Hi, all! Yesterday my mother bought me a 32" LG L3200T Flatron monitor. It's beautiful. i almost get whiplash turning my head to see both sides of it at once. The problem is, at 1600x1200 resolution (the highest it will go), i have a pitiful DPI, and text is really blurry. xdpyinfo | grep resolution resolution: 43x58 dots per inch eeek! i can only assume that lower resolutions will provide an even lower DPI. "The way i calculate it" (which might not be correct), i should be able to pump that up to 62 DPI, which would be a bit of an improvement. The problem is - i have no idea how to manually set the DPI. Can someone gently prod me in the proper direction here? -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
On Sunday 29 October 2006 10:50, stephan beal wrote:
Yesterday my mother bought me a 32" LG L3200T Flatron monitor. It's beautiful. i almost get whiplash turning my head to see both sides of it at once.
The problem is, at 1600x1200 resolution (the highest it will go), i have a pitiful DPI, and text is really blurry.
xdpyinfo | grep resolution resolution: 43x58 dots per inch
i re-ran sax2. While the text in the menus is too small to read w/o *very* careful attention, i found that sax had correctly determined the monitor, but incorrectly set the size - it was set to 42" instead of 32. Knocking it down to 32" gives me a more acceptable, but still notably fuzzy, display: xdpyinfo | grep resolution resolution: 58x70 dots per inch -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
stephan beal wrote:
Hi, all!
Yesterday my mother bought me a 32" LG L3200T Flatron monitor. It's beautiful. i almost get whiplash turning my head to see both sides of it at once.
The problem is, at 1600x1200 resolution (the highest it will go), i have a pitiful DPI, and text is really blurry.
xdpyinfo | grep resolution resolution: 43x58 dots per inch
eeek!
i can only assume that lower resolutions will provide an even lower DPI.
"The way i calculate it" (which might not be correct), i should be able to pump that up to 62 DPI, which would be a bit of an improvement.
The problem is - i have no idea how to manually set the DPI.
Can someone gently prod me in the proper direction here?
But isn't this a TV and not a monitor? A TV will never have the resolution of a monitor; on a TV I think the (?)dpi is something like ~0.9mm and not the ~0.25 for a monitor. Cheers. -- I'm dangerous when I know what I'm doing.
On Sunday 29 October 2006 12:00, Basil Chupin wrote:
But isn't this a TV and not a monitor? A TV will never have the resolution of a monitor; on a TV I think the (?)dpi is something like ~0.9mm and not the ~0.25 for a monitor.
That's a good question. In one online description i found, it's sold as a TV. In the 3 stores i went to, it was sold together with the monitors, not the TVs, though there were similar LG models which were sold as TVs. The box label says "LCD Monitor". -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
stephan beal wrote:
On Sunday 29 October 2006 12:00, Basil Chupin wrote:
But isn't this a TV and not a monitor? A TV will never have the resolution of a monitor; on a TV I think the (?)dpi is something like ~0.9mm and not the ~0.25 for a monitor.
That's a good question. In one online description i found, it's sold as a TV. In the 3 stores i went to, it was sold together with the monitors, not the TVs, though there were similar LG models which were sold as TVs. The box label says "LCD Monitor".
Go here- http://us.lge.com/download/product/file/1000000469/L3200TF_specsheet.pdf The resolution is 1366x768 and the dp is 0.51mm. Cheers. -- I'm dangerous when I know what I'm doing.
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:06, Basil Chupin wrote:
The resolution is 1366x768 and the dp is 0.51mm.
dpi stands for "dots per inch", it can't possibly be expressed in millimeters, it must be a quantity. You probably mean one pixel is 0.51 millimeters, making for a dpi value of 25.4/0.51 or roughly 50
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:06, Basil Chupin wrote:
The resolution is 1366x768 and the dp is 0.51mm.
dpi stands for "dots per inch", it can't possibly be expressed in millimeters, it must be a quantity. You probably mean one pixel is 0.51 millimeters, making for a dpi value of 25.4/0.51 or roughly 50
Which is what I show: dp of 0.51 (actually it should be 0.511) and not dpi :-) . DP = dot pitch. Cheers. -- I'm dangerous when I know what I'm doing.
