# acer x221w display can do 1920x1080 High Def Resolution



## 1Strive (May 16, 2007)

Rigt-Click Desktop\Personalization\Display Settings\Advanced Settings\Monitor Tab

Un-Check "Hide modes that this monitor can not display"

Okay

Now 1920x1080 Resolution option shows up. Select and Okay

Looks Good but not great for text. "a little fuzzy"

So if your 22" display goes to 1680x1050 then you may want to check this out for playing High Definion Content.

And if you are looking for a good widescreen lcd then I highly reccomend this one for under $300 from Best Buy.

Thanks,
1STRIVE

*someone please post where I can download HD clips at 1920x1080*


----------



## Eric_Cartman (May 16, 2007)

most likely the monitor is scaling the image, hence the fuzzy text

you are still getting a 1680x1050 image in the end


----------



## ktr (May 16, 2007)

thanks, i think i have the same monitor as you (if memory servers me correctly, i recommend you that acer monitor ) How is it for you?

i will try it out. 

i just googled really quick, and this is what i found for video clips: http://www.highdefforum.com/showthread.php?t=6537


----------



## 1Strive (May 16, 2007)

Eric_Cartman said:


> most likely the monitor is scaling the image, hence the fuzzy text
> 
> you are still getting a 1680x1050 image in the end



Sorry but, You are wrong.
 

Hit "Print Scrn" Paste into MS Paint. Saved Default Image. (the background that's above ^)

Properties of that image prove the resolution is in fact 1920x1080.


----------



## 1Strive (May 16, 2007)

ktr said:


> thanks, i think i have the same monitor as you (if memory servers me correctly, i recommend you that acer monitor ) How is it for you?
> 
> i will try it out.
> 
> i just googled really quick, and this is what i found for video clips: http://www.highdefforum.com/showthread.php?t=6537




Hey ktr, how's it been?

Yes I remember you are the one that told me to get this one. Hope this helps you out. It is pretty cool playing Company of Heroes on 1920x1080 again. I thought I was stuck at 1680x1050 like everyone else. But that just goes to show that manufactors are only willing to advertise what they know for sure will work.


----------



## ktr (May 16, 2007)

i am well..

make sure you have clear type on, maybe that should sharpen up those fonts.


----------



## 1Strive (May 16, 2007)

ktr said:


> i am well..
> 
> make sure you have clear type on, maybe that should sharpen up those fonts.




How do I turn clear type on?


----------



## Eric_Cartman (May 16, 2007)

1Strive said:


> Sorry but, You are wrong.
> 
> 
> Hit "Print Scrn" Paste into MS Paint. Saved Default Image. (the background that's above ^)
> ...



no, print screen is all done via software, so it takes an image of the software image being sent to the monitor, not what is actually being shown on the monitor

all computer lcds have build in scalling that allows them to adapt resolutions to fit the number of pixels the lcd actually has

it works the same way when using lower resolutions

if you set it to 800x600 and do a print screen the image will be 800x600, even if the monitor is scaling it up to 1680x1050 to fit the whole screen


----------



## Solaris17 (May 16, 2007)

wtf? 24 bits dude?


----------



## 1Strive (May 16, 2007)

Eric_Cartman said:


> no, print screen is all done via software, so it takes an image of the software image being sent to the monitor, not what is actually being shown on the monitor
> 
> all computer lcds have build in scalling that allows them to adapt resolutions to fit the number of pixels the lcd actually has
> 
> ...



Okay so you might be right about how print scrn works. But that don't matter to me. It monitor ain't scaling as you call it. it is displaying 1920x1080. In the new game demo Lost Planet (DX10 version), and in CoH, and all my other games they all now give the option for 1920x1080 where as before they only went up to 1680x1050.

So explain that one.

P.S. Mama always said if you can't say anything nice...


----------



## Grings (May 16, 2007)

i think he's right you know, the image scaling is done by the monitor, so the graphics card is outputting 1920x1080, then the monitor scales to fit


----------



## 1Strive (May 16, 2007)

Solaris17 said:


> wtf? 24 bits dude?



I don't know what you mean. and yes the display is show as 32-bit. I believe it is the default for  how I saved the jpeg in paint.


----------



## 1Strive (May 16, 2007)

Grings said:


> i think he's right you know, the image scaling is done by the monitor, so the graphics card is outputting 1920x1080, then the monitor scales to fit




He may be right.

I understand that if you only can fit 1680 acroos and 1050 horizontal then how could it then fit 1920x1080 unless it is being scaled. However IMO and experience games don't give you the option to go higher unless the monitor is natively supporting it.


----------



## Grings (May 16, 2007)

the game (and entire computer) think that is the native resolution, thats what i meant by the card IS outputting it in 1920x1080, its being scaled to the monitors native res by the monitor itself


----------



## MaxBurn (May 16, 2007)

The monitor is scaling. Most monitors do this for lower than native resolutions too so you can see the BIOS when you boot up.


