1:1 Pixel Ratio Scaling on Digital Flat Panel Displays with ATI Catalyst Drivers

[Josh7289]

Basically, the title and summary say it all. If you know what I'm talking about, then please answer my question. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you probably don't know the answer to my question anyway. By the way, I am using a Samsung SyncMaster 730B 17" LCD Monitor with a 1280 x 1024 native resolution, so I cannot enable 1:1 pixel ratio scaling from my monitor, unlike Dell LCD monitors, so I must rely on this feature being available and functional in the video card drivers.

Thank you very much for your help.

UPDATE: Has this problem been fixed yet with the recent ATI Catalyst 6.1 drivers? Thanks again.

 

[Josh7289]

Bump.

 

[WelshBloke]

Wow that pixel scaling issue really bothers you dosnt it?

 

[Josh7289]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Wow that pixel scaling issue really bothers you dosnt it?

Yes, of course it does. That's why I created this topic. I can't stand interpolation, especially when a 4:3 aspect ratio resolution is interpolated to a 5:4 aspect ratio resolution.

Plus, you're post didn't help me at all.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Josh7289

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Wow that pixel scaling issue really bothers you dosnt it?

Yes, of course it does. That's why I created this topic. I can't stand interpolation, especially when a 4:3 aspect ratio resolution is interpolated to a 5:4 aspect ratio resolution.

Plus, you're post didn't help me at all.

Sorry I did try to help you before , as far as I know the issue hasnt changed.

I also explained before that 1:1 scaling on lower resolutions on an lcd moniter would look, well , small.

The only time I could see it being useful is if you had a very large moniter (which you dont)

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

I also explained before that 1:1 scaling on lower resolutions on an lcd moniter would look, well , small.

The only time I could see it being useful is if you had a very large moniter (which you dont)

1:1 scaling would be primarily for using 768 and 864 application settings (for compatability and/or performance) at 960 height and thus maintaining the 4:3 aspect ratio at full size rather than stretching to 1024 vertical. Being able to disable scaling would be primarily for centering any of those three resolutions, the first two of which would be smallish on a 17" LCD (the equivalents of about 13" and 15" respectively).

 

[5150Joker]

Get an nVidia card or Dell monitor. See problem solved!

 

[Reiniku]

This is actually solvable with a nvidia video card. I just set my 930b to 1280x960 and it looks great, with 2 black bars on the top and bottom. But it shows that your rig is has a radeon. Anyway, under the nView Display Settings tab of our display preferences click Device Settings >> Device Adjustments... And select fixed aspect ratio scaling. I have no clue if this would work for your card, sorry if it doesn't help.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

I also explained before that 1:1 scaling on lower resolutions on an lcd moniter would look, well , small.

The only time I could see it being useful is if you had a very large moniter (which you dont)

1:1 scaling would be primarily for using 768 and 864 application settings (for compatability and/or performance) at 960 height and thus maintaining the 4:3 aspect ratio at full size rather than stretching to 1024 vertical. Being able to disable scaling would be primarily for centering any of those three resolutions, the first two of which would be smallish on a 17" LCD (the equivalents of about 13" and 15" respectively).

768 and 864 both DO scale 1:1

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

768 and 864 both DO scale 1:1

Not in my experience or Josh7289's or a bunch of others' at rage3d. Perhaps you are referring to a widescreen laptop?

 

[Josh7289]

Please don't argue about whether or not 1:1 pixel ratio scaling on digital FPD's is practical or not with my monitor. I just want to know, with certainty, if this problem has been fixed yet with ATI Catalyst 5.10.

Thank you.

 

[gac009]

If you go to Digital Panel Properties, you can selsect "Use Centered Timings" on the "Image Scaling" option, this allows me to play smaller resoultions on my monitor with a smaller centered screen on my monitor and black bars around it. Im not sure if this is what you mean.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

768 and 864 both DO scale 1:1

Not in my experience or Josh7289's or a bunch of others' at rage3d. Perhaps you are referring to a widescreen laptop?

Ok sony 17" moniter with 9700pro

1280*1024 native res
1280*960 full screen
1280*768 1:1
1280*720 1:1
1152*864 1:1
1024*768 full screen
848 *480 1:1
800 *600 full screen
720 *576 1:1
720 *480 1:1
640 *480 full screen


thats with cat5:10's

I guess we must have got 1280*768 and 1024*768 mixed up.



Edit: oooh I had those numbers in a nice table but all my spaces have vanished!

 

[Josh7289]

Originally posted by: gac009
If you go to Digital Panel Properties, you can selsect "Use Centered Timings" on the "Image Scaling" option, this allows me to play smaller resoultions on my monitor with a smaller centered screen on my monitor and black bars around it. Im not sure if this is what you mean.

Which resolutions? Do they correspond with WelshBloke's resolutions?

And that really sucks that 640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, and 1280 x 960 all interpolate to fill the screen. I mean, WTF is that? These are the four most important resolutions for a 1280 x 1024 native resolution monitor.

And also, WelshBloke, did you actually go through each resolution to check that? ^^

 

[gac009]

why havnt you looked into this yourself ? you show alot of interest and its not that hard too install the driver and check the resolutions youself.

 

[WelshBloke]

And that really sucks that 640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, and 1280 x 960 all interpolate to fill the screen. I mean, WTF is that? These are the four most important resolutions for a 1280 x 1024 native resolution monitor.

And also, WelshBloke, did you actually go through each resolution to check that? ^^

Yes, I wouldnt have posted them if I hadnt tested them.

