HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?

DRS wrote:


No, it isn't. Ghosting is possible with a static image, which is why you
shouldn't use it to refer to motion blur.


Ghosting is not possible with a static image, ghosting is due to the
pixels not turning on and off quickly enough which is not a factor in an
image that stays still. The image has to move to different pixels for
ghosting to be noticed. The same pixel refreshing itself does not create
the ghosting effect.

Ghosting is an example of motion blur which is an unwanted visual
artifact, there are forms of motion blurring other than ghosting, such
as overshoot and undershoot with the prediction circuits. Which have
nothing to do with the pixels themselves. Nor does it create the exact
type of visible artifacts.

Not to mention this does not occur on CRTs, by design, adding to their
superior image quality. This whole thread is a big joke on me, right?
Ha ha, very funny.

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird
wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:03:09 +0930 'Gorby'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

Frank McCoy wrote:
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird
wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????
I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
people use higher res on similar monitors.
Frank & FKS:
I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
I can't locate right now.

Most likely, if it's shown as max, that's your native resolution.
Most modern LCD panel displays report to the OS what resolutions they
support (as do most modern CRTs). I'm not sure exactly how they do; but
am pretty sure it's part of the VESA spec for monitors.

Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.

Actually, going "native" in this case *could* actually make things
faster ... but most likely the images would be generated at the same
rate. And as for image/colour quality ... You don't know what you're
missing by not running at native resolution. I think you'll find the
difference is about the same as shifting from EGA resolution to 800x600.

Yes, THAT much.

Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
the screen.

Actually, I'd say TRY IT!!!
I think you'd find the difference in size minimal between 800x600 and
1280x1024; being not much of a (only 60%) difference, while the
improvement in *clarity* could be tremendous!

IOW: Even though *smaller*, with native resolution the images would be
*so much sharper*, they'd be far easier on the eye to look at and grasp.

I don't think you fully realize what a compromise it is when downgrading
resolution on an LCD panel. On a CRT monitor, not much is lost, if any.
On an LCD, the things done to make lower resolutions work at all is
really CRAPPY.

Try it: You'll never go back; and wonder why you ever ran in that mode
on an LCD panel in the first place.

If it doesn't work, you can always shift back.
It only takes a few SECONDS to shift resolutions, you know.
And, a few more to shift back.
Run a few of your favorite programs.
Look at some of your favorite pictures.
Shift between modes, and see the astounding difference.
Geesh.

An LCD panel is pretty much CRIPPLED except at native resolution.
Especially one below 1680x1050 native.
Even there, the compromises are bad.

OK! I've read the entire thread so far. Lots of good reading.
My problem is my eyes! As I'm getting older I don't like the text
getting too small.

I had a 21" CRT monitor running at 1024x768. Looked great!
I purchased an LCD (to get more desk space) and running it at native
resolution was clear if I got up really close. But my old eyes need
bigger text. I cranked the LCD back to 1024x768. I think it looks
horrible! Setting clear type helps, but icons, etc now look crappy.

I've even played around with DPI settings in Display properties.

Does anyone have some good settings (for whatever) that will allow me to
run at 1280x1024 and still have text and other icons large enough???

Afaik the only way to do this is to reconfigure each application to
use larger font sizes. That may defeat the gain from using a larger
resolution. Icon sizes can be changed through the standard Windows
'desktop/right click' option and selecting
'properties/settings/advanced'. If you have an ATI graphics card,
you can also do this using ATI Tray Tools utility (free).

Well, actually, most programs pay attention to the Windows Setting.
When using Word, it expands to your display size (one of the few nice
things I have to say about Word); thus making your typing easier to see.

Agent, on the other hand, I had to manually reset all the font sizes to
what I like for this resolution. (Options = Display Preferences =
Fonts)

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:29:38 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
wrote:

kony wrote:

That said, color depth on LCDs is comically bad resulting in ever
present banding, moving images are subject to a host of noticeable
artifacts (such as over shoot and ghosting)

As an aside, I do wish people would stop referring to motion artifacts as
ghosting. The VESA Flat Panel Display Manual defines ghosting as the
problem of interference over the signal, resulting in an "echoed" image.
It's quite different to motion blur.



