Re: A question about LCD flat panel displays
* Gary Hennigan (glhenni@sandia.gov) spake thusly:
... Also, I
> run X almost exclusively so I can't speak to the FB issue.
It works the same way: (in a nutshell) things look worse at lower
resolutions.
> Flat panels, in general, have a certain number of pixels and their
> display is optimal for that number of pixels. If you're running the
> thing digitally and you want to run at a resolution less than the
> monitors optimal setting you'll just get a portion of the screen.
...
> For analog you can run at any resolution up to and including the
> optimal setting for the monitor, and it'll fill the screen, but you're
> taking a double whammy. First running analog your image isn't nearly
> as sharp as running digital.
Hmm, I should try to get work to buy me a video card with digital
out...
ObFuzziness: pixel on a CRT screen is a round dot where the beams hit.
On a TFT, the pixel is a rectangle like this:
+-----------+
| | red |
| |--------+
| | green |
| |--------+
| | blue |
+-----------+
What you get with this is ragged edges, esp. noticeable in fonts.
How bad it is also depends on colour: black pixel is the "whole
thing", red pixel is a thin rectangle occupying approx. 1/3rd of
"whole thing". So, black font on white background will look better
than pure red font on black background.
On both types of screens higher resolution -> sharper image, of
course.
Dima
--
"Mirrors and copulation are abominable because they increase the number of
entities." -- corollary to Occam's Razor
Reply to: