Flat Panel Monitor Question
Kirk Is
CT1810, http://www.addonreview.com/cornea-c+1810-18in-tft-lcd.html ) I'm
pretty happy with it so far...one thing blew me away about it though, and
I'm not sure if it's the monitor or the videocard of my new system.
Before, whenever I saw a flat panel monitor try to do a screen resolution
less than the # of pixels, the result was either taking only a fraction of
the available space, or horribly pixelated...this monitor is different, it
handles the other resolutions very smoothly, maybe slighty fuzzy but not
bad at all.
So what's going on? I'm assuming the number of actual pixels used is
fixed, since it's a TFT, not a CRT, and that it's using clever
filtering/anti-aliasing to do the display. My friend and wife thinks it's
the video card, which I guess would mean its stretching the 800 pixel
image in to 1260) I would've guessed it's the monitor itself. Any one
know for certain?
--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"Sorry Rob. I don't think 'Being a Dork' qualifies as being a performance
piece. And bringing in your laundry hoping someone will do it for you is
not a multimedia installation."
Lalbert1
<kirk...@alienbill.com> writes:
>Before, whenever I saw a flat panel monitor try to do a screen resolution
>less than the # of pixels, the result was either taking only a fraction of
>the available space, or horribly pixelated...this monitor is different, it
>handles the other resolutions very smoothly, maybe slighty fuzzy but not
>bad at all.
>
>So what's going on? I'm assuming the number of actual pixels used is
>fixed, since it's a TFT, not a CRT, and that it's using clever
>filtering/anti-aliasing to do the display. My friend and wife thinks it's
>the video card, which I guess would mean its stretching the 800 pixel
>image in to 1260) I would've guessed it's the monitor itself. Any one
>know for certain?
Go to http://www.atip.or.jp/fpd/src/tutorial/fpd.html
Buried in this website discussion of flat panel technology is something called
"spatial dithering". It's probably why your new display screen shows full but
slightly fuzzy images.
Les
(Some of my best friends are spatial ditherers)
Greg Goss
>Before, whenever I saw a flat panel monitor try to do a screen resolution
>less than the # of pixels, the result was either taking only a fraction of
>the available space, or horribly pixelated...this monitor is different, it
>handles the other resolutions very smoothly, maybe slighty fuzzy but not
>bad at all.
My recent dell laptop is the same. The sub-1400 resolutions are good,
just not as fine a resolution as the "real" one. My previous laptops
were horrible in resolutions below the one they were designed for.
--
"If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" (Jim Hightower)
Greg Goss
>Go to http://www.atip.or.jp/fpd/src/tutorial/fpd.html
>
>Buried in this website discussion of flat panel technology is something called
>"spatial dithering". It's probably why your new display screen shows full but
>slightly fuzzy images.
He calls the technique "spatial dithering", but what he describes is
really dithering in time. My old EGA Wonder video card would do that
when showing gray scale on a herc monitor.
Of course they could be combining both kinds of dithering, using an
intermediate shade for the "spare" intermediate pixels.
Perry Farmer
"Kirk Is" <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote in message
news:0_tD8.256$641....@news.tufts.edu...
> So I just got a new big flat panel monitor (kind of an odd brand, Cornea
> CT1810, http://www.addonreview.com/cornea-c+1810-18in-tft-lcd.html ) I'm
> pretty happy with it so far...one thing blew me away about it though, and
> I'm not sure if it's the monitor or the videocard of my new system.
>
> Before, whenever I saw a flat panel monitor try to do a screen resolution
> less than the # of pixels, the result was either taking only a fraction of
> the available space, or horribly pixelated...this monitor is different, it
> handles the other resolutions very smoothly, maybe slighty fuzzy but not
> bad at all.