Hi, On Sunday 29 October 2006 07:16, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:06, Basil Chupin wrote:
The resolution is 1366x768 and the dp is 0.51mm.
dpi stands for "dots per inch", it can't possibly be expressed in millimeters, it must be a quantity. You probably mean one pixel is 0.51 millimeters, making for a dpi value of 25.4/0.51 or roughly 50
The term for that measure is "dot pitch" and it's not the size of the pixels (their light-emitting area) but rather the (slightly larger) distance for a given edge of one pixel to the corresponding edge of the immediately adjacent pixel. While it need not be the same vertically and horizontally, nowadays it usually is. If you multiply the dot pitch by the number of pixels (in a given dimension) you get the physical size of the imaging area of the display. Randall Schulz
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:25, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Hi,
On Sunday 29 October 2006 07:16, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:06, Basil Chupin wrote:
The resolution is 1366x768 and the dp is 0.51mm.
dpi stands for "dots per inch", it can't possibly be expressed in millimeters, it must be a quantity. You probably mean one pixel is 0.51 millimeters, making for a dpi value of 25.4/0.51 or roughly 50
The term for that measure is "dot pitch" and it's not the size of the pixels (their light-emitting area) but rather the (slightly larger) distance for a given edge of one pixel to the corresponding edge of the immediately adjacent pixel. While it need not be the same vertically and horizontally, nowadays it usually is.
If you multiply the dot pitch by the number of pixels (in a given dimension) you get the physical size of the imaging area of the display.
Leaving revisionism aside for a second, in the previous mail the abbreviation DPI was used by Basil, not DP, with the same values in millimeters. Also, "dot pitch" is hardly a well defined term (normally 'pixel pitch' is used, as indeed it is in that pdf file), and whenever an abbreviation is used for the first time that is not in common usage, it is common practice to explain it In this case though, I suspect it's second-guessing and backformations
On Sunday 29 October 2006 07:30, Anders Johansson wrote:
...
In this case though, I suspect it's second-guessing and backformations
You suspect what is second-guessing and "backinformations?" ("Backinformation" is not, to my knowledge an English word--perhaps you mean back-formation?") Anyway, "dot pitch" is a perfectly well defined term, especially for LCD displays. For CRTs it demands a means of determining the edge of a pixel, which depends on the driving signal, to some extent, and on the shadow mask geometry (assuming it's a color CRT). Whether one calls it "pixel pitch" or "dot pitch" is just a matter of lexical semantics. Randall Schulz
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:58, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 29 October 2006 07:30, Anders Johansson wrote:
...
In this case though, I suspect it's second-guessing and backformations
You suspect what is second-guessing and "backinformations?" ("Backinformation" is not, to my knowledge an English word--perhaps you mean back-formation?")
Huh? Where do you see the "in"? I did mean backformation, and that was what I wrote
On Sunday 29 October 2006 08:11, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:58, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 29 October 2006 07:30, Anders Johansson wrote:
...
In this case though, I suspect it's second-guessing and backformations
You suspect what is second-guessing and "backinformations?" ("Backinformation" is not, to my knowledge an English word--perhaps you mean back-formation?")
Huh? Where do you see the "in"? I did mean backformation, and that was what I wrote
Sorry. I guess I'm just hallucinating this morning. Maybe it's too much (or too little) coffee... RRS
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:25, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Hi,
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:06, Basil Chupin wrote:
The resolution is 1366x768 and the dp is 0.51mm. dpi stands for "dots per inch", it can't possibly be expressed in millimeters, it must be a quantity. You probably mean one pixel is 0.51 millimeters, making for a dpi value of 25.4/0.51 or roughly 50 The term for that measure is "dot pitch" and it's not the size of the
On Sunday 29 October 2006 07:16, Anders Johansson wrote: pixels (their light-emitting area) but rather the (slightly larger) distance for a given edge of one pixel to the corresponding edge of the immediately adjacent pixel. While it need not be the same vertically and horizontally, nowadays it usually is.
If you multiply the dot pitch by the number of pixels (in a given dimension) you get the physical size of the imaging area of the display.
Leaving revisionism aside for a second, in the previous mail the abbreviation DPI was used by Basil, not DP,
Just to make the point, here is what I wrote in the first post: "on a TV I think the (?)dpi is something like...." (note the (?) before the dpi?) and then I wrote: "The resolution is 1366x768 and the dp is 0.51mm." with the same values in millimeters. [pruned] Cheers. -- I'm dangerous when I know what I'm doing.
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:06, Basil Chupin wrote:
Go here-
http://us.lge.com/download/product/file/1000000469/L3200TF_specsheet. pdf
The resolution is 1366x768 and the dp is 0.51mm.