----------



## Eric_Cartman (May 16, 2007)

1Strive said:


> Okay so you might be right about how print scrn works. But that don't matter to me. It monitor ain't scaling as you call it. it is displaying 1920x1080. In the new game demo Lost Planet (DX10 version), and in CoH, and all my other games they all now give the option for 1920x1080 where as before they only went up to 1680x1050.
> 
> So explain that one.
> 
> P.S. Mama always said if you can't say anything nice...



if you remove the restriction the driver places on the resolution then games will not know what resolutions the monitor can support, they are also just software after all

games also do the same thing with lower resolutions, they can be set to output something different than what the monitor really is, like 800x600, and the monitor will scale the image to fit the screen

and being corrected by someone isn't something to get offended by, grow up


----------



## 1Strive (May 16, 2007)

Eric_Cartman said:


> if you remove the restriction the driver places on the resolution then games will not know what resolutions the monitor can support, they are also just software after all
> 
> games also do the same thing with lower resolutions, they can be set to output something different than what the monitor really is, like 800x600, and the monitor will scale the image to fit the screen
> 
> and being corrected by someone isn't something to get offended by, grow up



I understand that lower resolution will scale up to fit. I understand that vista, graphics drivers, dx10 and games are all software and will show that higher res. I still don't think it is scaling it donw because I am used to 1650x1080 and this looks better. So I will use it no matter what. No harm done.

And my remark about you is more to do with the way your attitude comes off, not the info you provide. You can be right and still come off as a @$$.

But I am sure I sound like one too. So thanks for the help.


----------



## MaxBurn (May 16, 2007)

1Strive said:


> No harm done.



True, it won't hurt a thing. BUT It should look sharpest at the LCD panel's native resolution. Some monitors will scale better than others as well. Some people don't like sharp though, case in point all the people that like truetype. I personally don't like truetype because it is fuzzy, but if you like it a little blurry and smooth there you go.


----------



## 1Strive (May 16, 2007)

MaxBurn said:


> True, it won't hurt a thing. BUT It should look sharpest at the LCD panel's native resolution. Some monitors will scale better than others as well. Some people don't like sharp though, case in point all the people that like truetype. I personally don't like truetype because it is fuzzy, but if you like it a little blurry and smooth there you go.



Thanks for the help. After thinking about it, I think you guys are right about the resolution. But I will keep on, becuase as I said before, no harm done.

Thanks again,
1STRIVE


----------



## Eric_Cartman (May 16, 2007)

1Strive said:


> And my remark about you is more to do with the way your attitude comes off, not the info you provide. You can be right and still come off as a @$$.



yes, and flat out saying someone is wrong when they are offering and explanation to what is going on is down right insulting

don't get angry when someone starts to be an ass back to you after you insult them


----------



## 1Strive (May 16, 2007)

Eric_Cartman said:


> yes, and flat out saying someone is wrong when they are offering and explanation to what is going on is down right insulting
> 
> don't get angry when someone starts to be an ass back to you after you insult them




true. my bad. you are right. I started the "being an ass" and props to you for knowing what you are talking about and sticking to it. 

Thanks for the help.
1STRIVE


----------



## 1Strive (Jun 14, 2007)

Eric_Cartman said:


> if you remove the restriction the driver places on the resolution then games will not know what resolutions the monitor can support, they are also just software after all
> 
> games also do the same thing with lower resolutions, they can be set to output something different than what the monitor really is, like 800x600, and the monitor will scale the image to fit the screen
> 
> and being corrected by someone isn't something to get offended by, grow up



The way XP sp2 and Vista do it is to have the video card display the higher resolution and then  the "DISPLAY" chooses to either "scale it down" or "show what it can and let you scroll around to see the rest of the resolution. (showing only part of the picture coming from the video card" or if you have my display it will show you the max Pixels the display can support. 

That is why it only gives me that high (1920x1080) even when I remove the "restriction" it goes by how you "display works" and it varies per display.


----------



## psychomage343 (Jun 14, 2007)

ok look you're all getting way to technical with the monitor issue.  the monitor only has the ability to display in it's native res.  if the monitor is 1680x1050 that 16:1 widescreen and the only res it can display at, when you go higher all your doing is outputting to the monitor in that rez but the monitor is scaling it down, what it means is basically taking a larger image and shrinking it to the same size as it's native res so that it can fit on the screen.  that's why the picture is fuzzy and the like, you can test this by watching how fuzzy your images get when you go down in rez.  the monitor's lcd layout is set up in an arrangement 1680pixels wide, and 1050 pixels tall, it's the only true rez it can display, and that's why they call it a native rez on lcds.  now if you had a crt, the cathodes would simply shoot more pixels onto the screen when you went higher then the monitors "max" rez which usually resulted in hotter operation, an then the eventual burnout of the monitor, crt's are the only monitor's that could be overridded to a higher rez


