Running a 24" Samsung @ 960 x 600

[wwswimming]

i'd like to get another monitor, but i need a monitor with BIG pixels. like
.5 mm.

i have a 21" samsung with a matte finish. that one has a native resolution
of 1600x1200, i run it at 800 x 600. that works good - it's very clear, etc.

i also have a 720p TV LCD monitor i use as a computer monitor.

but i'm interested in trying out one of the 24" Samsung's.

so how do i find out if it has the driver that will run at the resolution ?

http://www.samsung.com/us/cons...=download&menu2=detail

that's a super-long URL for the "SAMSUNG 2443BW Black 24" 5ms
Widescreen LCD Monitor", on the Samsung website.

@ Newegg, this one -
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16824001294

800 x 600 is a "standard" resolution, so i'm not surprised that it's listed in
the properties/display window. but ... 920 x 600 ? i've never seen that
display resolution on a monitor.

i have an ATI X850XT PCI-express card video card on the system i'd
like to run it on. it doesn't list 920 x 600 currently. i don't see how hooking
it up to a 1920 x 1200 monitor will change that.

i also have an nVidia 7600GT i could swap in there, if that works better.

so, how do you do half-native resolution on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor ?

 

[SlowSpyder]

I'm pretty sure that's 1/4 of the res actually. You could run it at something like 1440x900, that will stretch out the image quite large. You know you can also increase the size of your fonts/icons while still keeping the native resolution too, right?

 

[Blazer7]

This kind of non-standard resolutions have more to do with the video driver than the monitor itself. I'm not very familiar with ATI drivers but it can be done with nVidia drivers for sure. All you have to do is define your custom resolutions using nV's control panel. Once you do that the new resolutions become available and are listed along with the standard resolutions in display properties.

I'm using an 8800GTS 512 with a 24? Samsung monitor and nV's latest forceware drivers (185.20 beta). I've already tested 960x600 & 1600x1200 without experiencing any problems so I know that this actually works.

HTH

 

[wwswimming]

OK, thanks a lot for the replies !!! !!!

hopefully .5 mm pixels will be big enough for a while.

the Samsung 24" monitor has a nice matte finish, that's why i'm thinking
about it.

some Samsung industrial designer has gone on a total GLOSS = Bling
kick. i bought a 1080P monitor, the 32" 650, wanting to get a bigger
desktop. it's almost reflective enough you could shave with it. basically
not usable as a computer monitor.

 

[postmortemIA]

LCD monitors use image interpolation for everything other than native resolution, so you will 99% likely NOT get what you want. Been there, tried that.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
LCD monitors use image interpolation for everything other than native resolution, so you will 99% likely NOT get what you want. Been there, tried that.

Actually every pixel should be perfect for either 1/4 or 1/2 native resolution.

I've done this myself with a 1600x1200 LCD, running 800x600 Diablo II It was a few years back, but it was absolutely flawless.

 

[Blazer7]

I bet that this is why wwswimming is interested in the specific resolution. 1920X1200 / 960x600 = 4. Running a 24? with a native res of 1920x1200 @960x600 is exactly what he has to do. At this resolution every pixel will scale in both dimensions uniformly and will be depicted in a block of 4 pixels. This way the aspect ratio will remain totally intact and this will minimize image distortion. Some blurriness will occur but that's about it.

Ooopps... Arkaign posted while I was typing

 

[Viper GTS]

If your vision isn't great you might also look at Dell's 3007WFP refurbs. 1280x800 is quite a bit more usable than 960x600. I picked up one for $637 shipped, & it's perfect. I run it at the full 2560 most of the time, but if I feel like leaning back in my chair to surf casually I can drop it to 1280x800.

Viper GTS

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
If your vision isn't great you might also look at Dell's 3007WFP refurbs. 1280x800 is quite a bit more usable than 960x600. I picked up one for $637 shipped, & it's perfect.

Originally posted by: Blazer7Running a 24? with a native res of 1920x1200 @960x600 is exactly what he has to do. At this resolution every pixel will scale in both dimensions uniformly and will be depicted in a block of 4 pixels.

Yep, thanks for all the info !

the 30" @ 1280 x 800 for $600+ is a good deal.

