I have a screen that is capable of 1920x1080, but can go well beyond that?

[Recon-UK]

I have this Monitor TV by LG known as the M198WA - BZ it's native res is 1440x900 in PC mode, though it does 1080P just fine, we are talking active pixels not downsampled.
Now i went above this and got to 2000x1092 so far... ???????

 

[D007]

Sure, custom resolutions or upscaling. Quite a few monitors are capable of more than they are advertised as. I'd just try to use the DSR feature though. Cool you got some free pixels though.

 

[Recon-UK]

Sure, custom resolutions or upscaling. Quite a few monitors are capable of more than they are advertised as. I'd just try to use the DSR feature though.

Yeah, it maxed out at 2035x1092... not bad for a 19 inch screen haha, so many pixels o.0

 

[D007]

Yeah, it maxed out at 2035x1092... not bad for a 19 inch screen haha, so many pixels o.0

I bet you can see a visual improvement with that upgrade. Not bad at all..

 

[Recon-UK]

I bet you can see a visual improvement with that upgrade. Not bad at all..

If i look REAL close to the screen, the pixels are so tiny.... there is a slight issue i the top left hand corner, 3 very feint lines that are roughly 1cm in length have appeared as it's the limit of the screen, but it's not noticeable.

 

[qubit]

It's important to realise that you're still only seeing a 1440x900 picture. The high res picture is being down sampled to fit it. It's the same principle as all those "HD ready" TVs you see that have a native resolution of 1366x720. You're better off running it at its native resolution.

 

[Recon-UK]

Active pixels tell a different story.

If i press info on the monitor it shows 2100x1300 and the TV monitor was showing 2025x1092 for the 2035x1092 res.

Moving on to my HP w2007v, this is a VGA monitor with a native res of 1680x1050, i set it to 1920x1200 @ 75hz.. really pushing it.. does it but with some scaling issues, with all pixels activated.

Now i have got it to 2100x1300 @ 60hz.

Higher refresh above native causes scaling issues, at 60hz the screen is displayed correctly.


View attachment 76914

 

[R-T-B]

Active pixels tell a different story.

If i press info on the monitor it shows 2100x1300 and the TV monitor was showing 2025x1092 for the 2035x1092 res.

If that's true, it's highly unusual. LCD pixels are fixed points, they can't "change" and make more pixels magically. Unless this is a CRT or really bad LCD firmware, you aren't getting a 1:1 pixel mapping. It's scaling.

 

[Recon-UK]

If that's true, it's highly unusual. LCD pixels are fixed points, they can't "change" and make more pixels magically. Unless this is a CRT or really bad LCD firmware, you aren't getting a 1:1 pixel mapping. It's scaling.

So if i upload an image of my screen actually showing it's self running X resolution you still won't believe it?

BTW the VGA screen does not look better with higher res, it get's blurrier and blurrier unlike the TV monitor, that thing get's crisper.. odd.

 

[D007]

Just fyi, not trying to burst your bubble. Double posting is against forum rules.
Best to update the previous post, rather than make two, back to back.

Yea, depending on the type of monitor or TV, it can make things look worse.

 

[Recon-UK]

 

[R-T-B]

So if i upload an image of my screen actually showing it's self running X resolution you still won't believe it?

BTW the VGA screen does not look better with higher res, it get's blurrier and blurrier unlike the TV monitor, that thing get's crisper.. odd.

I could believe it. I did say they could not be running 1:1 pixel mapping firmware. I've seen some shitty TV's do this. I'm just pointing out once you find the sweet spot, there's no way to expand on it. LCDs just can't, and most come preoptimized for the native res. Most panels are made for a spec like 1080p or something. That's probably your sweet spot.

Also as an aside, you might want to point out to the poster above that you are not double posting, but he has too many people on ignore to even basically function at this point.

 

[qubit]

Active pixels tell a different story.

If i press info on the monitor it shows 2100x1300 and the TV monitor was showing 2025x1092 for the 2035x1092 res.

Moving on to my HP w2007v, this is a VGA monitor with a native res of 1680x1050, i set it to 1920x1200 @ 75hz.. really pushing it.. does it but with some scaling issues, with all pixels activated.

Now i have got it to 2100x1300 @ 60hz.

Higher refresh above native causes scaling issues, at 60hz the screen is displayed correctly.


View attachment 76914

You seem confused. You're still only seeing a 1440x900 picture. It looks pixelated or blurry. If the monitor could truly display it, then it would be sharp and clear.

If it could really show all those pixels, then a 1080p monitor could show a 4K picture and one could save a lot of cash, but that's not the case.

You can't get something for nothing.

 

[R-T-B]

You seem confused. You're still only seeing a 1440x900 picture. It looks pixelated or blurry. If the monitor could truly display it, then it would be sharp and clear.

If it could really show all those pixels, then a 1080p monitor could show a 4K picture and one could save a lot of cash, but that's not the case.

You can't get something for nothing.

Some displays can show more than they advertise. It's weird I know. I had a 720p Mintek with a true 1080p panel inside... aparently the only thing they downgraded was it's EDID.

 

[Mussels]

Windows can tell me that my 1080p TV is running at 4K (vsr/dsr), doesnt mean it is.
All thats happened is the scaler in your screen is doing a really good job - reporting the input resolution and adjusting the image to fit. Most screens report the OUTput resolution instead.

There is a one in a billion chance your screen genuinely is displaying extra pixels, but if so you'd be able to clearly find out what resolution that was - the panel inside it wouldnt be some odd number, it'd definitely be an existing, common resolution.

