OT: 17" LCD Monitors

Anyone noticed that all current models have a native resolution of 1280x1024 which isn't a proper 4:3 resolution? Why don't they use 1280x960? My GeForce 4 doesn't seem to support 1280x1024 in any of the games I play. How well do these monitors scale when not using the native resolution?

You don't wanna know. Rather, you don't wanna look at it. What looks acceptable @ the native rez. looks like a bad newspaper photo @ any other rez. "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdmc4u$t340t$[email hidden]... > Anyone noticed that all current models have a native resolution of1280x1024 > which isn't a proper 4:3 resolution? Why don't they use 1280x960? My > GeForce 4 doesn't seem to support 1280x1024 in any of the games I play.How > well do these monitors scale when not using the native resolution? > >

I run _everything_ in 1280X1024. Desktop, games, everything on my 22" Mitsubishi 2060U. 1280X960 is an absolutely goofy resolution. To me at least :) I have a GeForce 4 Ti4400. -Larry "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdmc4u$t340t$[email hidden]... > Anyone noticed that all current models have a native resolution of1280x1024 > which isn't a proper 4:3 resolution? Why don't they use 1280x960? My > GeForce 4 doesn't seem to support 1280x1024 in any of the games I play.How > well do these monitors scale when not using the native resolution? > >

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:16:59 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I run _everything_ in 1280X1024. Desktop, games, everything on my 22" >Mitsubishi 2060U. > >1280X960 is an absolutely goofy resolution. To me at least :) >It is actually 1280x1024 that is "goofy" as it breaks the 4:3 aspect ratio that is common to the other popular modes, e.g. 640x480, 1024x768, 1600x1200. Some games are built around the 4:3 ratio, and running at 1280x1024 can look downright wierd. Andrew.

Interesting... Never had a problem here. 1280X960 tends to be a _widescreen_ resolution as far as I can tell. That's why all the widescreen LCD's on the market, from Sony to Apple to ... use that as their native resolution. I believe GPL runs in a widescreen mode now that I think about it. Ah, well. As a desktop resolution, 1280X960 would never work on a standard display :) -Larry <aep@nospam writeme.com> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:16:59 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I run _everything_ in 1280X1024. Desktop, games, everything on my 22" > >Mitsubishi 2060U. > > > >1280X960 is an absolutely goofy resolution. To me at least :) > > > It is actually 1280x1024 that is "goofy" as it breaks the 4:3 aspect > ratio that is common to the other popular modes, e.g. 640x480, > 1024x768, 1600x1200. > > Some games are built around the 4:3 ratio, and running at 1280x1024 > can look downright wierd. > > Andrew.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:48:13 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Interesting... Never had a problem here. > >1280X960 tends to be a _widescreen_ resolution as far as I can tell. That's >why all the widescreen LCD's on the market, from Sony to Apple to ... use >that as their native resolution. >AFAIK, widescreen is 16:9 ratio, rather than the standard TV ration of 4:3. >I believe GPL runs in a widescreen mode now that I think about it. > >Ah, well. As a desktop resolution, 1280X960 would never work on a standard >display :) >The only proper reason to use 1280x1024 would be if you have a LCD monitor that has that as a native resolution. The aspect ratio is just plain wrong. Andrew.

It completely depends on how well the interpolation mode works on your particular LCD. On some, it's not bad. On some, it's positively horrible. Anything other than the native resolution of an LCD is going to have _some_ degredation of image quality. There's just no way around it. How much depends on the display. -Larry "Peter Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:46:42 +0100, aep@nospam writeme.com wrote: > > > >Some games are built around the 4:3 ratio, and running at 1280x1024 > >can look downright wierd. > > > >Andrew. > > 1280x1024 is 4:3 on an LCD because LCD's use rectangular pixel > elements and not square. No game looks weird using 1280x1024 on an > LCD. And I use 1024x768 for all my 3D games and they don't look like > "bad newspaper" as someone else said, 800x600 and lower does look bad > though.

> Ah, well. As a desktop resolution, 1280X960 would never work on astandard > display :) > > -Larry > Always worked perfectly for me on a standard display Larry. why do you think it 'would never work'? 1280x960 is the logical size as its 4:3 like 680x480, 800x600 and 1024x768. Iain -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

It has never looked right to me :) I'll take another look. I'm not against change :) -Larry "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Ah, well. As a desktop resolution, 1280X960 would never work on a > standard > > display :) > > > > -Larry > > > > Always worked perfectly for me on a standard display Larry. why do you

think > it 'would never work'? > > 1280x960 is the logical size as its 4:3 like 680x480, 800x600 and1024x768.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Iain > > > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Thanks for all the replies....If the pixels are rectangular then I could live with it - as long as circles look like circles when I'm using CAD. The fact remains that my GF4 doesn't support 1280x1024 in most games - Papy games being the exception. Think I'll stick to the CRTs for at least one more generation

Peter Parker wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:46:42 +0100, aep@nospam writeme.com wrote: > > > >>Some games are built around the 4:3 ratio, and running at 1280x1024 >>can look downright wierd. >> >>Andrew. > > > 1280x1024 is 4:3 on an LCD because LCD's use rectangular pixel > elements and not square. No game looks weird using 1280x1024 on an > LCD. And I use 1024x768 for all my 3D games and they don't look like > "bad newspaper" as someone else said, 800x600 and lower does look bad > though.

