Vista: display quality with non-native resolutions

Message

meditate2001 · #1 Post by **meditate2001** » Fri May 25, 2007 7:02 am

Anyone can tell how the quality is when display non native res. on vista ??? still not as good, what does that mean ? how much ?
thanx

pianowiz wrotes:
".. Windows Vista is supposed to minimize the fuzziness caused by non-native resolutions, but it's still not as good as viewing things at the native res."

ahe · #2 Post by **ahe** » Fri May 25, 2007 7:31 am

1280x1024 looks pretty fuzzy on my widescreen. I took a screenshot, but it looks sharp, for some reason: http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/4469/testhl2.jpg

Anyway, why do you want to run in a non-native resolution?

FRiC · #3 Post by **FRiC** » Fri May 25, 2007 8:50 am

The quote is not quite right. You're still supposed to use the native resolution, he meant "native DPI". With previous versions of Windows, if you set the DPI to anything other than normal (96 dpi) you get larger text, but the icons would be messed up and many thing don't work quite right such as text and graphic not lining up correctly.

But with Vista, the icons are all scalable, so no matter what DPI you use, everything looks good.

meditate2001 · #4 Post by **meditate2001** » Fri May 25, 2007 10:11 am

@ahe thanks for the pic, it looks better than xp on a no-native-res.
but i think the screenshot does not show the fuzziness coz it arises at the screen itself, but the screenshot is taken from "inside"

change because sometimes i think 1400x1050 is too small for me but i cant switch on xp to lower res like 1280 or so, coz it is too fuzzy..

pianowizard · #5 Post by **pianowizard** » Fri May 25, 2007 10:15 am

FRiC wrote:The quote is not quite right. You're still supposed to use the native resolution, he meant "native DPI".

No, I did mean "native resolution". Of course we're supposed to use the native res, but sometimes people need to reduce it to other, non-native resolutions. When you do this, the screen looks terrible, but many people have testified that it doesn't look as bad under Vista.

Oaklodge · #6 Post by **Oaklodge** » Fri May 25, 2007 10:27 am

I think some of the none native resolutions don't look too bad, but they are all fuzzy.

Using a different DPI work quite well, but its not complete ... for example it does not scale a lot of web sites. Also fonts that are in bold don't look too good....

I'm still going back and forth between using the larger dpi, swapping out my screen for a lower res one, or a new pair of glasses...

#7 Post by **RonS** » Fri May 25, 2007 10:54 am

ahe wrote:1280x1024 looks pretty fuzzy on my widescreen. I took a screenshot, but it looks sharp, for some reason

If you take a screenshot, you're grabbing video memory and it will always look "perfect" because it's not going through the display.

If you use a camera and take a picture of the screen, then you'll catch the fuzziness.

FRiC · #8 Post by **FRiC** » Fri May 25, 2007 12:01 pm

pianowizard wrote:No, I did mean "native resolution". Of course we're supposed to use the native res, but sometimes people need to reduce it to other, non-native resolutions. When you do this, the screen looks terrible, but many people have testified that it doesn't look as bad under Vista.

I think the people that think it doesn't look as bad under Vista are using newer LCD's that have built-in smoothing. I have some really cheap LCD's at work that look just fine with non-native resolutions, but all our high-end ones look bad because the high-end ones don't have smoothing.

Plus, Vista has larger fonts by default, and ClearType is also enabled by default.

Vista: display quality with non-native resolutions

Vista: display quality with non-native resolutions

Who is online