That's the "native" resolution (as written on the box), whatever that really means. The device does 1600x1200, though, which is why i bought it. In the store they had conflicting info - on one sheet it said 1600x1200 and on other it said 1366x768, so we actually hooked up the screen to an on-display computer to make sure it would do 1600x1200. After telling sax that my screen is 32", instead of the 42" it had configurd, i get a more reasonable view: xdpyinfo | grep resolution resolution: 58x70 dots per inch xdpyinfo | grep dimensions dimensions: 1600x1200 pixels (701x435 millimeters) It isn't super-sharp, but it's more usable. When it "extended VGA" text mode, though, it's almost unreadable. (e.g., when i use ctrl-alt-f2 to drop to a text console.) -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
Computer text on a video monitor has never been very acceptable. The native resolution reflects the physical makeup of the screen, and any resolution setting other than native is both slow and "derived". That is to say, the computer pixels have to be mapped onto the LCD cells, and loose the true relationship of the original pixel. Seeing a video picture is not a good test, as your mind blends what it sees and says "cool". Text, on the other hand, demands true fidelity, and the interpretations stand out like a sore thumb. If you purchased this for HDTV, then keep it. Otherwise, I'd take it back, or run it at the native resolution as a wide-screen display. Nothing wrong with a large desktop... Tom On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 18:56 +0100, stephan beal wrote:
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:06, Basil Chupin wrote:
Go here-
http://us.lge.com/download/product/file/1000000469/L3200TF_specsheet. pdf
The resolution is 1366x768 and the dp is 0.51mm.
That's the "native" resolution (as written on the box), whatever that really means. The device does 1600x1200, though, which is why i bought it. In the store they had conflicting info - on one sheet it said 1600x1200 and on other it said 1366x768, so we actually hooked up the screen to an on-display computer to make sure it would do 1600x1200.
After telling sax that my screen is 32", instead of the 42" it had configurd, i get a more reasonable view:
xdpyinfo | grep resolution resolution: 58x70 dots per inch xdpyinfo | grep dimensions dimensions: 1600x1200 pixels (701x435 millimeters)
It isn't super-sharp, but it's more usable. When it "extended VGA" text mode, though, it's almost unreadable. (e.g., when i use ctrl-alt-f2 to drop to a text console.)
On Sunday 29 October 2006 20:03, Tom Patton wrote:
If you purchased this for HDTV, then keep it. Otherwise, I'd take it back, or run it at the native resolution as a wide-screen display.
Nothing wrong with a large desktop...
Thanks for the explanation of "native resolution." That makes sense. i purchased it (or, it was purchased for me) for general purpose PC use, and it was sold as a monitor and not a TV (though it arguably *should* have been sold as a TV). i unfortunately can't run at lower than 1440x900 because that's the resolution i use on my work machine to develop with (i remote control the work machine from this box). For software development, higher resolution = more screen real estate = more effective programming (for me, anyway). i hate running at lower than 1600x1200, but my work machine (a laptop) can't do higher than 1440x900. While text (e.g., in this mail) is a bit fuzzy, my desktop looks fairly okay, as do videos. That is: graphics looks reasonably good and text looks so-so. i'm still trying to decide whether i will go back to my 21" monitor. i'd really hate to have this 32" laying around and not use it, especially after coveting it for 2 months in the store, but taking it back is not really a feasible option (it's too big for me to take back w/o a car, and i don't have a car). -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
i unfortunately can't run at lower than 1440x900 because that's the resolution i use on my work machine to develop with (i remote control the work machine from this box). For software development, higher resolution = more screen real estate = more effective programming (for me, anyway). i hate running at lower than 1600x1200, but my work machine (a laptop) can't do higher than 1440x900.
I remote my laptop (ssh -X) without any discernable issue. X should know when it sets up the driver in the laptop that it has a new screen to deal with...or at least that's how I thought "termcap" worked. It's been a few years since I had any issue in that regard.
While text (e.g., in this mail) is a bit fuzzy, my desktop looks fairly okay, as do videos. That is: graphics looks reasonably good and text looks so-so.
I'd try native on your desktop, then see what you get from the laptop (in case you haven't thought already to try...). But if you are "used" to a 4:3 desktop, a 16:9 might not be comfortable. Oh, I'd ssh from a graphical console, not from Alt-Ctl-F2. That would send the wrong termcap I think. Good luck Tom
On Sunday 29 October 2006 21:25, Tom Patton wrote:
I remote my laptop (ssh -X) without any discernable issue. X should know when it sets up the driver in the laptop that it has a new screen to deal with...or at least that's how I thought "termcap" worked. It's been a few years since I had any issue in that regard.
