BF2S Forums Is having a large resolution good?

Gawwad wrote:

In my understanding, CRT's can use a wide range of resolutions without the problems LCD's face.

That's cause they're awsm.

DeathUnlimited wrote:

Yes. I can go anything between 640x480 and 1600x1200.

Actually, you can go much lower.

Street Rod anyone? Or maybe Alley Cat?

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

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.

My comment made perfect sense, but you seem incapable of understanding that freedom of choice exists.

Gawwad wrote:

It's always best to have the screen at that resolution because it looks much clearer.

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.

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.

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.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb8/ … 0006-1.jpg

1152x864. The monitor compensates for the lower resolution by adding a sort of low-quality anti-alashing, stretching one pixel over several physical pixels:

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb8/ … 0007-1.jpg

Both pictures were taken with the same camera, at about the same distance. The rainbow effect is unavoidable, ufortunatly.

Here's the test picture:

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb8/ … ro/res.jpg

Heh, I know how LCDs work. That still does not change the fact that some people prefer non-native resolutions, and that whatever you prefer is the best for you.

Bertster7 wrote:

No, sorry - you're talking rubbish. Utter nonsense. There is a best resolution, it's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with user preference, it has to do with image quality which is something that can be easily determined to be better or worse. Anyone who prefers non-native resolutions is an idiot, that doesn't stop native resolutions being by far the best for LCD panels.

No, sorry. We're talking about user perference here, not panel capabilities. What the user prefers is -always- the best resolution for the user, and that is not necessarily the native resolution of the monitor. People aren't idiots for using the resolution they like the best.

Native resolutions are the recommended resolution. Anyone can find this by reading their manual. The best resolution for the user is found by trying them all and finding out what's best for you.

You're doing nothing but repeating what has already been answered, but if you consider user preference to be "rubbish" and "utter nonsense", then I guess I know what kind of person I'm dealing with.

Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-01 03:46:40)

mikkel wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

No, sorry - you're talking rubbish. Utter nonsense. There is a best resolution, it's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with user preference, it has to do with image quality which is something that can be easily determined to be better or worse. Anyone who prefers non-native resolutions is an idiot, that doesn't stop native resolutions being by far the best for LCD panels.

No, sorry. We're talking about user perference here, not panel capabilities. What the user prefers is -always- the best resolution for the user, and that is not necessarily the native resolution of the monitor. People aren't idiots for using the resolution they like the best.

Native resolutions are the recommended resolution. Anyone can find this by reading their manual. The best resolution for the user is found by trying them all and finding out what's best for you.

You're doing nothing but repeating what has already been answered, but if you consider user preference to be "rubbish" and "utter nonsense", then I guess I know what kind of person I'm dealing with.

Not at all. Image quality is not dependent on the users preference. It's either good or not. Better or worse. There are no two ways about it - especially not when it comes to something this simple. Computer monitors are all about reproducing images, the more accurately they do it the better.

If people prefer to have worse image quality, that is up to them, but it doesn't mean that the image quality is better. Any stretching or warping of images, which is what you get from running non-native resolutions (which I'm running at the moment actually, because I have a 16:10 monitor and a 4:3 projector both hooked up - but I run mine pillar boxed and I know full well that even like that it looks much worse, but it's often more convenient), is a very bad thing.

The best resolution for the user and for everyone else is the native resolution. If the user wants to typically run at a lower resolution they should've bought a different monitor then they'd have better clarity at lower resolutions. Fuzziness is not a good thing.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-12-01 04:28:16)

LCDs > CRTs... lighter, smaller, sexier, use less power

CRTs can go rot in landfills along with VHS and cassette audio

Bertster7 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

LCD and TFT native resolution > CRT any resolution

imo

Well, your opinion is wrong then. CRTs produce a much, much better image compared to LCDs of a similar calibre. In colour reproduction especially, CRTs absolutely wipe the floor with LCDs - which typically (except on a few high end S-IPS panels) have colours that are far too vivid and lack the range that CRTs have.

Lol you dumbass,, an "opionion" cant be wrong,,,

Its simply what i THINK....

mikkel wrote:

Gawwad wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

No, sorry - you're talking rubbish. Utter nonsense. There is a best resolution, it's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with user preference, it has to do with image quality which is something that can be easily determined to be better or worse. Anyone who prefers non-native resolutions is an idiot, that doesn't stop native resolutions being by far the best for LCD panels.

