LCD Monitor's - native resolution

[Vad3r]

I'm looking into LCD for my next monitor, and want to be sure I understand this correctly.
Does "native resolution" mean "locked" or "only" resolution for display ?.

I currently have a somewhat out of date PC with a 19in Viewsonic P95f.

I run my desktop 1280x1024, but run games 800x600, because thats what my system handles well. If I'm reading things right, LCD's can't do this ?.
If I get a whatever lcd that has a native resolution of 1280x1024, then launch a game, can I choose different resolutions ? (800x600, 1024x768,....) ?

 

[Gautama2]

You can choose different res's. Native just means its what it was built to be run at, and naturally, will look better proportioned at the native res.

 

[Vad3r]

great thanks for the confirmation on that. I still love my crt, but the wife wants a lcd (and I won't arguee to much on that 😉 )

Somehow I got the impression "Native Resolution" was the "Only" resolution.

 

[nineball9]

Vad3r,

You and the missus may want to visit a local store that sells monitors to check out LCD's in non-native resolution first hand. Some look great running in their native resolution but are pretty awful in non-native resolutions.

I still use a CRT for my desktop system as the native resolutions of large LCD's are just too small for my old eyes. I also have a small notebook computer which I configure, update, etc using reading glasses, but drop down its resolution when using it for its primary purpose, namely, a music jukebox.

Your eyes may vary!

 

[Auric]

Native is something of a misnomer. It's the maximum resolution but since having fixed pixels, lower resolutions use less of the display area but can be scaled up. Indeed, the default behavior is often to scale, or worse fill the screen regardless of aspect ratio. So I strongly recommend choosing an LCD which provides its own scaling options and when not possible (1280x1024 displays usually don't), relying upon an Nvidia card to correct it. With a typical panel and ATI you are pretty much SOL with lower horizontal resolutions.

Scaling really lowers quality (Blur-O-Vision) so I would personally prefer to just run the lower resolution as-is and 1024x768 is about as small as I would want to go (<14" on a 17" else 15" on a 19") otherwise you may as well just stick with CRT.

Indeeed, why not just upgrade the GPU (and maybe CPU) and enjoy games at 1280x960 on your CRT? As cheap as LCD's are, that would be cheaper and produce a better result, no?

 

[corkyg]

In plain language, LCDs are built with a specific number of pixels, horizontally and verticlly. This called "Native Resolution." These are staring pixels, unlike a CRT image which is scanned repetitively.

You can cause an LCD to display at less than the total pixels available, but never greater. When you scale down, you cause it to interpolate and combine pixels resulting in a lower number of them. This degrades the image, and that becomes worse as you go farther down the pixel count away from "native."

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: corkyg
In plain language, LCDs are built with a specific number of pixels, horizontally and verticlly. This called "Native Resolution." These are staring pixels, unlike a CRT image which is scanned repetitively.

You can cause an LCD to display at less than the total pixels available, but never greater. When you scale down, you cause it to interpolate and combine pixels resulting in a lower number of them. This degrades the image, and that becomes worse as you go farther down the pixel count away from "native."

Scale down... that's one perspective but implies only being able to use the maximum area (or at least the max length of one axis) which is not the case. Usually, converting a lower resolution source to a higher res is referred to as scaling up and is naturally done to achieve a larger relative size. Conversely, scaling down is done to achieve a smaller size and while obviously resulting in loss of information does not degrade perceived quality per se but rather it's just smaller and thus less detailed but still sharp.

So, if anything, your "scale down" description (lower res at max) is really more like scaling down to a smaller size (though not really because the lower res is directly rendered by the app) and thus lower detail and then scaling up to a larger size and so degrading the image with blurriness &c.

So, in short, a lower res can either be displayed with perfect IQ on a smaller area or else scaled up to a larger area (not necessarily max given various aspect ratios) with associated degradation which varies depending upon the capabilities of whichever panel or GPU is handling it.

 

[corkyg]

You are too technical - in my plain talk, scaling down means simply going to a lower resolution. Nothing more. I guess I should have just said "dropping resolution." Peace!🙂

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: corkyg
You are too technical - in my plain talk, scaling down means simply going to a lower resolution. Nothing more. I guess I should have just said "dropping resolution." Peace!🙂

Calling that "scaling down" is confusing, because normally "scaling down" would imply taking a higher-resolution image and cramming it into a lower-resolution output (like taking a 1600x1200 image and viewing it fullscreen at 1024x768). "Scaling up" is the opposite, where you take a low-resolution image and expand it for display at a higher resolution. There's no reason LCD monitors couldn't support that, but I don't know any that do. Usually the native resolution is the maximum.

Another way to think about it is that LCDs (and other fixed-pixel displays, like plasma/DLP) can really only output at the native resolution. If you want to show something that is smaller than the native resolution, it must either be scaled (causing degradation if the scaling is not an integer multiple), or you will have black bars on some or all sides of the image to fill in the 'missing' pixels required to get it up to native resolution.

 

[Lemon law]

In reply to Auric---who says---Indeeed, why not just upgrade the GPU (and maybe CPU) and enjoy games at 1280x960 on your CRT? As cheap as LCD's are, that would be cheaper and produce a better result, no?

A CRT, at least in MHO, has enough compelling advantages to be listed as the monitor technology of choice---but the space eating features of a crt often tips the balance the other way. And for that matter makes a laptop possible.

But somewhat unmentioned on this thread is the fact that a lcd can't keep up with a crt in refresh rate---which is why gamers often go crt---and if you go with less than the native resolution with a lcd---not only will resolution suffer---so will refresh rates---and in just watching something like a movie--what may look good at native resolution may look choppy and jerky at less than native resolution---but that is somewhat also the video card and the given technology in the LCD.

And my lcd with 1280x1024 native is just about perfect for me without glasses---my wife still loves her 20" crt running at 800x600---and her eyes can't stand 1280x1024 resolution. But that 20" crt eats better than half of a big desk.---one day her crt will die---and we will be looking at alternatives.

And the inescapable fact is---a lcd preforms best at native resolution. And a crt will be very tolerant of different resolutions.--why handicap a non-superior technology by hobbling it even more?

 

[0roo0roo]

go to howstuffworks.com and checkout how each tech works.

lcd has fixed physical pixels. you can't divide most resolutions evenly into each other so they have to fudge it, and it suffers as a result. you can run lower resolutions, but its not advisable. its tolerable i guess, depends on quality of hte lcd scaler.

as for gamers going crt, only the most hardcore do these days. the rest of us don't care or can't really see the supposed difference, lcds have come a long way. the lcds lack of eyestrain/foot print/energy savings just makes buying crt these days a waste of money.