I have a 15.4 inch laptop and i just changed my lcd due to a dead pixel and i must set my maximum reso which is 1680X1050 or else my stuff appear a little fuzzy. Is it good?
The higher your resolution is, the clearer your picture is. That's what high definition is. High resolution. The best resolution you can have is the highest resolution you find practical.
Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-02 02:45:23)
The best resolution is your screen's native resolution. For example, on my Samsung 21.3" screen, unless I set it to 1600x1200, it looks very much like crap.
Hardly practical then, is it?elbekko wrote:
The best resolution is your screen's native resolution. For example, on my Samsung 21.3" screen, unless I set it to 1600x1200, it looks very much like crap.
That statement takes all lcd/tft:s impractical then?mikkel wrote:
Hardly practical then, is it?elbekko wrote:
The best resolution is your screen's native resolution. For example, on my Samsung 21.3" screen, unless I set it to 1600x1200, it looks very much like crap.
E.g. on my 19" everything else than 1280x1024 looks fuzzy.
I need around tree fiddy.
LCD and TFT native resolution > CRT any resolution
imo
imo
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
He must've read it as 'if my samsung is set to 1600x1200 it looks like crap'DonFck wrote:
That statement takes all lcd/tft:s impractical then?mikkel wrote:
Hardly practical then, is it?elbekko wrote:
The best resolution is your screen's native resolution. For example, on my Samsung 21.3" screen, unless I set it to 1600x1200, it looks very much like crap.
E.g. on my 19" everything else than 1280x1024 looks fuzzy.
Otherwise, what he said doesn't make sense at all =/
That's a strange interpretation.DonFck wrote:
That statement takes all lcd/tft:s impractical then?mikkel wrote:
Hardly practical then, is it?elbekko wrote:
The best resolution is your screen's native resolution. For example, on my Samsung 21.3" screen, unless I set it to 1600x1200, it looks very much like crap.
E.g. on my 19" everything else than 1280x1024 looks fuzzy.
No, what I'm saying is the same as I was saying in my first post. The highest resolution you find to be practical is the best resolution for you. Some people don't mind LCDs running higher or lower than native resolutions, and obviously if it's practical for them, it's the best resolution for them. If you don't like running non-native resolutions, then 1280x1024 is the best resolution for you. Obviously.
What I'm getting at is that there's no "best" resolution, and that having a high resolution is just fine if that's what you find to be the best resolution for your monitor. There's a recommended resolution, but one has to assume that he read his manual and found out about that before he started asking questions on a forum.
Last edited by mikkel (2007-11-30 05:42:56)
Yes, there is a best resolution. And it's the native resolution, nothing else.
Your comment on my post did not make much sense. I was just saying that anything but my native resolution looks like crap.
Your comment on my post did not make much sense. I was just saying that anything but my native resolution looks like crap.
Well i have no idea whats with my notebook. I sent back for a dead pixel exchange and they switched and lcd for me i think and now i cant use 1280X1024 without the stuff appearing not as crystal clear as before i sent in for repair.
Native resolution means the highest resolution on an LCD screen.mikkel wrote:
That's a strange interpretation.DonFck wrote:
That statement takes all lcd/tft:s impractical then?mikkel wrote:
Hardly practical then, is it?
E.g. on my 19" everything else than 1280x1024 looks fuzzy.
No, what I'm saying is the same as I was saying in my first post. The highest resolution you find to be practical is the best resolution for you. Some people don't mind LCDs running higher or lower than native resolutions, and obviously if it's practical for them, it's the best resolution for them. If you don't like running non-native resolutions, then 1280x1024 is the best resolution for you. Obviously.
What I'm getting at is that there's no "best" resolution, and that having a high resolution is just fine if that's what you find to be the best resolution for your monitor. There's a recommended resolution, but one has to assume that he read his manual and found out about that before he started asking questions on a forum.
It's always best to have the screen at that resolution because it looks much clearer.
The word 'native' is used because other resolutions tend to make the screen blurry and unclear.
Seems like you got a better screen than your previous one. Hardly a problem.Ayumiz wrote:
Well i have no idea whats with my notebook. I sent back for a dead pixel exchange and they switched and lcd for me i think and now i cant use 1280X1024 without the stuff appearing not as crystal clear as before i sent in for repair.
Run it at the highest resolution resolution!
Increase font and icon sizes if you have trouble seeing.
Last edited by Gawwad (2007-11-30 08:40:30)
Assume the correct submission position decision ?Gawwad wrote:
Run it at the highest resolution resolution!
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
My comment made perfect sense, but you seem incapable of understanding that freedom of choice exists.elbekko wrote:
Yes, there is a best resolution. And it's the native resolution, nothing else.