No, sorry. We're talking about user perference here, not panel capabilities. What the user prefers is -always- the best resolution for the user, and that is not necessarily the native resolution of the monitor. People aren't idiots for using the resolution they like the best.

Native resolutions are the recommended resolution. Anyone can find this by reading their manual. The best resolution for the user is found by trying them all and finding out what's best for you.

You're doing nothing but repeating what has already been answered, but if you consider user preference to be "rubbish" and "utter nonsense", then I guess I know what kind of person I'm dealing with.

The thread starter had one question: Why is his screen not as sharp at 1280x1024 resolution after it was replaced with a screen which native resolution was 1680x1050.
The answer is simply to run it at it's native resolution.

Your debating a known fact that has nothing to do with user preference. Now quit it.

No, the problem is that you're not getting that all users may not prefer the native resolution. Your replies to me are irrelevant.

Bertster7 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

No, sorry. We're talking about user perference here, not panel capabilities. What the user prefers is -always- the best resolution for the user, and that is not necessarily the native resolution of the monitor. People aren't idiots for using the resolution they like the best.

Native resolutions are the recommended resolution. Anyone can find this by reading their manual. The best resolution for the user is found by trying them all and finding out what's best for you.

You're doing nothing but repeating what has already been answered, but if you consider user preference to be "rubbish" and "utter nonsense", then I guess I know what kind of person I'm dealing with.

Not at all. Image quality is not dependent on the users preference. It's either good or not. Better or worse. There are no two ways about it - especially not when it comes to something this simple. Computer monitors are all about reproducing images, the more accurately they do it the better.

If people prefer to have worse image quality, that is up to them, but it doesn't mean that the image quality is better. Any stretching or warping of images, which is what you get from running non-native resolutions (which I'm running at the moment actually, because I have a 16:10 monitor and a 4:3 projector both hooked up - but I run mine pillar boxed and I know full well that even like that it looks much worse, but it's often more convenient), is a very bad thing.

The best resolution for the user and for everyone else is the native resolution. If the user wants to typically run at a lower resolution they should've bought a different monitor then they'd have better clarity at lower resolutions. Fuzziness is not a good thing.

I'm not talking about image quality. I'm talking about user preference. Yes, you'll get the best image quality at the native resolution. You can read that in your manual.

The best resolution overall is the one that the user is most comfortable with. Good or bad image quality.

The topic starter asked if having a high resolution is good. Obviously he had already established that the resolution was the one he liked the best, so the simple answer is that the resolution you like best is the "best" resolution for you, and that it's perfectly fine to have a high resolution. Which is what I answered.

I can't see how someone would want the image on his screen to be fuzzy and out-of-scale. If someone wants that, then they simply are idiots for not setting the sizes of things instead. Using the wrong resolution is picking the worst of options you've got. As in the OP case, running 5:4 on a 16:9 screen is just so wrong. Everything gets waaaay too wide, adn that causes horrible, horrible side-to-side pixelation, wich will look like crap.

I somehow believe that you, mikkel, run non-native and thinks it's leet, and yet you refuse to even try out native. It certainly does seem so.

Oh, and Cerberus:



That's a 9600SE 128MB.

How much did you pay for that monitor rubber.sex? Seems like an awfully large resolution.

Your monitor should always be set to its native resolution.

Freezer7Pro wrote:

I can't see how someone would want the image on his screen to be fuzzy and out-of-scale. If someone wants that, then they simply are idiots for not setting the sizes of things instead. Using the wrong resolution is picking the worst of options you've got. As in the OP case, running 5:4 on a 16:9 screen is just so wrong. Everything gets waaaay too wide, adn that causes horrible, horrible side-to-side pixelation, wich will look like crap.

I somehow believe that you, mikkel, run non-native and thinks it's leet, and yet you refuse to even try out native. It certainly does seem so.

Actually, I don't own an LCD. What it actually seems like, is that you're incapable of understanding that many people aren't as fussed about technology as the guy living with a PCB junkjard in his room, and don't mind running off-native resolutions if they think they're better than the native one.