Agreed. I have one of these LCDs myself, and I've just spent all weekend at a LAN party playing in 1280x1024. So I can assure everyone that all the games I've tried looked just fine. Gerry

Interesting Gerry. Did you try any FPS? Do the racing sims look good? I only ask because about a year ago when I was looking into changing to a TFT, the colour saturation was poor in games, and there was an obvious 'ghosting' on fast moving images. Have things improved to the extent that they are as good as CRTs now? The Hitachi TFT with very fast response times looks good on paper. What do you think? Iain "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> Peter Parker wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:46:42 +0100, aep@nospam writeme.com wrote: > > > > > > > >>Some games are built around the 4:3 ratio, and running at 1280x1024 > >>can look downright wierd. > >> > >>Andrew. > > > > > > 1280x1024 is 4:3 on an LCD because LCD's use rectangular pixel > > elements and not square. No game looks weird using 1280x1024 on an > > LCD. And I use 1024x768 for all my 3D games and they don't look like > > "bad newspaper" as someone else said, 800x600 and lower does look bad > > though. > > Agreed. I have one of these LCDs myself, and I've just spent all weekend > at a LAN party playing in 1280x1024. So I can assure everyone that all > the games I've tried looked just fine. > > Gerry >

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

i held off until this year for a CRT to TFT change and i had the same reservations but they were unfounded. I chose the best i could afford and havent regretted it for a second. I still have my 19" CRT on PC 2 in the home lan and i cant get used to the screen curving away from me...lol Your delaying is at your loss :) AD

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdohgn$urqan$[email hidden]... > Thanks for all the replies....If the pixels are rectangular then I could > live with it - as long as circles look like circles when I'm using CAD. For geometry fidelity an LCD is always superior to CRT. > The > fact remains that my GF4 doesn't support 1280x1024 in most games - Papy > games being the exception. Think I'll stick to the CRTs for at least one > more generation Like I said, games look fine in 1024x768 here. But for some games that used a fixed res (cheap bastards) like 800x600 and lower a CRT is definitely better.

"Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bdpls8$ft7$[email hidden]... > I still have my 19" CRT on PC 2 in the home lan and i cant get used to the > screen curving away from me...lol If you had bought something like an NEC FE series CRT you wouldn't have that problem. :-) My father bought a Samsung Dynaflat and all it was is a piece of flat glass in front of a curved tube. Talk about misleading wording. Flat it is not.

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... >Have things improved to the extent that they are as > good as CRTs now? It's about trade offs. In some ways the LCD is superior, like no geometry distortion and sharper text, in other ways the CRT is superior, like better gradation of tones (black to gray) and looks good at any res. You makes your choices and live with it.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:28:19 -0700, Peter Parker <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:46:42 +0100, aep@nospam writeme.com wrote: > > >>Some games are built around the 4:3 ratio, and running at 1280x1024 >>can look downright wierd. >> >>Andrew. > >1280x1024 is 4:3 on an LCD because LCD's use rectangular pixel >elements and not square.

??? You mean that the pixels ARE square and the display actually is 5:4, surely? Most LCD:s I've seen w/1280x1024 is 1.25:1(i.e. 5:4). Divide the viewable width by height and see... 1280x1024 doesn't look odd on an LCD if it's native res. Using 1280x1024 on an (4:3)CRT on the other hand *does* produce rectangular pixels. The image is squashed by about 7%. The correct way to use 1280x1024 on a CRT is to leave black borders on the vertical edges of the screen. >No game looks weird using 1280x1024 on an >LCD. And I use 1024x768 for all my 3D games and they don't look like >"bad newspaper" as someone else said, 800x600 and lower does look bad >though. Depends on the monitor. I personally prefer cropped picture in (slightly)lower resolutions rather than interpolated.

Iain Mackenzie wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Interesting Gerry. Did you try any FPS? Do the racing sims look good? I > only ask because about a year ago when I was looking into changing to a TFT, > the colour saturation was poor in games, and there was an obvious 'ghosting' > on fast moving images. Have things improved to the extent that they are as > good as CRTs now? The Hitachi TFT with very fast response times looks good > on paper. > What do you think?

I bought a cheap proview 17", not intending to us it with games, it even has a response time of 50ms! But, after trying it out at a LAN party, I've found it runs games no problem! The other guys at the LAN party were dubious, but after they tried it they were forced to agree that even a cheap LCD with a slow response time is fine for games, yes even FPS. :) Racing sims look good, with a slight motion blur effect towards the edges where the track side objects are speeding past. The colour fine also, but, it has to be said, not quite as rich as a CRT. Gerry