640*480 and 800*600 would be unusably small if scaled 1:1 on a 17" moniter. 720*480 is 5" by 7.5", you would need really good eyesight to do anything with that res plus you can hardly fit anything on the screen. I couldnt repy to this post, the reply to box wouldnt fit with ant text in!

I still don't really understand why you want to do this.

 

[Josh7289]

Originally posted by: gac009
why havnt you looked into this yourself ? you show alot of interest and its not that hard too install the driver and check the resolutions youself.

Because my MSI RS480M2-IL motherboard's RS480 IGP does not have a DVI port.

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

And that really sucks that 640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, and 1280 x 960 all interpolate to fill the screen. I mean, WTF is that? These are the four most important resolutions for a 1280 x 1024 native resolution monitor.

And also, WelshBloke, did you actually go through each resolution to check that? ^^

Yes, I wouldnt have posted them if I hadnt tested them.

640*480 and 800*600 would be unusably small if scaled 1:1 on a 17" moniter. 720*480 is 5" by 7.5", you would need really good eyesight to do anything with that res plus you can hardly fit anything on the screen. I couldnt repy to this post, the reply to box wouldnt fit with ant text in!

I still don't really understand why you want to do this.

I want to do this because I despise interpolation. I thought 1280 x 960 was 1:1, though, and not full screen. At least that's what I heard before...

Can anyone else please confirm WelshBloke's (Thanks again, WelshBloke) results?

Thanks again.

 

[Josh7289]

Originally posted by: Josh7289
I want to do this because I despise interpolation. I thought 1280 x 960 was 1:1, though, and not full screen. At least that's what I heard before...

Can anyone else please confirm WelshBloke's (Thanks again, WelshBloke) results?

Thanks again.

Auric?

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Josh7289

Originally posted by: Josh7289
I want to do this because I despise interpolation. I thought 1280 x 960 was 1:1, though, and not full screen. At least that's what I heard before...

Can anyone else please confirm WelshBloke's (Thanks again, WelshBloke) results?

Thanks again.

Auric?

1280*960 is definatly full screen on my setup.

I understand you dont like interpolation but in games it really is not the issue it used to be.
Doom3 at 800*600 looks fine on my moniter, odviously higher res's look better but thats because they are higher res's.

Using 2d I don't know why you'd need to res down.

If it is still worrying you could you not try it out on someone else's computer or you could just get an NV card.

 

[Auric]

Same as ever.

Odd that WelshBloke finds 1280x960 stretching to fill but 1152x864 is centered. In my experience any 1280 horizontal can be displayed accurately as expected while none of the common 4:3's can (including 1152x864).

Josh7289, how much manual adjustment to the vertical is available via analog? Perhaps 4:3 apps can be corrected by squeezing?

 

[Josh7289]

Originally posted by: Auric
Same as ever.

Odd that WelshBloke finds 1280x960 stretching to fill but 1152x864 is centered. In my experience any 1280 horizontal can be displayed accurately as expected while none of the common 4:3's can (including 1152x864).

Josh7289, how much manual adjustment to the vertical is available via analog? Perhaps 4:3 apps can be corrected by squeezing?

I can't scrunch it any. I can only move it, so I can't do what you suggested...

And to WelshBloke, not only can I not stand interpolation, but it is also the stretch from 4:3 to 5:4 that drives me crazy. I really really hate looking at anything in and (EDIT: an) incorrect aspect ratio.

 

[Josh7289]

So I just got a new Sapphire Radeon X800 GT 256MB that has a DVI port and I also got a DVI cable finally for my Samsung 730B. First off all, the image looks MUCH MUCH better with DVI. I can now see that colors were EXTREMELY washed out with analog, and DVI DOES make a huge difference even on a 17" display.

Anyway, I just went through a few resolutions from Windows with 1:1 "on", and this is what I got:

800 x 600: Fullscreen
1024 x 768: Fullscreen
1152 x 864: Fullscreen
1280 x 720: 1:1
1280 x 768: 1:1
1280 x 960: Fullscreen
1280 x 1024: Native Resolution

My 1152 x 864 results are different from WelshBloke's results at the same resolution, but my 1280 x 960 results are different from Auric's as well. This is strange because both WelshBloke and I are using Catalyst 5.10. Auric, which version of Catalyst are you using to get 1280 x 960 1:1? Also, how do I check those other strange resolutions that you two tested? Thanks.

Damn...Why can't ATI just fix this problem?

 

[Peter]

You are aware that the _driver_ does not have control about whether the _monitor_ is scaling? There is only so much ATI can do here - feed the monitor an unscaled picture. Whether or not the monitor then leaves it alone or feels like scaling it up is _entirely_ up to the monitor.

In other words, what makes you so sure it's ATI's fault not your monitor's?

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Josh7289
Basically, the title and summary say it all. If you know what I'm talking about, then please answer my question. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you probably don't know the answer to my question anyway. By the way, I am using a Samsung SyncMaster 730B 17" LCD Monitor with a 1280 x 1024 native resolution, so I cannot enable 1:1 pixel ratio scaling from my monitor, unlike Dell LCD monitors, so I must rely on this feature being available and functional in the video card drivers.

Thank you very much for your help,
Joshua Milewski

This has to do with your monitor and nothing else. Sorry to burst your bubble but this has nothing to do with your video card. "so I must rely on this feature being available and functional in the video card drivers." Your blaming ATI for your monitor's downfall? Sounds silly to me

 

[Peter]

My words exactly, only less friendly