LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Hardware (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-hardware-18/)
-   -   Changes to screen resolution ratios (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-hardware-18/changes-to-screen-resolution-ratios-537884/)

dpeirce 03-15-2007 09:11 PM

Changes to screen resolution ratios
 
Kubuntu Edgy 6.10, Dell M781p monitor, NV18 [GeForce4 MX 440 AGP 8x]

A question about screen resolutions:

My monitor's native resolution is 1024x768, or 1:0.75; now I'm running at 1792x1344, or the same 1:0.75. So it looks like my monitor wants the height to be 75% of width. Therefore, could I use 2000x1500 (75%), or 2113x1585, or whatever so long as the ratio is 1:0.75 and the deflection coil doesn't melt?

Would the ratio have to always work out EXACTLY 1:0.75? (2113x1585 isn't EXACTLY 1:0.75). Also, other than some distortion, what would be the result of using a different ratio.

In faith, Dave
dave@christos.cjb.net, dpeirce@christian.net
Viva Texas <><

GrapefruiTgirl 03-15-2007 09:32 PM

The actual resolution ratio of virtually every CRT screen in existence is usually written as 4:3, and yes, in most if not all cases, a display *may* simply not work, or return errors, if you try to send it a resolution which doesn't match the 4:3 ratio.
Some televisions are different, but when it comes to monitors, 4:3 is a standard.
You will notice all the resolutions from 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1200x800, 1600x1200, etc etc, are all 4:3 ratios.
Some screens *may* adjust the received resolution to make it into a 4:3 ratio, or they may revert to their native ratio, but successfully sending an incorrect ratio to a screen usually won't work.
If it *does* display, but is distorted, chances are that it is stressing the hardware, and isn't advisable.
Finally, sending a resolution that is larger than the screen is capable of generally won't work, or will give poor performance, and also stresses the hardware.
I use the same card as you have, and by default my Linux OS graphical environment is set up at almost 1800-something x 1600-something, it is a weird size. My card doesn't mind, but the monitor doesn't like it, and I get staticcy scratchy lines on the display. My native res of the monitor is 1600x1200, and that's what I use and it works great.
As a sidenote/curiosity, I have the second output of my card going to a television, and if I specify anything larger than 1024x768, the TV or that output of the card turns off, because the television cannot handle the resolution.

dpeirce 03-15-2007 11:35 PM

Kubuntu Edgy 6.10, Dell M781p monitor, NV18 [GeForce4 MX 440 AGP 8x]

I think you must be right about all the monitors (except maybe the wide-screen laptops) using the 4:3 ratio. Maybe you should try 1840x1380 and see if your monitor/TV like it better? I can't make anything in the 1800/1600 range come out to 4:3.

My other monitor is a Mag 800; I run it at 2048x1536. Much higher and it starts getting too fuzzy to be useful. I guess what I need to do on this monitor is to increase resolution in very small increments keeping the 4:3. But now I've figured out how to keep the resolutions at the 4:3 ratio, so thanks ^_^.

Also, I was up in Nova Scotia 3 years ago. Took the boat across to Port Aux Basques; both it and Sydney were lovely, and much different from Texas.

In faith, Dave
dave@christos.cjb.net, dpeirce@christian.net
Viva Texas <><

dpeirce 03-16-2007 12:12 AM

Now I dunno about the 4:3 ratio. I went into Kubuntu's System Settings --> Display, and moved the slider to see what it would offer. Here's what showed up:

1024 x 768 - .75
1152 x 768 - .667
1152 x 864 - .75
1280 x 768 - .60
1280 x 800 - .625
1280 x 960 - .75
1280 x 1024 - .80
1400 x 1050 - .75
1440 x 900 - .625
1600 x 1200 - .75
1680 x 1050 - .625
1792 x 1344 - .75

1200 x 900, for example, is NOT offered.

But at least the resolution doesn't have to be exactly 4:3 (.75).

In faith, Dave
dave@christos.cjb.net, dpeirce@christian.net
Viva Texas <><

GrapefruiTgirl 03-16-2007 03:52 AM

True, there are exceptions to the 4:3 thing, like as you say the widescreens, and probably also with the panoramic type televisions, and plasma/lcd screens. It's mainly the typical CRT-powered screens about which I am referring. Newer technology likely offers more variance, perhaps even to a wider extent than those .6 and .8 ratios you discovered there.
I have a question or two:
Is your monitor a CRT, or something else?
And also, what in the world do you want such crazy high resolutions for? :) The text must be microscopic almost?! :O
LOL, Glad you enjoyed your visit up this way :).. Weather-wise, I sure could use a Texas vacation, that would be a sunny change for the better!
Take care Dave
~Sasha

dpeirce 03-16-2007 01:23 PM

Re exceptions to 4:3, and all of the resolutions I listed were available on this same monitor. It's a 17" CRT Dell. Kubuntu's "Settings" applet for displays has a little example window in it to show what each resolution will look like. The only difference among the different ratios was that some were squashed and others were streatched, but only a little. I was intrigued that it only offered certain resolutions, and did not offer other resolutions at the same ratios. They must be built-in somewhere in the hardware or drivers or...?

I like the higher resolutions because I like to have many windows open on screen simultaneously and without much overlap. One can reduce font sizes at lower resolutions and get something of the same effect, but only to a limited degree because the window itself stays big along with icons and menu bars, etc. For me, it's better to have the higher resolution so that the basic window itself is smaller, and all the icons and menu texts, and then adjust font size a little bit if I have to. The limit seems to be when the resolution gets high enough that the text becomes fuzzy. I haven't experienced any hardware problems yet with the higher resolutions. My other monitor has run that way for 4 years.

Weather here is chilly today... 74 degrees F. I see by <a href=http://www.hamweather.net/local/ca/ns/sydney.html>HAMweather</a> you are running about 27 F, which is a little cooler :^>.

In faith, Dave
dave@christos.cjb.net, dpeirce@christian.net
Viva Texas <><

GrapefruiTgirl 03-16-2007 01:31 PM

Good points, and thanks for that feedback :)
I too like not having to switch around a whole lot to get a bunch of windows going.
However, with 5 virtusl desktops @ 1600x1200 and 2 screens, I'm not hurting for space :P hehehe..
74'F huh? mmmm must be nice!
Take care ;)
PS - Y'know, I just realized, I haven't tried maxing out my resolution since installing the Accelerated nVidia driver from nVidia..Hmmm, I bet there would be an improvement over my first experiences with gigantic resolution using the default nv driver.
If I get to trying it I'll letcha know how it goes :)

dpeirce 03-16-2007 05:01 PM

OK, I'd like to find out how it goes. Maybe use my email just in case.

In faith, Dave
dave@christos.cjb.net, dpeirce@christian.net
Viva Texas <><

Electro 03-16-2007 07:38 PM

The minimum and maximum specs of the CRT monitor have to be counted in order to use the desire resolution. You can use any resolution, but only if they are within limits. Resolutions that is closer to 16:9 will produce stretched objects on the screen if you change settings of the monitor to fill in the whole screen. On my monitor Hitachi CM771, I use 1400x640 (11:5) for games and I use 1400x1050 (4:3) on day to day tasks. I could go higher, but I will not be able see anything. I use 75 hertz as the refresh rate because it produces the best text and graphics.

A 17 inch CRT monitor has limits such as the maximum resolution and refresh rate. If you use too high a resolution, it will get harder to see even after you changed the font size and the monitor may not accept the desire resolution.

Be careful of the desire resolution and refresh rate because this only when software can literally harm hardware.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 PM.