85Hz at 2048X1536?

[RogerLeBo]

Are you able to get 85Hz at 2048X1536?

I'm about to buy a Matrox G400 MAX to get 85Hz at 2040X1536 and I want to be sure I will get 85Hz at 2048X1536.

My monitor is a Viewsonic P817

Thank you very much! Roger

[PaulS]

OT, but you'll find that resolution really hard to work with, even on a 21" screen. I think the the P187 is still a .26 DP monitor.

Paul

[MadCat]

Yes, I agree, without an insanely low DP anything above 1600x1200 looks like a blur. I would suggest instead you run that monitor at 1600x1200, and to make up for it, grab a spare 19" monitor and bump that up to 1280x1024. Put that DualHead to use if you really need more desktop space!

------------------
This Signature Space FOR SALE / RENT

[MarkV]

Just for the record, from my P817 manual:

21" (20.0" viewable diagonal)
0.26mm dot-trio pitch (0.22H), 90° deflection
ARAG TM = 48%
fh: 30-137 kHz, fv: 50-180 Hz

I run at 2048x1536x32@75Hz regularly in Windows 98 SE and Solaris 8 x86 with a P817 and G400 MAX. Some fonts are a little too small, but nothing is blurry.

You can't beat the screen real estate for certain apps or for serious multitasking (I love it for composing music with Finale 2000). But this resolution does have its disadvantages. If your eyes are already tired, this resolution definitely does not help. Also, certain things will not work at this resolution, at least at 32 bpp, such as Rainbow Runner G video capture, DVD video overlay, and certain types of DualHead.

The best thing is to use different resolutions and color depths as you need them. And when doing this, in my opinion, you can't beat the combination of the G400 MAX and P817. This is especially true when you use a driver that lets you create any resolution you want, such as XFree86 for UNIX or the Powerdesk Win9x driver with the Powerdesk Resolution Manager.



------------------
Mark Veneziano

[gbm]

Lets see... 20" viewable diagonal means 16"H x 12" V. 16" = 40 cm = 400 mm. Triade pitch is 0.26mm so you have slightly less than 1600 triades across the screen. To display distinguishable pixels we need ideally 1.5 triades per pixel, so you end up with something like 1100 real (physical) pixels of horizontal resolution.

The point is: you will not be able to distinguish individual pixels over 1600x1200 on this monitor, and the real workable resolution is 1280x1024/960. Anything above 1600x1200 is nonsense, since you can't see individual pixels at all. At 1600x1200 you still can't see the individual pixels precisely, but there is slight visual advantage over 1280xsomething.

[Dobber]

Strange thing, I've got an 815 at home which, after the addition of a G400 (not Max'd) has the ability to go 2048x1536, even though it's not listed in Viewsonics docs.

Matroxs own diplay proerties does show the 815 as capable of 2048.

I do have an 817 here at work and as it so happens, shipping has just informed me that my MAX has finally arrived !

You can't beat 2048 for pure spreadsheet manipulation, coding and CAD.

[gbm]

Some time ago created the profile to run my 15" Sony Multiscan 15sfII at 1920x1200 and 1600x1200 (at 50 Hz of course). The picture is so precise! And I can fit any spreadsheet on the screen.
That's a real pity that none of us can see the pixels, either on my 15" and yours 21"...

Seriuosly, sometimes I switch to 1152x864 for viewing some .pdf docs. The resolution does not make too much sense for any other purpose. It's exactly like 1600x1200 on 21".

If someone still believes in high resolutions, try to use the Paint to create a pattern of single-pixel wide black and white lines, horizontal and vertical, and check the max resolution at which you still can see the lines. On typical 15" it's 800x600, so it would be 1600x1200 on 30" monitor. If your monitor is really good, you can see the lines at 1024x768 on 15". With Trinitrons, the vertical resolution is very high, while the horizontal is very low. You are happy if you can see the black and white lines above 1280x1024 on 21" monitor.

[This message has been edited by gbm (edited 10 January 2000).]

[MarkV]

For some users, seeing individual pixels is not as important as getting as much desktop real estate as possible. With the applications I use, there is no blurriness anywhere on the screen and even the smallest text items and icons are crisp and readable. This is using the standard Windows 98 fonts and sizes. Maybe this is because all these items are multiple pixels tall and/or wide, but then why should I care about single-pixel items if none of my applications draw any?

If an alternating single pixel wide pattern of black and white lines is indiscernible, what difference does it make if there aren't any real-world applications that require this display precision? If you're using some kind of graphics or CAD program and need this precision, you're probably going to zoom in on the affected area before fiddling with it anyway. And even if it did become an issue, you could always change to a lower resolution when the situation requires it.

If having the most screen area is important to you, there is no reason you shouldn't run at a resolution as high as your hardware supports and your eyes find acceptable.



------------------
Mark Veneziano

[Wombat]

Ick. 50MHz. Headache, here I come!!

[Rags]

Ick. 50MHz

WOW!!!! now that's what I call a fast freaking refresh!!!!!!

[Wombat]

Oopsies.
50Mhz * 1e-6

[RAB]

Wait until you twenty somethings hit 45 and your eyes go to hell overnight. I went from 20-20 to 20-50 in the course of a year. Now I can't read the print here at the forum at anything over 1024x768 even on a 19". Aging sucks! It could also be that staring at a monitor all day for the past eight years at work hasn't helped either.

RAB

[gbm]

Hope you don't really think that I use the 1600x1200 on my 15". Did this just for fun.

I spend 6..11 hours per day at 17" running at 1152x864, 85 Hz and another 2..6 hours at 15", 1024x768, 81 Hz (can't reach 85Hz since it's an old one).
At 34 I still don't have any need for eyeglasses and hope to stay in this condition. Well, Since I started my work with computers in 1985 I always cared about monitors. I switched from monochrome to color when the first good (=digitally controlled, fast refresh) monitors appeared on the market.