I agree it would be nice if people didn't refer to it as
ghosting but there are many reviewers who use the term like
that so it keeps getting perpetuated.

The term ghosting is accepted lingo since it is an excellent metaphor
for describing what occurs in the conditions when it occurs.


Well no, it's not "accepted" because it had already been the
term used to describe a different monitor problem and while
some might say "it looks like a similar kind of problem", so
it's fairly called ghosting, it is only reasonable to use
the term to crudely described perceptions of visual appeal,
not to describe the phenomenon as an understanding of what's
causing it.



Also, to make the point: you can't get ghosting with a static image, it
requires the scene to be in motion since ghosting is caused by the
pixels switching on and off too slowly.

Wrong. Ghosting has been and will always be possible with
excessive analog signal degradation. On a static image.
Being ignorant of what ghosting means as a term does not
mean you can just reject and reuse the term for something
else. That's why terms exist, you can't just use one that
is already taken in the same genre except as mentioned
above, if only loosely used to describe visual perception,
not actual state of output/technology.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:56:01 -0500, Frank McCoy
wrote:

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:32:29 -0500, Frank McCoy
wrote:


*Mine* does just *fine* thank you.
I'm not sure what kind of old-fashioned crap you're thinking about, but
it's NOT a modern LCD monitor!


Yours behaves like most, you can shift horizontally and the
degradation is minor for the first 50' or so, but
nevertheless a discriminable degradation.

!!!!!NNNOOOOO!!!!!!!
Geesh, CAN'T YOU READ????

I get almost *90 degree* horizontal shift with *NO* degradation.


You do not and even your monitor manufacturer will have to
concede it. As written the horizontal degradation is very
slight compared to vertical but it is nevertheless present.

There is no existing LCD technology that overcomes this.
Your monitor is not made of mythic pixie dust, it can only
perform as well as the sum of the parts.

Perhaps your eyes just can't see the difference, but
measurement tools and other people's eyes can.

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:56:01 -0500, Frank McCoy
wrote:

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:32:29 -0500, Frank McCoy
wrote:


*Mine* does just *fine* thank you.
I'm not sure what kind of old-fashioned crap you're thinking about, but
it's NOT a modern LCD monitor!


Yours behaves like most, you can shift horizontally and the
degradation is minor for the first 50' or so, but
nevertheless a discriminable degradation.

!!!!!NNNOOOOO!!!!!!!
Geesh, CAN'T YOU READ????

I get almost *90 degree* horizontal shift with *NO* degradation.


You do not and even your monitor manufacturer will have to
concede it. As written the horizontal degradation is very
slight compared to vertical but it is nevertheless present.

There is no existing LCD technology that overcomes this.
Your monitor is not made of mythic pixie dust, it can only
perform as well as the sum of the parts.

Perhaps your eyes just can't see the difference, but
measurement tools and other people's eyes can.

I get *more* degradation with a CRT!
Why?
Because the *thick glass* gets in the way when the angle gets great.
The glass front on an LCD is pretty damned thin in comparison.
The leaded and quite thick glass *grays out* the CRT display far more
than the slight shift in color off-axis on the LCD display.

Yes, there's *always* degradation no matter what technology you use when
not viewed at the design angle. But LCD displays (at least *desktop*
displays) no longer have much of the old problems that made them such a
pain-in-the-butt a few years ago.

If you don't believe me, come here, and I'll give you a side-by-side
demonstration.

Don't tell ME what I see when you aren't here to see it.

Just go down to any computer place, Best Buy, or other store that sells
monitors and TRY one yourself. You'll see you're complaining about a
problem that was pretty much *solved* about two years ago.

Geesh.
I don't know what they did, or how the new technology works ... I just
know it DOES; and the issue of poor off-axis viewing for LCD monitors is
a dead horse!

Quit beating on it.

The issues of poor color depth and contrast are also pretty dead too.
Technology *DOES* advance; whether some people wish to admit it or not.
You'd *think* in a group about building your own computers, people would
*know* that!

Yes, LCD panels *do* have some minor problems left; including
most-especially response time (though that's improving fast also).

