Re: [gentoo-user] switching to LCD monitor

[Bob Sanders <rmsand@concentric.net>]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:08:38 -0400
"Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:


>   "Internet TV", or videos are one reason.  Do you want an animated
> postage stamp in one corner of your 1280x1024 display?  Software scaling
> imposes a heavy load on the cpu, so hardware scaling is preferable.  As
> I mentioned in a previous message, attempting to interpolate partial
> pixels hurts image quality.  E.g. going from 1280x1024 to 1024x768 or
> 800x600 or 640x480 is bad.

But that is what the Gfx card is for, not the monitor.  The vast majority of LCD monitors
just don't have the ability to do decent scaling.  Gfx cards like Nvidia's 6200 and 6600
are getting there.  Ati, doesn't seem to do as well, the last time I looked.

The integrated VIA Unichrome series has been hampered by the older memory - the
new ones have upped the memory bus speed to 400 MHz DDR.

The XGI cards have some scaling, but the open source driver is lacking.

3DLabs doest some really nice scaling, but at $900 for the entry level, it's not
for everybody.  And their driver is still closed source, like Nvidia and ATI.

> 
>   However, you can retain picture quality if you divide the resolution
> cleanly by whole integers.  E.g. a 1280x1024 display should be just as
> good at 640x512 or 320x256.  Similarly a 1600x1200 LCD would do OK at
> 800x600 or 400x300.  "xrandr -q" is your friend.
> 

Yeah but it's a real pain if you prefer to work at higher resolutions, then have
to go mucking about with a resolution change.  Besides, all monitors need a different
color profile and brightness/contrast ratio to display video correctly.  If  this
isn't done, no amount of resolution mucking is going to present a decent
image.  

And I've seen very, very, few LCD monitors that produce the same color
temp across the surface.  The original Apple 20" was one of the worst offenders
in this regard.  The new 23" seems much better.

Bob
-- 
-  
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list