 

[qubit]

Some displays can show more than they advertise. It's weird I know. I had a 720p Mintek with a true 1080p panel inside... aparently the only thing they downgraded was it's EDID.

No that's flat out wrong. It's just scaling a bigger picture to fit. Mussels has also explained this to you now. This is a simple thing to understand so I'm beginning to think that you're choosing not to.

Your monitor will never show more pixels than it's got.

 

[Recon-UK]

Well i'm blind and pigs don't fly.

 

[R-T-B]

No that's flat out wrong. It's just scaling a bigger picture to fit. Mussels has also explained this to you now. This is a simple thing to understand so I'm beginning to think that you're choosing not to.

No, I mean I took the monitor apart and there was literally a 1080p panel inside. They artifically limited it with a scalar and false EDID info. I even checked part numbers. It's rare but with odd brands it does happen. Not sure if that's the case here or not... If it is, he probably has a 1080p panel tops.

Your monitor will never show more pixels than it's got.

I was the first to state that. Are you confusing me with the OP? Because I told him outright he's probably imagining this and it's a scaler function.

 

[qubit]

A higher res panel than stated in the specs would make no sense, but ok maybe this is some weird edge case.

Glad you realise that the panel can't show more pixels than it's got. I just think of a scaled down picture as a sort of "preview" mode.

 

[R-T-B]

Glad you realise that the panel can't show more pixels than it's got.

Yep. The Mintek I took apart was old too... Today it might make sense because I doubt a 1080p panel costs more than a 720p and everyone likes using the same production line... It was an odd duck, being like that at that old. I think they just had a bunch of 1080p panels and couldn't sell them at the 1080p price. So they 720p'ified them and viola, got some money at least... lol.

Probably all happened at a factory in China by children with soldering irons...

 

[P4-630]

I have that option as well, for my monitor and tv, they are both 1080p.

I can set them both to 2715x1527.

 

[Bill_Bright]

LCD pixels are fixed points, they can't "change" and make more pixels magically.

This is a fact. But what can happen and happens a lot is the graphics card is capable of much higher resolutions than the attached monitor. And the system either scales the image on the monitor or the monitor simply ignores the higher setting.

According to the manual for that 19" LG monitor, it supports a "Maximum resolution" (their bold) of 1440 X 900. Those screen shots are showing NVIDIA's and Windows settings - NOT what the monitor is actually displaying. Even if the monitor's OSD "Info" shows 2100x1300, with only 1,440 conductors or transistors per pixel vertically and 900 horizontally, it is physically impossibly to display more than 1440 X 900 pixels on the display. So even the monitor's own OSD "Info" is ignoring the resolution settings from the card.

A higher res panel than stated in the specs would make no sense

It might. There is an old (very old) manufacturing trick used for many products where the factories produce (or attempt to produce) the highest quality product they can with every production run. Then they test each unit and if it passes the most stringent tests, that unit gets the highest quality stamp. Those that fail - but only fail marginally - get a lower stamp instead of being tossed in the reject bin.

I first learned about this years ago with 5.25 inch floppy disks while touring a BASF factory in Germany. They showed us all disks came off the same production line and were made to be DSDD (double sided-double density), the highest, most expensive (and most profitable) grade at the time. If a side failed quality testing, they were marked SSDD (single sided, double density) and sold at a cheaper price. If the disk failed density testing, it was marked as single density and marketed as the budget line.

In this way, they could at least [hopefully] break even and not take a total loss with a pile of rejects.

CPU makers did (and still do) the same thing. They try to make the fastest CPU possible, but if it fails speed testing, they will throttle it down and put a slower label on the lid. Or they may even disable a core and call it a triple.

Doing it this way is actually cheaper because the factories (which are often out-sourced, single purpose factories) do not have to retool their production lines and manufacturing equipment for the different products. They make one product. So it makes sense to me for display panel makers to produce one panel, then those that don't pass the most stringent testing get put in lessor models.

 

[qubit]

It might. There is an old (very old) manufacturing trick...

Yes, what you're saying is true for CPUs, GPUs, floppy drives etc but it would be quite different for LCD panels for at least three reasons that I can think of the top of my head.

1 Selling a monitor as having a 1440x900 resolution, but with the panel really being 1920x1080, a 1440x900 picture is going to either be shown smaller than the size of the panel for a 1:1 pixel mapping or will be stretched to fit and look awful

2 The monitor's panel driver electronics have to be designed for the display resolution and the higher the resolution, of course, the more expensive this gets

3 A defective 1080p panel cannot be sold as a lower resolution one since one would see visible defects on the screen, so there's no cost saving to manufacture

Given the above points (#1 especially) it seems really unlikely that a monitor would ever be capable of a higher native resolution than advertised. Reckon reckons that the part number proves a higher resolution panel, but I'm skeptical. Most likely the information that he's reading is wrong or he's made a mistake somewhere. I've given him the benefit of the doubt simply because I can't physically check this monitor out myself and there's an outside chance that this might have happened somehow as a very rare edge case.

I reckon he's simply got a 1440x900 monitor that's very good at scaling down a bigger picture. He did note himself that some of those odd resolutions didn't actually fit the screen properly and showed some line artefacts, which shows that the monitor isn't actually designed to accept them.

 

[AsRock]

If it can go higher, probably. but the real question is should you as a lot of TV or monitors will go higher but pushing them passed what they are sold as might be pushing parts in side the unit too hard.

 

[newtekie1]

Yeah, it maxed out at 2035x1092... not bad for a 19 inch screen haha, so many pixels o.0

The monitor can not display more pixels than there are physically in the panel. If you create custom resolutions higher than that, the TV's scaler will down-sample the input resolution to fix the panel.