Monitor resolution

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by nobody, Feb 14, 2006.

  1. nobody

    nobody Guest

    Hp f2105 flat wide monitor. Optimum resolution recommended by the
    manufacturer is 1600 x 1050. However, when I use a resolution *other than*
    1024 x 768, image size becomes considerably smaller (about one fourth of the
    screen). I rang the HP support department, who were less than hopeless.
    However, it seems that other monitors (eg. Apple) can deliver a full screen
    high resolution (in the 1600 x range) image. Has this something to do with
    the graphics card? Or what else? Another problem, it seems that resolutions
    can be 1600 x 1024, or 1600 x 1200, but **not** 1600 x 1050, as recommended
    by HP. Thanks in advance for any comments. (the computer is a Compaq
    Presario, windows XP).
    nobody, Feb 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nobody

    bmoag Guest

    If your computer has a motherboard integrated video system then you may have
    to get a separate add-in video card. Motherboard based video systems have
    more limited resolution choices because they must share memory across the
    slow system bus.
    bmoag, Feb 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. nobody

    nobody Guest

    Thank you.


    On 14/2/06 15:45, in article
    iWmIf.30021$, "bmoag" <>
    wrote:

    >
    > If your computer has a motherboard integrated video system then you may have
    > to get a separate add-in video card. Motherboard based video systems have
    > more limited resolution choices because they must share memory across the
    > slow system bus.
    >
    >
    nobody, Feb 14, 2006
    #3
  4. Per bmoag:
    >Motherboard based video systems have
    >more limited resolution choices because they must share memory across the
    >slow system bus.


    I'm using an ATI/Radeon 9500 card in one of my PCs and a 70-something in the
    other. They're both near to the bottom of the line. Each supports digital and
    analog, both do everything I've asked of them.
    --
    PeteCresswell
    (PeteCresswell), Feb 14, 2006
    #4
  5. nobody

    PcB Guest

    "nobody" <> wrote in message
    news:C017BB21.19630%...
    > Thank you.
    >
    >
    > On 14/2/06 15:45, in article
    > iWmIf.30021$, "bmoag"
    > <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> If your computer has a motherboard integrated video system then you may
    >> have
    >> to get a separate add-in video card. Motherboard based video systems have
    >> more limited resolution choices because they must share memory across the
    >> slow system bus.
    >>
    >>

    >

    If you upgrade the video card remember to check your power supply rating
    first. I have an HP Pavilion (probably similar to the Compaq these days) and
    it has a cheapy cheapo PSU which probably won't power a decent graphics card
    (but works fine with myGeForce 4, and that does almost all I could ask).
    Don't know about Compaqs these days but certainly some of the HP PCs have a
    proprietary pin config. on the PSU plug and non-HP PSUs won't fit.

    --
    Paul ============}
    o o

    // Live fast, die old //

    Gallery at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/NewGallery2.htm
    Flickr pages at http://www.flickr.com/photos/pcbradley
    PcB, Feb 14, 2006
    #5
  6. nobody <> writes:

    > Hp f2105 flat wide monitor. Optimum resolution recommended by the
    > manufacturer is 1600 x 1050. However, when I use a resolution *other than*


    Actually, it's 1680x1050.

    > 1024 x 768, image size becomes considerably smaller (about one fourth of the
    > screen). I rang the HP support department, who were less than hopeless.
    > However, it seems that other monitors (eg. Apple) can deliver a full screen
    > high resolution (in the 1600 x range) image. Has this something to do with
    > the graphics card? Or what else? Another problem, it seems that resolutions
    > can be 1600 x 1024, or 1600 x 1200, but **not** 1600 x 1050, as recommended
    > by HP. Thanks in advance for any comments. (the computer is a Compaq
    > Presario, windows XP).


    I have one of those monitors, and I had no problems getting the proper
    resolution from a rather cheap nvidia card under Linux/X11. The very
    cheapest ones are limited to 1600 pixels horizontally, so be careful
    if you go shopping.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Feb 14, 2006
    #6
  7. nobody

    nobody Guest

    Thanks. I have been trying to profile the HP f2105 with a Gretag Macbeth
    Eye-One profiler. The monitor was incapable of reducing brightness to the
    right luminiscence (target140, monitor could not get under 156). Same
    problem with contrast, no matter what I did, I could not get the contrast
    indicated in the green ok area. Yet, the results are not terrible, compared
    to pictures which I saw on my previous CRT (an aging Dell), the image is
    acceptable, and, in many respects, clearly superior to the CRT. I wonder
    whether an Apple monitor might allow more precise adjustments?


    On 14/2/06 20:05, in article , "Måns
    Rullgård" <> wrote:

    > nobody <> writes:
    >
    >> Hp f2105 flat wide monitor. Optimum resolution recommended by the
    >> manufacturer is 1600 x 1050. However, when I use a resolution *other than*

    >
    > Actually, it's 1680x1050.
    >
    >> 1024 x 768, image size becomes considerably smaller (about one fourth of the
    >> screen). I rang the HP support department, who were less than hopeless.
    >> However, it seems that other monitors (eg. Apple) can deliver a full screen
    >> high resolution (in the 1600 x range) image. Has this something to do with
    >> the graphics card? Or what else? Another problem, it seems that resolutions
    >> can be 1600 x 1024, or 1600 x 1200, but **not** 1600 x 1050, as recommended
    >> by HP. Thanks in advance for any comments. (the computer is a Compaq
    >> Presario, windows XP).

    >
    > I have one of those monitors, and I had no problems getting the proper
    > resolution from a rather cheap nvidia card under Linux/X11. The very
    > cheapest ones are limited to 1600 pixels horizontally, so be careful
    > if you go shopping.
    nobody, Feb 15, 2006
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jack Yeazel

    ISO Resolution Chart and Printing Resolution

    Jack Yeazel, Aug 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,178
    Jack Yeazel
    Aug 12, 2003
  2. Simon

    Resolution resolution

    Simon, Feb 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    448
    Simon
    Feb 27, 2004
  3. slonkak

    LCD TV resolution / DVD resolution ?

    slonkak, Nov 13, 2006, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,159
    slonkak
    Nov 13, 2006
  4. hassy_user
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    758
    Bart van der Wolf
    Oct 27, 2004
  5. HS Crow
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    714
    HS Crow
    Sep 23, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page