The laptop is a WinXP box, because i program for WinCE GPS devices for work :(.
While text (e.g., in this mail) is a bit fuzzy, my desktop looks fairly okay, as do videos. That is: graphics looks reasonably good and text looks so-so.
I'd try native on your desktop, then see what you get from the laptop (in case you haven't thought already to try...). But if you are "used" to a 4:3 desktop, a 16:9 might not be comfortable.
i'm running the native resolution now - 1360x768 - and it all looks really nice (text and graphics). The problems are: a) i can't work productively with so little screen space. i'm used to having 1600x1200, with xemacs opened and mazimized with 4 panels showing at once, and i can't do that in this little space. b) my laptop, which i remote control from here, works at 1440x900, which this monitor can't do. The specs don't list that resolution, and it drops down to 11-something by 7-something if i try to use 1440x900. So remote control is out of the question. i am going to take this monitor back, because at high resolution (1600x1200) all text is so fuzzy that i get a headache after looking at it for more than a few minutes. i just can't work that way.
Oh, I'd ssh from a graphical console, not from Alt-Ctl-F2. That would send the wrong termcap I think.
ssh isn't an option - i have to remote control Embedded Visual C++, which means i need remote desktop/vnc. Since rdesktop isn't working for me (can never connect), i'm stuck with vnc. The alternative is working physically at the laptop, but that is *really* uncomfortable, physically, and i can't do that for more than an hour or so at a time. OTOH, i can sit and work comfortably from the desktop PC for 10+ hours at a time. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
On Sunday 29 October 2006 13:27, stephan beal wrote: <snip>
For software development, higher resolution = more screen real estate = more effective programming (for me, anyway). <snip> i don't have a car.
Hey, Stephan, what's wrong with that picture? Programmers make big bucks (or should) and cars are cheap. At least they are around here. Fred in Texas To keep the thread on topic, thanks for letting us know about the limitations of hdtv monitors.
On Monday 30 October 2006 03:21, Stevens wrote:
i don't have a car.
Hey, Stephan, what's wrong with that picture?
Programmers make big bucks (or should) and cars are cheap. At least they are around here.
Fred in Texas
When i lived in Houston i got my first car for $500. Over here gas is about $4/gallon, and *has been* since i moved here (1997), whereas it only recently hit that price in the States. The public transport is so good in German cities that many people don't have cars. And there are so many pedestrians that i've avoided driving in the city out of fear that'll run someone over (where i learned to drive, pedestrians only existed in theory, not in practice, so i never learned to properly watch out for them). And in Berlin, "big bucks" is very relative. With an unemployment rate of almost 18%, companies don't have to shell out big bucks to get people to work for them.
To keep the thread on topic, thanks for letting us know about the limitations of hdtv monitors.
i really like the monitor, but i can't work at this level of fuzziness. If one is willing to stick to the 1360x768 resolution, the screen is certainly fine. However, IMO having such a low resolution on such a big screen defeats the purpose of having such a screen. Unfortunately, i'm headed off to the hospital in 20 minutes for a 3-5 day stay (lymph node removal), so i can't return the thing until next week :(. (My g/f's brother will loan us his car, by the way.) -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
On Sunday 29 October 2006 17:56, stephan beal wrote:
That's the "native" resolution (as written on the box), whatever that really means. The device does 1600x1200, though, which is why i bought it. In the store they had conflicting info - on one sheet it said 1600x1200 and on other it said 1366x768, so we actually hooked up the screen to an on-display computer to make sure it would do 1600x1200.
Native means that that is the physical number of pixels. "Doing" 1600x1200 just means that it will scale that 1600x1200 image down to 1366x768, hence the fuzziness. Your would be far better off just running your X at the native 1366x768 resolution, and setting your dpi in the Xorg.conf file (it takes dpi, not dp BTW) appropriately. -- Steve Boddy
On 06/10/29 18:56 (GMT+0100) stephan beal apparently typed:
On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:06, Basil Chupin wrote:
http://us.lge.com/download/product/file/1000000469/L3200TF_specsheet.pdf
The resolution is 1366x768 and the dp is 0.51mm.
That's the "native" resolution (as written on the box), whatever that really means. The device does 1600x1200, though, which is why i bought it. In the store they had conflicting info - on one sheet it said 1600x1200 and on other it said 1366x768, so we actually hooked up the screen to an on-display computer to make sure it would do 1600x1200.