Your comment on my post did not make much sense. I was just saying that anything but my native resolution looks like crap.
Again, some people prefer non-native resolutions. The "best" resolution is the resolution that the user is most comfortable with. The intended resolution is a completely different thing.Gawwad wrote:
It's always best to have the screen at that resolution because it looks much clearer.
I'm not incapable of understanding that at all, it's a fact that the native resolution will always look better. The user preferring it is an entirely different thing.
Well, user preference decides what's "best", so it's not really a different thing at all.elbekko wrote:
I'm not incapable of understanding that at all, it's a fact that the native resolution will always look better. The user preferring it is an entirely different thing.
Last edited by mikkel (2007-11-30 14:51:41)
Yes.FloppY_ wrote:
Assume the correct submission position decision ?Gawwad wrote:
Run it at the highest resolution resolution!
It's not really about preference, the native resolution is always the clearest in LCD screens.mikkel wrote:
Again, some people prefer non-native resolutions. The "best" resolution is the resolution that the user is most comfortable with. The intended resolution is a completely different thing.Gawwad wrote:
It's always best to have the screen at that resolution because it looks much clearer.
Of course you can use what ever resolution your screen supports, but the image produces is not as accurate as with the native resolution.
He means that it looks like crap on all other resolutions except 1600x1200.-101-InvaderZim wrote:
I agree 1600x1200 DOES look like crap (1680x1050 looks so much better)elbekko wrote:
The best resolution is your screen's native resolution. For example, on my Samsung 21.3" screen, unless I set it to 1600x1200, it looks very much like crap.
Last edited by Gawwad (2007-11-30 15:29:16)
I agree 1600x1200 DOES look like crap (1680x1050 looks so much better)elbekko wrote:
The best resolution is your screen's native resolution. For example, on my Samsung 21.3" screen, unless I set it to 1600x1200, it looks very much like crap.
Well, I don't think anyone really wants some rows of pixels to span over two rows, whiles others are cut in half, making waves of stretched/compressed text or graphics on the screen. LCDs can basically run good in two resolutions; Native and half native. (Half native being half the native resolution. 1280x1024 -> 640x512) Half native makes every pixel four pixels, and, in theory, should work good on the majority of monitors.mikkel wrote:
My comment made perfect sense, but you seem incapable of understanding that freedom of choice exists.elbekko wrote:
Yes, there is a best resolution. And it's the native resolution, nothing else.
Your comment on my post did not make much sense. I was just saying that anything but my native resolution looks like crap.Again, some people prefer non-native resolutions. The "best" resolution is the resolution that the user is most comfortable with. The intended resolution is a completely different thing.Gawwad wrote:
It's always best to have the screen at that resolution because it looks much clearer.
I took the time to make a picture of a couple of one pixel wide white/black stripes, aswell as a perfectly square cross, and snap a picture of that on my screen's native resolution of 1280x1024, compared to 1152x864.
1280x1024. Everything looks fine, the lines are equally wide and the cross is square.
1152x864. The monitor compensates for the lower resolution by adding a sort of low-quality anti-alashing, stretching one pixel over several physical pixels:
Both pictures were taken with the same camera, at about the same distance. The rainbow effect is unavoidable, ufortunatly.
Here's the test picture:
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
What Freezer said.
His explanation is a bit more in depth
His explanation is a bit more in depth
Yes having a large 'Resolution' is good
Yes, pretty much all said for tfts there.Gawwad wrote:
What Freezer said.
His explanation is a bit more in depth
However if one has a CRT, the biggest resolution, which both the graphic card and the monitor support, is often the best.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
In my understanding, CRT's can use a wide range of resolutions without the problems LCD's face.DeathUnlimited wrote:
Yes, pretty much all said for tfts there.Gawwad wrote:
What Freezer said.
His explanation is a bit more in depth
However if one has a CRT, the biggest resolution, which both the graphic card and the monitor support, is often the best.
No but having a larger penis is.
At a decent frequency, that isDeathUnlimited wrote:
Yes, pretty much all said for tfts there.Gawwad wrote:
What Freezer said.
His explanation is a bit more in depth
However if one has a CRT, the biggest resolution, which both the graphic card and the monitor support, is often the best.
@ Gawwad's latest: Yes, they can. They physically change the size of the pixels.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Yes. I can go anything between 640x480 and 1600x1200.Gawwad wrote:
In my understanding, CRT's can use a wide range of resolutions without the problems LCD's face.DeathUnlimited wrote:
Yes, pretty much all said for tfts there.Gawwad wrote:
What Freezer said.
His explanation is a bit more in depth
However if one has a CRT, the biggest resolution, which both the graphic card and the monitor support, is often the best.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg