OT Flatscreen with adjustable resolution - ever?

Hello all,

Just musing really but is there ever likely to be a flat screen technology
(say in the next 30 years) that allows different resolutions with no loss in
image quality? Its the one thing I miss now that I use a LCD PC monitor
instead of a CRT one - the ability to change resolutions, without stretching
or compressing the image. Or is this limitation inherent in all flat screen
technology?

BillL

This is rapidly becoming another technological old wives' tale. My
Viewsonic LCD is fine at various different resolutions, as long as they're
ones with the proper *aspect ratio* - so for example ...
1027 x 768, 1152 x 864, 1280 x 960 all fine
1088 x 612, 1280 x 720, 1280 x 768 all crap, due to font break-up,
etc

It's the *aspect ratio* that is the crucial thing, not the resolution or the
monitor technology - AFAIAA there's no appreciable difference between LCD
or CRT in this respect; I certainly recall in the days when only CRTs were
available rejecting various resolutions that the monitor could display
because the result was terrible.

BillL" wrote in message
. ..
Hello all,

Just musing really but is there ever likely to be a flat screen technology
(say in the next 30 years) that allows different resolutions with no loss
in
image quality? Its the one thing I miss now that I use a LCD PC monitor
instead of a CRT one - the ability to change resolutions, without
stretching
or compressing the image. Or is this limitation inherent in all flat
screen
technology?

"BillL" wrote in message
. ..
Hello all,

Just musing really but is there ever likely to be a flat screen technology
(say in the next 30 years) that allows different resolutions with no loss
in image quality? Its the one thing I miss now that I use a LCD PC
monitor instead of a CRT one - the ability to change resolutions, without
stretching or compressing the image. Or is this limitation inherent in all
flat screen technology?

BillL

Now this makes we ask "how do CRTs achieve different resolutions"? With
LCDs, you HAVE TO process the signal and figure out how much toe switch each
LCD pixel "on/off" but presumable CRTs simply fire the gun at the
appropriate bit of screen and the beam lights up as many phosphors as fall
under it. The result is that the phosphors themselves do the
"averaging/conversion" simply by virtue of being hit "full on" or "off
beam".

Is it really that simply?

Paul DS.

Java Jive wrote:

It's the *aspect ratio* that is the crucial thing, not the resolution or
the
monitor technology - AFAIAA there's no appreciable difference between
LCD or CRT in this respect; I certainly recall in the days when only CRTs
were available rejecting various resolutions that the monitor could
display because the result was terrible.

TV/video source-material has "always" been available in various aspect
ratios and line counts.

Personally what I find most interesting, is the prospect of a progressive
signal (=non-interlaced) all the way from the original camera that shot the
image, all the way to the end-users display device.

Paul D.Smith wrote:
Now this makes we ask "how do CRTs achieve different resolutions"? With
LCDs, you HAVE TO process the signal and figure out how much toe switch each
LCD pixel "on/off" but presumable CRTs simply fire the gun at the
appropriate bit of screen and the beam lights up as many phosphors as fall
under it. The result is that the phosphors themselves do the
"averaging/conversion" simply by virtue of being hit "full on" or "off
beam".

scanlines are digital, and colour mask spacing
would seem to have a bearing on the matter.

BugBear

"BillL" wrote:

Just musing really but is there ever likely to be a flat screen technology
(say in the next 30 years) that allows different resolutions with no loss in
image quality? Its the one thing I miss now that I use a LCD PC monitor
instead of a CRT one - the ability to change resolutions, without stretching
or compressing the image. Or is this limitation inherent in all flat screen
technology?

Because the text and lines displayed on a PC screen are not anti-aliased
in the way that TV pictures are, changing the resolution will always
blur the image. You should *always* use the native resolution with a
computer display.

The O/S, be it Windows, Mac , or Linux, will allow you to specify the
size of desktop features, anyway, so there should be no need to use
anything other than native resolution. If you're running some legacy
(DOS?) software that benefits from a resolution change, then you'll
probably replace that, especially if you're looking 30 years ahead.

When displaying video on a PC screen, it will almost certainly be from a
compressed source like MPEG-2 or DIVX. Those become anti-aliased as part
of the compression algorithm, so normally you wouldn't be able to
distinguish the quality of such video when comparing it displayed at
original resolution or zoomed to full screen by the media player.

--
Dave Farrance

"kalev-" wrote in message
...

TV/video source-material has "always" been available in various aspect
ratios and line counts.

Yes, but the OP gave the example of his monitor, rather than TV and video
material, and it was this point I was countering. You can use any 4:3
resolution on either an LCD or a CRT monitor and it will look ok, but any
non-4:3 res is likely to look equally terrible on either.

Personally what I find most interesting, is the prospect of a progressive
signal (=non-interlaced) all the way from the original camera that shot
the
image, all the way to the end-users display device.

Hear! Hear! For me, HD and interlaced are mutually incompatible terms.

In article ,
BillL wrote:
Just musing really but is there ever likely to be a flat screen
technology (say in the next 30 years) that allows different resolutions
with no loss in image quality? Its the one thing I miss now that I use
a LCD PC monitor instead of a CRT one - the ability to change
resolutions, without stretching or compressing the image. Or is this
limitation inherent in all flat screen technology?

I can alter the resolution here without altering the geometry. It's down
to the monitor driver. There are obviously optimum settings due to 'pixel'
sizes etc, but this is surely true with any display?

--
*A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

bugbear wrote:
Paul D.Smith wrote:
Now this makes we ask "how do CRTs achieve different resolutions"? With
LCDs, you HAVE TO process the signal and figure out how much toe switch each
LCD pixel "on/off" but presumable CRTs simply fire the gun at the
appropriate bit of screen and the beam lights up as many phosphors as fall
under it. The result is that the phosphors themselves do the
"averaging/conversion" simply by virtue of being hit "full on" or "off
beam".

scanlines are digital, and colour mask spacing
would seem to have a bearing on the matter.

True.
But the phosphor dots on a TV/monitor rarely if ever line up with the
lines in a simple way, even on CRTs with the pixels in a nice
RGBRGB
RGBRGB array, the electron gun will usually span more than one line of
phosphor dots, and illuminate them.

And no CRT I'm aware of - other than data storage tubes - actually
has the capability to scan neatly along the phosphor dot lines -
alignment would be an utter, utter bitch.

In short, it's just that CRTs have a silly resolution of phosphor dots,
say 3000*3000 or something, and the lines the electron gun paints over
them doesn't pay any attention to the exact position.
LCDs on the other hand have each pixel individually addressible, so make
the resolution truly flexible would involve both extra electronics, and
a dramatic reduction of resolution, to blur the line over several
pixels.

Ian Stirling wrote:
In short, it's just that CRTs have a silly resolution of phosphor dots,
say 3000*3000 or something, and the lines the electron gun paints over
them doesn't pay any attention to the exact position.

This implies that CRT's aren't fully "analogue", but that
interpolation from supply resolution (e.g. vertical 625)
to display resolution (e.g. 3000) is approximated
by beam spread.

The "dimension" of the beam would be interesting :-)

LCDs on the other hand have each pixel individually addressible, so make
the resolution truly flexible would involve both extra electronics, and
a dramatic reduction of resolution, to blur the line over several
pixels.

Yeah - no argument.

BugBear