You started the thread saying the "text is really blurry". To make the text as sharp as possible, an LCD display must be run at its native resolution. That's reason #1 not to use 1600x1200 #2 reason is that according to the marketing information the L3200T is a 16:9 widescreen. 1600x1200 is standard screen, 4:3. That marriage either produces object aspect ratio distortion, or use of considerably less than the entire viewable area of the display (on a TV, letterboxing).
After telling sax that my screen is 32", instead of the 42" it had configurd, i get a more reasonable view:
xdpyinfo | grep resolution resolution: 58x70 dots per inch xdpyinfo | grep dimensions dimensions: 1600x1200 pixels (701x435 millimeters)
It isn't super-sharp, but it's more usable.
You won't be able to do better than native. You need to put the actual display dimensions using DisplaySize 708 398 in xorg.conf, and select a widescreen video mode for your preferred color depth, preferably 1366x768 if your display adapter can do it, which should result in 49x49 DPI.
When it "extended VGA" text mode, though, it's almost unreadable. (e.g., when i use ctrl-alt-f2 to drop to a text console.)
This is a typical property of using a text tty on an LCD display. When you do so, you're not using the display's native resolution. AFAIK, all you can do is experiment with various vga= parameters on your kernel line until you figure out which is least objectionable. -- "The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped." Psalm 28:7 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
On Sunday 29 October 2006 20:37, Felix Miata wrote:
You started the thread saying the "text is really blurry". To make the text as sharp as possible, an LCD display must be run at its native resolution. That's reason #1 not to use 1600x1200
#2 reason is that according to the marketing information the L3200T <big snip> This is a typical property of using a text tty on an LCD display. When you do so, you're not using the display's native resolution. AFAIK, all you can do is experiment with various vga= parameters on your kernel line until you figure out which is least objectionable.
Thanks for all of the clarification. i have decided to take this monitor back to the store, though. i simply can't work at a puny 1360x768 resolution, and at higher resolutions this monitor/tv isn't useful for text. Unfortunately, it was sold (at 3 stores) as a computer monitor, but it should have been in the TV section. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
stephan beal wrote:
On Sunday 29 October 2006 20:37, Felix Miata wrote:
You started the thread saying the "text is really blurry". To make the text as sharp as possible, an LCD display must be run at its native resolution. That's reason #1 not to use 1600x1200
#2 reason is that according to the marketing information the L3200T <big snip> This is a typical property of using a text tty on an LCD display. When you do so, you're not using the display's native resolution. AFAIK, all you can do is experiment with various vga= parameters on your kernel line until you figure out which is least objectionable.
Thanks for all of the clarification. i have decided to take this monitor back to the store, though.
Must be damn disappointing, eh? :-( If it were me, I'd be having a bad, empty feeling in my guts at the moment. Cheers. -- I'm dangerous when I know what I'm doing.
On 06/10/29 11:50 (GMT+0200) stephan beal apparently typed: For which SUSE?
Yesterday my mother bought me a 32" LG L3200T Flatron monitor. It's beautiful. i almost get whiplash turning my head to see both sides of it at once.
The problem is, at 1600x1200 resolution (the highest it will go), i have a pitiful DPI, and text is really blurry.
Sounds like that "monitor" is a widescreen TV. Will your video card produce widescreen resolutions? Older ones won't. Likely for that size screen you want something like 1920x1200, 2048x1280, 2560x1600 or higher. If sax2 didn't add them to xorg.conf, try adding them yourself, highest first, on the same line with the other possible resolutions for your color depth.
xdpyinfo | grep resolution resolution: 43x58 dots per inch
"The way i calculate it" (which might not be correct), i should be able to pump that up to 62 DPI, which would be a bit of an improvement.
The problem is - i have no idea how to manually set the DPI.
Can someone gently prod me in the proper direction here?
Setting DisplaySize in Section "Monitor" in xorg.conf is most likely all you need. There are other ways. http://www.mozilla.org/unix/dpi.html gives many of them. If when you try you don't get desired results, have a look at /var/log/Xorg.0.log for clues to what might be wrong and what might be possible and share your findings here. -- "The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped." Psalm 28:7 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
-------- On 29 October 2006 09:50, stephan beal wrote: --------
The problem is, at 1600x1200 resolution (the highest it will go), i have a pitiful DPI, and text is really blurry.
That's the reason why I'be not yet bought a 19 inches screen: they have the same resolution that a 17 inches one. -- Regards, Lívio Cipriano
participants (9)
-
Anders Johansson -
Basil Chupin -
Felix Miata -
Lívio Cipriano -
Randall R Schulz -
stephan beal -
Stephen Boddy -
Stevens -
Tom Patton