But color-depth, contrast, and most-especially off-axis viewing are no
longer issues worth even considering when buying an LCD monitor. (OK
.... Correction: They ARE worth considering if buying an OLDER monitor.)

Native resolution, aspect-ratio, physical size, and response-time ARE.
Also, lifetime, come to think about it.
I'm not too sure of the lifetime of LCD monitors yet; though mine is
doing just fine after over six months now. (I got it in the "Black
Friday" sale last Thanksgiving weekend, for Christmas.)

CRTs *do* have a fairly decent history of holding up fairly well.
With the new TFT displays, who knows?
Nothing *inherently* in the design to make them go pop; but ....
We'll just have to see.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

"Mr.E Solved!" wrote in message

DRS wrote:

No, it isn't. Ghosting is possible with a static image, which is
why you shouldn't use it to refer to motion blur.

Ghosting is not possible with a static image, ghosting is due to the
pixels not turning on and off quickly enough which is not a factor in
an image that stays still. The image has to move to different pixels
for ghosting to be noticed. The same pixel refreshing itself does not
create the ghosting effect.

That is simply wrong. Interference with the analogue signal is perfectly
capable of producing an "echoed" static image, as defined by the VESA Flat
Panel Display Manual.

Ghosting is an example of motion blur which is an unwanted visual
artifact,

No, it isn't. You're referring to a phenomenon different to ghosting.

[...]

Not to mention this does not occur on CRTs, by design, adding to their
superior image quality. This whole thread is a big joke on me, right?
Ha ha, very funny.

CRTs are fundamentally similar to TVs. Have you never seen ghosting on a TV
because of a poor signal?

On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:27:26 -0500 'Frank McCoy'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird
wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:03:09 +0930 'Gorby'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

Frank McCoy wrote:
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird
wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????
I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
people use higher res on similar monitors.
Frank & FKS:
I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
I can't locate right now.

Most likely, if it's shown as max, that's your native resolution.
Most modern LCD panel displays report to the OS what resolutions they
support (as do most modern CRTs). I'm not sure exactly how they do; but
am pretty sure it's part of the VESA spec for monitors.

Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.

Actually, going "native" in this case *could* actually make things
faster ... but most likely the images would be generated at the same
rate. And as for image/colour quality ... You don't know what you're
missing by not running at native resolution. I think you'll find the
difference is about the same as shifting from EGA resolution to 800x600.

Yes, THAT much.

Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
the screen.

Actually, I'd say TRY IT!!!
I think you'd find the difference in size minimal between 800x600 and
1280x1024; being not much of a (only 60%) difference, while the
improvement in *clarity* could be tremendous!

IOW: Even though *smaller*, with native resolution the images would be
*so much sharper*, they'd be far easier on the eye to look at and grasp.

I don't think you fully realize what a compromise it is when downgrading
resolution on an LCD panel. On a CRT monitor, not much is lost, if any.
On an LCD, the things done to make lower resolutions work at all is
really CRAPPY.

Try it: You'll never go back; and wonder why you ever ran in that mode
on an LCD panel in the first place.

If it doesn't work, you can always shift back.
It only takes a few SECONDS to shift resolutions, you know.
And, a few more to shift back.
Run a few of your favorite programs.
Look at some of your favorite pictures.
Shift between modes, and see the astounding difference.
Geesh.

An LCD panel is pretty much CRIPPLED except at native resolution.
Especially one below 1680x1050 native.
Even there, the compromises are bad.

OK! I've read the entire thread so far. Lots of good reading.
My problem is my eyes! As I'm getting older I don't like the text
getting too small.

I had a 21" CRT monitor running at 1024x768. Looked great!
I purchased an LCD (to get more desk space) and running it at native
resolution was clear if I got up really close. But my old eyes need
bigger text. I cranked the LCD back to 1024x768. I think it looks
horrible! Setting clear type helps, but icons, etc now look crappy.

I've even played around with DPI settings in Display properties.

Does anyone have some good settings (for whatever) that will allow me to
run at 1280x1024 and still have text and other icons large enough???

Afaik the only way to do this is to reconfigure each application to
use larger font sizes. That may defeat the gain from using a larger
resolution. Icon sizes can be changed through the standard Windows
'desktop/right click' option and selecting
'properties/settings/advanced'. If you have an ATI graphics card,
you can also do this using ATI Tray Tools utility (free).