Samsung 26" LCD TV's are $499, with about 1360 x 768 native resolution.

i have a 27" Samsung that i use for my main monitor, with that resolution.

i have Max 7 running on an old computer (3.6 GHz P4). as it turns out, the Max 7 tutorials are much more thorough than the Max 9 tutorials. now that i'm getting to the point where i need to know, as an example, particle effects inside & out, i'm looking at that Max 7 install. with a lot more respect. so what if Max 7 doesn't have hair ! in order to wade through those tutorials, it helps to have 1 full ap. window open for Max & a 1/2 window open. which doesn't work very well @ 800 x 600.

 

[ArchAngel777]

I thought that running 960x600 on a 24" 1920x1200 display would look as good as native, but it doesn't. I tried this on a few 24" monitors and it was abysmal... I think it may be due to the dot pitch. So your pixel are getting larger, but the space between them is not. This can and will screw with an image when it comes to scaling.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I thought that running 960x600 on a 24" 1920x1200 display would look as good as native, but it doesn't. I tried this on a few 24" monitors and it was abysmal... I think it may be due to the dot pitch. So your pixel are getting larger, but the space between them is not. This can and will screw with an image when it comes to scaling.

Thats odd, I would think the scaling would be perfect. Was it using monitor scaling or video card?

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I thought that running 960x600 on a 24" 1920x1200 display would look as good as native, but it doesn't. I tried this on a few 24" monitors and it was abysmal... I think it may be due to the dot pitch. So your pixel are getting larger, but the space between them is not. This can and will screw with an image when it comes to scaling.

Thats odd, I would think the scaling would be perfect. Was it using monitor scaling or video card?

That is not odd, that is what I was talking about. All resolution that are different than native use interpolation, not scaling to show image.

Unless manufacturer has special firmware to show 1:4 resolution as pseudo-native, interpolation algorithm will treat that resolution (960x600) as non native and apply an interpolation algorithm to it. 3007 is one known such monitor, it supports 1280x800 and 2560x1600.

Even wikipedia says about this
Native_resolution

In theory, some resolutions should work well, if they are exact multiples of smaller image sizes. For example, a 1600×1200 LCD could display an 800×600 image well, as each of the pixels in the image could be represented by a block of four on the larger display, without interpolation. Since 800×600 is an integer factor of 1600×1200, scaling should not adversely affect the image. But in practice, most monitors apply smoothing algorithm to all smaller resolutions, so the quality still suffers for these "half" modes (for VGA connection, when the monitor is responsible for scaling). In case of DVI connection, the scaling is provided by video adapter, not monitor.

 

[n7]

My 3007WFP does a nice job of what you are trying to do.

(1280x800)

 

[wwswimming]

basically, it sounds like something you take on a case by case basis.

800 x 600 looks clear on a 21" Samsung (1600 x 1200), and on the Dell 30", but not all monitor/video card combinations
will yield a clear image at 1/2 native resolution.

all i have to do is go into one of the labs i have access to at a college & ask the admin to change the resolution
on a 24" Samsung, to double-check it before i plunk down the cash.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I thought that running 960x600 on a 24" 1920x1200 display would look as good as native, but it doesn't. I tried this on a few 24" monitors and it was abysmal... I think it may be due to the dot pitch. So your pixel are getting larger, but the space between them is not. This can and will screw with an image when it comes to scaling.

Thats odd, I would think the scaling would be perfect. Was it using monitor scaling or video card?

That is not odd, that is what I was talking about. All resolution that are different than native use interpolation, not scaling to show image.

Unless manufacturer has special firmware to show 1:4 resolution as pseudo-native, interpolation algorithm will treat that resolution (960x600) as non native and apply an interpolation algorithm to it. 3007 is one known such monitor, it supports 1280x800 and 2560x1600.

Even wikipedia says about this
Native_resolution

In theory, some resolutions should work well, if they are exact multiples of smaller image sizes. For example, a 1600×1200 LCD could display an 800×600 image well, as each of the pixels in the image could be represented by a block of four on the larger display, without interpolation. Since 800×600 is an integer factor of 1600×1200, scaling should not adversely affect the image. But in practice, most monitors apply smoothing algorithm to all smaller resolutions, so the quality still suffers for these "half" modes (for VGA connection, when the monitor is responsible for scaling). In case of DVI connection, the scaling is provided by video adapter, not monitor.

This is key :

VGA Connection = Monitor Scaling
DVI Connection = Video Adapter Scaling

It would seem that using half-native resolutions with VGA connection is a bad idea then. I've done 800x600 on 1600x1200 LCDs over DVI with perfect results.