----------



## 1Strive (Jun 14, 2007)

psychomage343 said:


> ok look you're all getting way to technical with the monitor issue.  the monitor only has the ability to display in it's native res.  if the monitor is 1680x1050 that 16:1 widescreen and the only res it can display at, when you go higher all your doing is outputting to the monitor in that rez but the monitor is scaling it down, what it means is basically taking a larger image and shrinking it to the same size as it's native res so that it can fit on the screen.  that's why the picture is fuzzy and the like, you can test this by watching how fuzzy your images get when you go down in rez.  the monitor's lcd layout is set up in an arrangement 1680pixels wide, and 1050 pixels tall, it's the only true rez it can display, and that's why they call it a native rez on lcds.  now if you had a crt, the cathodes would simply shoot more pixels onto the screen when you went higher then the monitors "max" rez which usually resulted in hotter operation, an then the eventual burnout of the monitor, crt's are the only monitor's that could be overridded to a higher rez



Okay, all of that sense.

What if? Like a lot of other hardware (CPUs) the manufacturer is only willing to advertise to consumers what they KNOW the hardware can do, when really it can go higher but that will void their warren tee. Also, what if windows sucks and doesn't detect displays right.

I was on the phone w/ a Planar Engineer about a 5 megapixel [2560×2048] display for Medical Mammography Images. He had me Uncheck that Restriction box and this allowed the display to go the bigger res (that wasn't an option before) Then you could look at the 5 megapixel image with out scrolling around, and he said that the display is displaying the higher res. (of course if it is scaling it down then it would do the same)
I have only brought this back up because I want to make sure that the Doctors I am supporting are getting what they need. These Monitors cost 12k for one.  So I think this is a worthwhile discussion.


----------



## psychomage343 (Jun 14, 2007)

think of it this way, you take an image that is too big for the screen and zoom out, did the res of the monitor change??
no i probably didn't, but you were able to cram the 5 mp image on the screen just by zooming out.  this is precisely what your monitor is doing when you force to a higher rez, it's putting the same picture on the screen it's just craming it into a smaller space, that's why the text get fuzzy and the like, all lcd's only support one rez.  that's there native rez, because of computer software and the ability to override/use different image shading and the like when you force a higher rez it simply zooms out from the image(make the image smaller) and then put it in the same native rez that it was in before. 


i took this from answers.com

native resolution
“Pixel perfect” redirects here. For the Disney film, see Pixel Perfect.
text as displayed as 800x600 on a native 1024x768 LCD
text as displayed as 800x600 on a native 1024x768 LCD

The native resolution of a LCD, LCoS or other flat panel display refers to its single fixed resolution. As an LCD display consists of a fixed raster, it cannot change resolution to match the signal being displayed as a CRT monitor can, meaning that optimal display quality can be reached only when the signal input matches the native resolution. An image where the number of pixels is same as in the image source and where the pixels are perfectly aligned to the pixels in the source is said to be pixel perfect.

While CRT monitors can usually display images at various resolutions, a LCD monitor has to rely on interpolation (scaling of the image), which causes a loss of image quality. A LCD has to scale up a smaller image to fit into the area of the native resolution. This is the same principle as taking a smaller image in an image editing program and enlarging it; the smaller image loses its sharpness when it is expanded. This is especially problematic as most resolutions are in a 4:3 aspect ratio (640×480, 800×600, 1024×768, 1280×960, 1600×1200) but there are odd resolutions that are not, notably 1280×1024. If a user were to map 1024×768 to a 1280×1024 screen there would be distortion as well as some image errors, as there is not a one-to-one mapping with regards to pixels. This results in noticeable quality loss and the image is much less sharp.

Some resolutions work well, however, if they are exact multiples of smaller image sizes. For example, a 1600×1200 LCD will display an 800×600 image well, as each of the pixels in the image will be represented by a block of four on the larger display, without interpolation. Since 800×600 is an integer factor of 1600×1200, scaling will not adversely affect the image.

Because of native resolution, some people who play computer games refuse to use LCD monitors, since the native resolution is so high that it may cause frame rate issues when playing a game. However, standard resolutions that make up a perfect fraction of the native resolution can look better (e.g. 4 native pixels per pixel of small resolution).

Most LCD monitors are able to inform the PC of their native resolution using Extended display identification data (EDID). Some liquid crystal display televisions however, especially with 1366 x 768 pixels, fail to provide their native resolution and only provide a set of lower resolutions, resulting in a less than picture perfect output.


----------



## 1Strive (Jun 14, 2007)

Here is a way to test this theory.

Use a Scanner to scan a ruler (or any object) to a certain resolution. Say 1920x1080. Then view that image (at that resolution and 100% zoom) and hold up the object to the image and see if it is the same size.

If the monitor is, in fact, just scaling the image down, then it the Image displayed will be a different size than the object.

I can't wait to try this.

Thanks for the help.
1STRIVE


----------