Well, actually, most programs pay attention to the Windows Setting.
When using Word, it expands to your display size (one of the few nice
things I have to say about Word); thus making your typing easier to see.

Well, I never go near s/w from MS except XP.
I didn't look at all my apps - only those which I thought might need
re-configuring. I guess some of them would be ok.


Agent, on the other hand, I had to manually reset all the font sizes to
what I like for this resolution. (Options = Display Preferences =
Fonts)

Indeed but I have two instances of it running and then there's my
other apps. EG: In Avant Browser I configured the top toolbar to
contain only those small icons I wanted and to fill up the width using
space bars etc. Under 1280x1024 there's an ugly space across the top
and the icons are v/small. Re-configuring ZtreeWin is a whole new
ball game and requires the .pif font size to be edited and command
line syntax etc.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:21:23 -0500, Frank McCoy
wrote:

You do not and even your monitor manufacturer will have to
concede it. As written the horizontal degradation is very
slight compared to vertical but it is nevertheless present.

There is no existing LCD technology that overcomes this.
Your monitor is not made of mythic pixie dust, it can only
perform as well as the sum of the parts.

Perhaps your eyes just can't see the difference, but
measurement tools and other people's eyes can.

I get *more* degradation with a CRT!
Why?
Because the *thick glass* gets in the way when the angle gets great.
The glass front on an LCD is pretty damned thin in comparison.

That could be quite true, any tpyical consumer display is
meant to be viewed straight-on in front and those with
reflective surface then also need the ambient lighting
adjusted more to minimize reflections.

"Frank McCoy" wrote in message


[...]

I guess the full switchover to digital TV, due by next year, is
pushing flat-panel displays more than anything else. That, of
course, means LCD panels *will* get faster, just for TV use if
nothing else ... the main drawback now to LCDs.

I must disagree with you that LCD speed is the issue. Se
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/oth...arameters.html for a
detailed explanation of why.

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "DRS"
wrote:

"Frank McCoy" wrote in message


[...]

I guess the full switchover to digital TV, due by next year, is
pushing flat-panel displays more than anything else. That, of
course, means LCD panels *will* get faster, just for TV use if
nothing else ... the main drawback now to LCDs.

I must disagree with you that LCD speed is the issue. Se
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/oth...arameters.html for a
detailed explanation of why.

Um ... A large part of his discussion about "persistance of vision"
actually turns out to be related to LCD speed versus CRT.

What he doesn't take into account, is the persistence of *phosphor* on
the screen; assuming that the effect seen is purely do to the human eye.

It's not.

The problem he describes with LCD panels, he correctly attributes to the
fact that an LCD pixel is turned on *all the time* during a frame,
versus the temporary showing and fading-out on a CRT, especially when
showing Television pictures.

But, instead of being "persistence of vision" causing the problem, if
you examine it closely and mathematically, the root problem is
"persistence of pixel". When an LCD panel switches pictures (or, more
correctly, when an LCD pixel switches brightness states) the old setting
*remains* and *doesn't change* quickly; because of the delay in changing
states for the LCD itself. Sometimes the remnants of a previous picture
can persist over several *frames*.

As evidence of this, Plasma Panels just don't *have* this problem; even
though they also maintain brightness for the full time of a frame. They
however, switch *instantly* to the new brightness level; and thus don't
have the same problem. If his analysis was right, then Plasma Panels
would have the exact same problem ... and they don't.

No, proper speed in switching *will* solve the problem ... eventually.
Only the switching-speed has to get up to at least three times the
frame-rate before the described "problem" he's covering will go away;
NOT the same rate as the frames are updated. There, he's quite correct,
that raising the speed to frame-rates won't make the problem go away.

The technical "solution" he documents that some manufacturers of LCD
televisions are doing: Blacking out between frames with the backlight,
to my notion causes more problems than it solves; not the least of which
is bringing back flicker ... a defect that LCD and Plasma Panels got rid
of nicely. I certainly would never buy an LCD panel with that sort of
thing making my eyes ache! I'd rather put up with the smearing.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _