Talk:Native resolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] how native resolution affects text

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

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

[edit] terminology

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.

[edit] Add section about CRTs?

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).

[edit] Any Pixel Perfect Software Res Changer?

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 (talk • contribs)

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)

[edit] Filter and simulation

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)