Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Video Cards and Graphics

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-06-2012, 10:05 PM   #1
iaco
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 20
Default Retina/High PPI Displays. The Return of Non-native Resolutions?

So I have 1680x1050 22" display and the pixel density high enough that text is too small at native resolution, but not high enough that using a lower resolution is acceptable. So I've used high DPI setting in Windows, but some many programs including Windows itself make graphics blurry and ugly so what I really am hoping for is the ability to use non-native resolutions.

How high does PPI need to be so that running non-native resolutions is not a compromise like it wasn't when CRTs were used?
iaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 10:25 PM   #2
lavaheadache
Diamond Member
 
lavaheadache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cape Cod MA
Posts: 6,626
Default

not to be a jerk but, when was the last time you had your eyes checked?

1680x1050 is fine for a 20 inch, actually great. On a 22, nah.
__________________
Video Card Specialist

wtb 9800 XT

Heat 144-0-0 heatware 1 percentile
lavaheadache is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 10:46 PM   #3
Greenlepricon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lavaheadache View Post
not to be a jerk but, when was the last time you had your eyes checked?

1680x1050 is fine for a 20 inch, actually great. On a 22, nah.
I just replaced my 1680x1050 monitor this year, and I have to say the difference is pretty amazing, even just to 1080. Part of the reason is my monitor was old and the input lag and contrast made some things pretty miserable to do.

Op's 22 inch might have the same problems. I don't find anything wrong with the lower resolution screens, even my laptop is fine for most applications, and this thing is approaching 6 years old. Comparing it to my desktop monitor is a completely different story though.
Greenlepricon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 10:53 PM   #4
masteryoda34
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,385
Default

Running at non-native resolution is not the real solution for LCDs because a) What's the point of having that high resolution in the first place then? and b) you still have to interpolate pixel values which will create fuzziness. (unless you are using a non-native res. that is an integer multiple smaller, which would be very low res)

The real answer is that we need operating systems to pick up the ball and offer better font size options. Linux and Mac seem to be leading Windows here again. (I'm not sure if Windows 8 addresses this. Maybe it does.)
masteryoda34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 11:01 PM   #5
iaco
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lavaheadache View Post
not to be a jerk but, when was the last time you had your eyes checked?

1680x1050 is fine for a 20 inch, actually great. On a 22, nah.
Have you used a retina display on anything larger than an iPhone? Everything else is garbage in comparison.

My display is usable, but I prefer a lower resolution. Thankfully I don't use it that much.

There are other benefits to non-native resolutions, esp. for gaming.
iaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 11:05 PM   #6
iaco
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by masteryoda34 View Post
Running at non-native resolution is not the real solution for LCDs because a) What's the point of having that high resolution in the first place then? and b) you still have to interpolate pixel values which will create fuzziness.
a) Gaming. Get an extra year or two out of an expensive graphics card.

b) "fuzziness": Extremely doubtful if the pixel density is high enough.
iaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 11:16 PM   #7
Greenlepricon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iaco View Post
b) "fuzziness": Extremely doubtful if the pixel density is high enough.
A quick google search for you to find this. Hope that helps. There are better articles but it's a quick and simple read.
Greenlepricon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 06:10 PM   #8
iaco
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenlepricon View Post
A quick google search for you to find this. Hope that helps. There are better articles but it's a quick and simple read.
I already know how non-native resolutions work. The question is, how high does pixel density have to be so that fuzziness is nearly unnoticeable or equivalent to what we got in CRTs?

I guess I chose the wrong forum for this question.
iaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 08:28 PM   #9
Greenlepricon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iaco View Post
I already know how non-native resolutions work. The question is, how high does pixel density have to be so that fuzziness is nearly unnoticeable or equivalent to what we got in CRTs?

I guess I chose the wrong forum for this question.
Ah I see what you're saying. I read somewhere that there are ratios to go by. Those are your best bet. The density that you're looking for is going to be individual to you. I don't know if your eyes are better/worse than mine. The only downside is it still probably won't look as good as running at the native resolution. LCD monitors just aren't good at that.
Greenlepricon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 09:16 PM   #10
Sheninat0r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iaco View Post
a) Gaming. Get an extra year or two out of an expensive graphics card.

b) "fuzziness": Extremely doubtful if the pixel density is high enough.
"High enough" is pretty vague, and we should also consider the cost of making a large, high-density display. Even if it's technically viable, no one will make it if they can't sell it.
__________________
...with a crowbar.
Sheninat0r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 09:51 PM   #11
iaco
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenlepricon View Post
Ah I see what you're saying. I read somewhere that there are ratios to go by. Those are your best bet. The density that you're looking for is going to be individual to you. I don't know if your eyes are better/worse than mine. The only downside is it still probably won't look as good as running at the native resolution. LCD monitors just aren't good at that.
In short my guess is that somewhere near 300 PPI, interpolation will not be a big deal. CRTs didn't have crazy high PPIs but it was a different tech. I'll probably search to see how well rMBP cope at lower resolutions.

Quote:
"High enough" is pretty vague, and we should also consider the cost of making a large, high-density display. Even if it's technically viable, no one will make it if they can't sell it.
Supposedly IGZO displays have lower cost. I'm confident that by the end of the decade 300 PPI displays will dominate the market. Installed base is something else.
iaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 09:55 PM   #12
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,258
Default

Windows, even Windows 8, is generally terrible at scaling content. A lot of that is probably lax standards for apps due to the must for a new app to work seamlessly with Vista, 7, and 8 (and often XP as well due to the massive installed base).

OSX is a million times better for that, and I say that as someone who only grudgingly uses OSX from time to time (I bootcamp my MBA, use it in Win7 99% of the time).

You could get one of those 27" 2560x1440 displays, and run at at 1280x720 Heheh. Just kidding. That would be expensive and look ridiculous, even if it was pixel perfect (1/4 exact native resolution is just as good as native, it just makes 4 pixels appear as one pixel).
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.