Honestly, this is tech, not D&ST. This should be beyond resorting to personal attacks when you're out of reasonable arguments.

FloppY_ wrote:

What is it that you do not get about this.. nomatter what you think, native resolution is the only non-retarded option simply because lower resolution will result in pixel loss making everything ugly and look as if anti-aliasing has been cranked to x-16 and higher than native will in most cases make your LCD and TFT show its native res and allow you to move around on your desktop like you do on a RTS battlefield (curser to corner moves screen)...
Higher than native resolution on a CRT will stretch the pixels making it look like utter crap....

If you like the small icons, taskbars and fonts.. GO EDIT THEM IN WINDOWS CONFIG !!

Because your argument makes no sence at all and it seems you are just pushing to get the last word and arguing for the sake of same,,,

The problem here isn't what I don't understand, it's what you don't understand. My argument makes perfect sense, and I think I've displayed a lot of patience in trying to dumb it down so that people can understand it.

Some people like a resolution that is different from the native resolution. I'll repeat myself here; the best resolution for the monitor is the native resolution. The best resolution for the user is the resolution that the user likes best. The former you can read in your manual, the latter you establish through experience. Obviously this user has established through experience that 1680x1050 is the resolution that he likes best. It doesn't matter if this resolution is native or non-native. If he likes it more than the other resolutions available, it's the best resolution for him. That's a pretty inescapable fact.

Most people will prefer the native resolution, some people will prefer a different resolution. The author of the thread asked if having a large resolution is good, and the answer to that is that the resolution that he likes the best is the best for him, and that having a high resolution is just fine. I've yet to see anyone in here argue anything that conflicts with what I'm saying, but somehow you seem to think that what you're saying does. It does not.

If anyone is pushing to get the last word, it seems to be you, as the argument you people have against mine seems to have dumbed down to that users who pick non-native resolutions are "retarded" for using the resolution they like the best. Very eloquent, not very convincing.

Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-02 02:12:55)

mitch212k_2 wrote:

Very simply a higher res is better for everyone other than Mikk :p

mikkel wrote:

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.

Please, read the thread to avoid the pointless clutter.

Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-02 02:45:44)

FloppY_ wrote:

mikkel wrote:

mitch212k_2 wrote:

Very simply a higher res is better for everyone other than Mikk :p

mikkel wrote:

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.

Please, read the thread to avoid the pointless clutter.

Now this is excatly why we are arguing with you mikkel... a higher resolution is NOT clearer than the native resolution... because you loose pixels going to higher than native res, making it unclear....

HD is high resolution, yes. but the high resolution is 1080px x (something)px and that is what the TV's are made for because that is the resolution HD tv is broadcasted at.. therefore.. HD tv will run no higher than it's native resolution because thats what the hardware is made for.... unless you go stupid and view HD tv on a CRT screen with the res. boosted over HD res. making it stretch and warp pixels to make them fit, making it less clear...

I'm on the verge of giving up here. We've already established that the best resolution for the monitor is the native resolution. Please stop repeating this tired argument.

The higher your resolution is, the sharper your picture is. That's an undeniable truth, it's the consequence of adding more detail to a picture, so when the thread starter asks if having a high resolution is good, then the answer is "yes, it's fine". Some monitors are designed for a certain resolution, and work best at this resolution. You get the sharpest picture at this resolution. We've already established that. He can read that in his manual, and by the sound of things, he has found the native resolution. His question then boils down to "I like 1680x1050 best. Is having such a high resolution good?". The answer to that question is "yes, it's fine". Had the resolution he liked the best been 1200x1024, the answer to the question of whether or not it's good to have such a high resolution would still be "yes, it's fine", but this is where you seem to derail and fail to take into account that people have individual preferences. Apparently you're suggesting that no matter which resolution you like the best, you should abandon it in favour of the native resolution. That's simply not true, and you've done nothing to argue against me at all.

You need to argue against what it is that I'm saying, so that I can actually answer things that are relevant to my position, because my patience with these irrelevant comments is running very low, and I'm tired of hearing how people who do things the way they want to do them are "stupid" and "retarded", because honestly, I expect somewhat more of you.

Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-02 02:55:39)