HI WLUG, My laptop has a 15" screen rated for 1024x768. I setup my laptop to have 3 resolutions in my XF86Config file: 1024x768 (default) 800x600 640x480 With XFree86 4.x, it appears that I don't explicitly need to specify a mode line any more (but I can if I wish). SuSE's configuration process puts a mode line in for me. When I run X and then run xvidtune, when I'm in 1024x768 mode, it indicates a refresh of 60 Hz. However, when I run in 800x600 mode, xvidtune thinks the refresh rate is around 90Hz, and in 640x480 mode, xvidtune thinks the refresh rate is 131 Hz(!). I'm not sure I believe it since I don't think the display can handle that (but if it is true, am I seriously overdriving the display?). Also note that in the lower resolution modes, the display actually looks a tad fuzzy. I am not using anti-aliased fonts. Is this normal for laptops or am I doing something wrong? Thanks, Andy -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA USA http://www.wlug.org
When I run X and then run xvidtune, when I'm in 1024x768 mode, it indicates a refresh of 60 Hz. However, when I run in 800x600 mode, xvidtune thinks the refresh rate is around 90Hz, and in 640x480 mode, xvidtune thinks the refresh rate is 131 Hz(!). I'm not sure I believe it since I don't think the display can handle that (but if it is true, am I seriously overdriving the display?).
Chances are good your LCD screen is fixed at 60 Hz for all resolutions.
Also note that in the lower resolution modes, the display actually looks a tad fuzzy. I am not using anti-aliased fonts.
Is this normal for laptops or am I doing something wrong?
Most LCDs are generally meant to be run at a single resolution and will look fuzzy at less than that. Try upping it, my Dell Inspiron 8000 with 15" screen looks crisp (and correct) at 1400x1050 but gets fuzzy at 1280x1024 and less. I'm not sure the real technical details on how those suckers work, that's just my experience. Brian J. Conway bconway@wpi.edu "Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves." - Albert Einstein
On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 10:42:54PM -0400, Brian J.Conway wrote: bconway> Most LCDs are generally meant to be run at a single resolution and will bconway> look fuzzy at less than that. Try upping it, my Dell Inspiron 8000 with bconway> 15" screen looks crisp (and correct) at 1400x1050 but gets fuzzy at bconway> 1280x1024 and less. I'm not sure the real technical details on how those bconway> suckers work, that's just my experience. Yes, LCD's always run at the same resolution (the max that they advertise usually). To get the other "resolutions" there are two methods: 1. Use only the center area of the screen to display smaller resolutions. The border around the image is black. 1 pixel at the resolution you chose == 1 real pixel on the LCD. 2. Stretch the requested resolution to fill the entire area of the LCD. This method, obviously, must always look fuzzy, since you are using more than one "real" pixel to display a simulated pixel. 1 pixel at the resolution you chose > 1 real pixel on the LCD. You can usually select which method you want to use in the system BIOS. -- Charles R. Anderson <cra@wpi.edu> / http://angus.ind.wpi.edu/~cra/ PGP Key ID: 49BB5886 Fingerprint: EBA3 A106 7C93 FA07 8E15 3AC2 C367 A0F9 49BB 5886
Andy Stewart wrote:
When I run X and then run xvidtune, when I'm in 1024x768 mode, it indicates a refresh of 60 Hz. However, when I run in 800x600 mode, xvidtune thinks the refresh rate is around 90Hz, and in 640x480 mode, xvidtune thinks the refresh rate is 131 Hz(!). I'm not sure I believe it since I don't think the display can handle that (but if it is true, am I seriously overdriving the display?).
I don't think so. The usual concerns about cooking monitors arise out of the use of the horizontal sync on TV's etc to provide the 25 or so KV needed for electron acceleration. When you are generating 25 KV even at a very low current the power goes up a lot. Hence, the horizontal system is usually engineered near the limit and this is why it is dangerous to exceed those design values. The LCD panel does not have this electron accelerating potential so the above does not apply.
Also note that in the lower resolution modes, the display actually looks a tad fuzzy. I am not using anti-aliased fonts.
As already noted by Brian and Chuck, that is par for the course. An LCD is very simple. It is an array of dots 1024 by 768 in your case, 800 by 600 in mine. Thus the video driver expects exactly that number and, if you ask for anything else will either have to interpolate (hence the fuzzy) or just use a subset (the small screen Chuck notes). The bottom line is that using screen resolutions other than that innate to the screen is pointless. One exception of relevance to you as mother superior of WLUG. If you are in Kinnicutt and want to use the projector, you may have to drop back to a resolution the projector can digest. :-) Incidentally, if the 1024 by 768 gives fonts that are too small, you can usually change font size in the application (not a problem for you but I am getting to the point where eyesight limitations are starting to be noticeable :-( )
Is this normal for laptops or am I doing something wrong?
Yes, yes. :-) doug
participants (4)
-
Andy Stewart -
Brian J.Conway -
Charles R. Anderson -
doug waud