HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?

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

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.

Sometime look up what goes into a modern color CRT.
Especially to increase contrast and minimize reflection.
They *waste* over 3/4 of the brightness by adding black surrounds,
darkening the glass, and other tricks so that while actually reducing
brightness of the tube, the output *looks* brighter in comparison to
unwanted reflections. They make the dots smaller (dots, not pixels.
Pixels are made up of many dots) and the black area bigger; simply
because the phosphor, when unexcited, is white and reflects room
lighting. So, they then have to excite the phosphor that much more in
compensation. However, CRTs and their new electron guns are well up to
the job; so the customer never notices; simply seeing what *looks* like
a brighter picture, when it isn't. It just has more contrast to the
black background and darkened glass on the front of the tube.

Modern TV screens have the glass an actual dark-gray, for this reason:
Ambient light goes through the glass TWICE; and the dark gray of the
glass will dampen light going through it by more than half each
direction in some models. That reduces reflected glare by up to three
times. The light going out however, only gets reduced one time; so it
ends up *looking* twice as bright ... In comparison, of course to the
reflection. Look also at the surface of most TVs these days. They are
*not* the smooth "glassy* surface you might expect with what's known as
"specular" reflection. Instead they're textured to reduce reflections;
and might even have real anti-reflection coatings. (That last, I'm not
sure of. It's an expensive procedure for something mass-produced like
CRTs.)

CRTs are *amazing* things.
That's why it's taken so long to replace them. They just kept getting
BETTER all the time; and a stern-chase is always a long one.

Most of the early problems color CRTs had with bad purity, convergence,
alignment, and poor showing in bright rooms, have, while not exactly
been "solved"; certainly have so much improvement that nobody even
notices the small remaining defects they still have ... Until, of
course, they're compared side-by-side with a digital panel display; and
such things as misconvergence, minute variation in focus, and such
defects become obvious ... Though, to many people, only when viewed
under at least medium magnification.

LCD panels still have their own problems; as to Plasma Panels.
However, their improvement rate is *staggering*; while CRTs have pretty
much got about as much improvement in as they can. There's little left
in the technology that hasn't already been tried.

I don't really expect LCD panels or Plasma either to be the display of
the future. Some kind of FED display will *eventually* take over ...
once they get something that actually emits and does so reliably over
long periods of time. Of course, by then, perhaps another dark horse
will come along and sweep the field. OLEDs, perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED

Whatever. In any case, digital and flat-panel displays are here to
stay; and I don't really expect the CRT to last much longer than another
decade, if that. The new displays are getting cheaper, faster, and
better each day; and some day will replace cathode-ray-tubes the way
semiconductor memory has long-since replaced core.

(THAT, BTW, took decades longer than some people predicted.)
Eventually however, everything will be digital; just like music went
from analog scratches in a plastic record to digital dimples in a
plastic CD.

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

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

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.

All I can say is:
Do it, and you'll find the decrease in eye-strain with higher resolution
fonts WELL worth the extra effort.

Rather like switching from DOS screen-fonts to True-Type.

The finer grain of the resulting fonts is *much* easier on the eye.
Once, of course, you do get everything changed over.

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

"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Mr.E Solved!" wrote in message

kony wrote:

[...]

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.

It already has a defined meaning. By misusing as you did you help to
confuse people not aware of the differences between ghosting and motion
blur.

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.

No, it isn't. Ghosting is possible with a static image, which is why you
shouldn't use it to refer to motion blur.
Anyone here who remembers trying to adjust an indoor TV antenna to get rid
of that "double" image will know what ghosting is. At least that is what I
always considered ghosting. Motion blur is what you see (more and more
rarely as LCD monitors are improving) when gaming on LCDs with fast moving
objects.


Ed

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Ed Medlin"
wrote:

Anyone here who remembers trying to adjust an indoor TV antenna to get rid
of that "double" image will know what ghosting is. At least that is what I
always considered ghosting. Motion blur is what you see (more and more
rarely as LCD monitors are improving) when gaming on LCDs with fast moving
objects.

"Ghosting" is now more properly called, "Multipath reception"; and
applies to both TV and FM signals.

Digital TV is removing that problem. With digital TV, either you get
the station with *good* reception; or you don't see anything except
sporadically. Makes it a bit difficult to adjust a TV antenna; though
the digital sets usually *do* have a signal-strength bar or "meter" to
help ... somewhere in their "tools" or "channel" menus.

One of the nice thing about analog though was: If you could get even a
very WEAK signal, you could still watch a snowy picture. No more.

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

On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:30:56 -0500, Frank McCoy
wrote:

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Ed Medlin"
wrote:

Anyone here who remembers trying to adjust an indoor TV antenna to get rid
of that "double" image will know what ghosting is. At least that is what I
always considered ghosting. Motion blur is what you see (more and more
rarely as LCD monitors are improving) when gaming on LCDs with fast moving
objects.

"Ghosting" is now more properly called, "Multipath reception"; and
applies to both TV and FM signals.

It just happens that in a different discipline,
computers/monitors, it has a different cause but similar
result still. If it hadn't already been a standard computer
term it might be applied to LCD artifacts but since it is,
reusing the term in same discipline deviates from the
intention of using a term for a defined meaning.

Frank McCoy wrote:
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.

I'm reminded of the old black-and-white 12" CRT I was playing around
with recently. It's limited to 640x480 at 60Hz, and when I realized
that it wouldn't go any faster, I immediately figured it would be
terribly annoying to use -- I'm one of the people who can see 60Hz
flicker, and it gives me a headache pretty quickly.

But not with this CRT. Its phospors have a remarkably long delay time,
which means that at 60Hz it looks rock steady. On the other hand, the
mouse cursor leaves quite clear trails when it's moving around.

- Brooks


--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Brooks Moses
wrote:

Frank McCoy wrote:
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.

I'm reminded of the old black-and-white 12" CRT I was playing around
with recently. It's limited to 640x480 at 60Hz, and when I realized
that it wouldn't go any faster, I immediately figured it would be
terribly annoying to use -- I'm one of the people who can see 60Hz
flicker, and it gives me a headache pretty quickly.

But not with this CRT. Its phospors have a remarkably long delay time,
which means that at 60Hz it looks rock steady. On the other hand, the
mouse cursor leaves quite clear trails when it's moving around.

Uhuh. My LCD as well, looks rock-steady; and the hand doesn't even
flicker when moved in front of it (like it does in front of a CRT).

However, the mouse *does* live trails behind it. Not long ones, even
compared to the cursor-size; but definite trails. I'd guess about three
frames worth. When moved fast, it seems to stagger a bit from place to
place. That last I'm not so sure is the monitor. It looks more like
what I'd expect from software delays in posting a new position.

Don't really notice either though, in normal use.
Only when I look real hard at the thing.

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

On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry

Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
And then move your head a bit around.
And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.

How old are the LCDs you are looking at? I can remember that as a
major problem when I saw the Crimean War Exibition that the War Museum
in London put on but that was a couple of years ago and the screens
were pretty old then.

I can promise you that there is no such problem on my Samsung
SyncMaster 214T - no even at really stupid angles of vision.

Regards,
vj

"Vittorio Janus" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry

Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
And then move your head a bit around.
And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.

How old are the LCDs you are looking at? I can remember that as a
major problem when I saw the Crimean War Exibition that the War Museum
in London put on but that was a couple of years ago and the screens
were pretty old then.

I can promise you that there is no such problem on my Samsung
SyncMaster 214T - no even at really stupid angles of vision.

Regards,
vj

I find the same with my 244T if you take the time to correctly calibrate it.
I found the default settings a bit on the bright side. I matched the color
settings with my laptop for photo editing and I love this thing. LCDs have
come a long way in the last few years especially with color depth and
viewing angle issues.

Ed

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Ed Medlin"
wrote:


"Vittorio Janus" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry

Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
And then move your head a bit around.
And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.

How old are the LCDs you are looking at? I can remember that as a
major problem when I saw the Crimean War Exibition that the War Museum
in London put on but that was a couple of years ago and the screens
were pretty old then.

I can promise you that there is no such problem on my Samsung
SyncMaster 214T - no even at really stupid angles of vision.

Regards,
vj

I find the same with my 244T if you take the time to correctly calibrate it.
I found the default settings a bit on the bright side. I matched the color
settings with my laptop for photo editing and I love this thing. LCDs have
come a long way in the last few years especially with color depth and
viewing angle issues.

Amen!
I personally like the settings of my LCD panel as it came right out of
the box. It looks almost exactly the same as my previous CRT had.

I suppose I *could* tweak the settings to match my color-laser-printer
instead; but I like the video settings better ... they're more
"lifelike". I suppose if I needed to see what things would look like
when printed very often, I'd probably quickly change my mind on that.

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