>
> So what's going on? I'm assuming the number of actual pixels used is
> fixed, since it's a TFT, not a CRT, and that it's using clever
> filtering/anti-aliasing to do the display. My friend and wife thinks it's
> the video card, which I guess would mean its stretching the 800 pixel
> image in to 1260) I would've guessed it's the monitor itself. Any one
> know for certain?
Crts are essentially fixed as well when it comes to landing evenly on a
pixel.
Perry
-----------== Posted via Newsgroups.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsgroups.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Ulimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Alan Hoyle
> So I just got a new big flat panel monitor (kind of an odd brand, Cornea
> CT1810, http://www.addonreview.com/cornea-c+1810-18in-tft-lcd.html ) I'm
> pretty happy with it so far...one thing blew me away about it though, and
> I'm not sure if it's the monitor or the videocard of my new system.
> Before, whenever I saw a flat panel monitor try to do a screen resolution
> less than the # of pixels, the result was either taking only a fraction of
> the available space, or horribly pixelated...this monitor is different, it
> handles the other resolutions very smoothly, maybe slighty fuzzy but not
> bad at all.
> So what's going on? I'm assuming the number of actual pixels used is
> fixed, since it's a TFT, not a CRT, and that it's using clever
> filtering/anti-aliasing to do the display. My friend and wife thinks it's
> the video card, which I guess would mean its stretching the 800 pixel
> image in to 1260) I would've guessed it's the monitor itself. Any one
> know for certain?
It's almost certainly all within the monitor. If you look in the
manual, you can probably find a setting somewhere in the monitor setup
to stop it from doing this. LCD monitors (or indeed any monitor with
fixed geometry pixels) look best when running at their native
resolution or even division thereof. E.g. my new laptop runs at
1600x1200 natively and 800x600 looks fairly sharp as well. 1024x768
looks OK, but there are fuzzies and blurs. Low resolutions like
640x480 often look quite blocky. Sub-pixel font rendering (e.g
ClearType on WinXP, see http://grc.com/cleartype.htm) only works well
at the native 1600x1200 resolution.
Laptops often have a BIOS setting which affects the video card to
change whether it tries to stretch lower resolutions or show them in a
smaller part of the screen. Desktops don't have this setting normally.
-alan
--
Alan Hoyle - al...@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate: Ring of Fire - Spear
Paul Guertin
> Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
>
> >this monitor is different, it handles the other resolutions very
> >smoothly, maybe slighty fuzzy but not bad at all.
>
> My recent dell laptop is the same. The sub-1400 resolutions are good,
> just not as fine a resolution as the "real" one. My previous laptops
> were horrible in resolutions below the one they were designed for.
Does this dithering magic also work in text modes? Say, 80x25 and 80x50
characters? That's one thing I found disappointing on my laptop -- the
lack of a readable text mode that would use the whole screen area.
Paul Guertin
p...@sff.net
Kirk Is
>> Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
>>
>> >this monitor is different, it handles the other resolutions very
>> >smoothly, maybe slighty fuzzy but not bad at all.
> Does this dithering magic also work in text modes? Say, 80x25 and 80x50
> characters? That's one thing I found disappointing on my laptop -- the
> lack of a readable text mode that would use the whole screen area.
Huh...actually it's failing to go into text mode at all.
Odd, that.
--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
Cultivate the Switzerland of your soul and remain delightfully detached.
--Janeane Garofalo
Greg Goss
>Greg Goss <go...@mindlink.com> wrote:
>> My recent dell laptop is the same. The sub-1400 resolutions are good,
>> just not as fine a resolution as the "real" one. My previous laptops
>> were horrible in resolutions below the one they were designed for.
>
>Does this dithering magic also work in text modes? Say, 80x25 and 80x50
>characters? That's one thing I found disappointing on my laptop -- the
>lack of a readable text mode that would use the whole screen area.
I use my 1988 NC 2.0 all the time in fullscreen 80x25. The font no
longer does the corners right, but the display is perfect. I just
went and tried it as 43 and 50 lines and it is still good.