

--Shlomi Tal 11:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolution HIGHER than native?[edit]

My Dell Latitude D610 came with 1400x1050 native resolution, but my resolution slider (on WinXP, Radeon X300 Mobile) SOMETIMES allows to change it to drastically higher resolutions (e.g. 2800x1050 or 2400x1900 or something like that). It doesn't seem to work, though. Bug or feature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.128.209.169 (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

through graphics drivers[edit]

"Some widescreen LCD monitors optionally display lower resolutions without scaling or stretching an image, so that the image will always be in full sharpness, although it will not occupy the full screen." are you sure this is a lcd monitor feature, and not a driver feature? Twipley (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The LCD monitor I'm using now supports this; it's configurable in-monitor, and works with DOS. There's probably also drivers that support this feature, though. ― Darekun (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

health issues[edit]

i've heard for some people there are certain symptoms for looking at a non-native resolution, like potential headaches, eye strain, dizziness, etc. needs referencing, though. Twipley (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment about scaling via DVI cable[edit]

In the article there is one comment: "In case of DVI connection, the scaling is provided by video adapter, not monitor."

Are there any references for the above comment? It would take a very exotic display driver software to configure the video adapter this way, plus there would be no point doing the scaling in video adapter anyway, as native resolution can be selected directly.

So it is still the display that scales the image to native resolution of LCD panel, video adapter just sends out whatever resolution the user selects. Hopefully user selects the native resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.27.229 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The illustration[edit]

I have a request for a new photo to illustrate the article.

1. A side-by-side would be more useful, showing non-native next to native resolution of the same bit of text on the screen. (I do think text is the best subject.)

2. The moire pattern is pretty gnarly in the current illustration.

I had considered just stretching an image in Photoshop and adding "simulated" to the caption, but this verges on OR because it doesn't accurately portray the screen artifacts and the exact nature of the problem. Tempshill (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

interpolation causes quality loss?[edit]

"LCD monitor has to rely on interpolation (scaling of the image), which causes a loss of image quality"

article on interpolation does not even contain word quality. Properly done interpolation do not affect quality on same display size. Lcd monitors do poor interpolation without recalculating every pixel, trimming some pixels, and that is quality loss source, not interpolation issue! Imagine that you have 1024x768 resolution image and you need it to scale into 1200x900. What "human" would do it to aply to whole 1024x768 new "grid" 1200x900 thus making completly new pixels that are result of trimming and merging previous one. Of course computer can't really just "aply new grid". It has to calculate new pixels using some alghoritm. I belive that are many algorithms for that out there like lanczos, bicubic, mitchell. Unfortunetly nor lcd monitors nor graphic cards does not provide possibility for such calculations. Also imagine displaing move with resolution 768x576 on fullscreen 1024x768 (possibly with black bars). How is that so that move can be displayed full screen without significant quality loss? You can even dynamicly resize move player window and resize movie to fit some size of desktop resolution. Thats because there are interpolation alghoritms in use in media player aplications while there still lacking in lcd monitors and graphics cards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.61.115 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)