LCD aspect ratio problem 16:10

[Del Rio]

Maybe someone can explain this to me.

It seems that a lot of LCD monitors sold as "widescreen" aren't
actually 16:9, they're 16:10. My new BenQ FP241W falls into
this category. The FP241W's native mode is 1600x100. That's
too small for me and hurts my eyes, so I wanted to use one of
the modes that it can scale to in hardware. However, the modes
offered by the BenQ (at least, the ones exposed through my
Nvidia display panel) aren't correct aspect ratio: they're
16:9, which means that I can either view them stretched to fill
the whole screen, which distorts the shape of objects on
screen, or I can have black bars at the top and bottom of my
screen. Either "solution" seems poor to me.

Now, I found my own fix for the problem, which is to get the
Nvidia card to do the scaling, rather than requiring the panel
to support it directly. Now, the Nvidia control panel doesn't
directly expose any modes that correctly support 16:10, but
they're in there. I downloaded a widget that allowed me to get
at (it turned out that 1440x900 is the one I was looking for).
I.e. the Nvidia driver supports it, but you have to use a tweak
utility to get at it.

But here's what I was wondering:

1. What the hell is a video company thinking, only offering
one correct-aspect-ratio resolutions (that would the native
mode 1600x1000) plus a bunch of 16:9 ones on a piece of
16:10 hardware??
2. If a company like Nvidia has already done the necessary
work to support other, *correct* resolutions, why do they bury
them where almost nobody will know about them?
3. With all the artists, videographers, photoshop junkies, et al
out there, how come you never hear anything about this issue?

 

[S P Arif Sahari Wibowo]

It seems that a lot of LCD monitors sold as "widescreen"
aren't actually 16:9, they're 16:10. My new BenQ FP241W falls
into this category. The FP241W's native mode is 1600x100.

Did you mean 1600x1000? I cannot imagine a monitor with 16:1
resolution ratio.

BTW, FP241W's native resolution is 1920 x 1200 as per BenQ
<http://www.benq.us/products/LCD/?product=638>
yes it is 16:10

Maybe that's the HDTV resolution?

That's too small for me and hurts my eyes, so I wanted to use
one of the modes that it can scale to in hardware.

Alternatively you may want to setup your GUI's setup with bigger
fonts, bigger icons, etc.

1. What the hell is a video company thinking, only offering
one correct-aspect-ratio resolutions (that would the native
mode 1600x1000) plus a bunch of 16:9 ones on a piece of 16:10
hardware??

Apparently the are not thinking.

3. With all the artists, videographers, photoshop junkies, et
al out there, how come you never hear anything about this
issue?

I think they usually use maximum resolution, whatever it is.

--
(stephan paul) Arif Sahari Wibowo
_____ _____ _____ _____
/____ /____/ /____/ /____
_____/ / / / _____/ http://www.arifsaha.com/

Disclaimer: IANAL, IANALP, IANAMD, IANAMP, IANAAP
my statements - if any - should be treated as such.

 

[Eric Gisin]

All LCDs require you adjust Display properties for their small dot pitch.
Start with 120dpi in Settings/Advanced, then large fonts and icons in Apperance.

You should have 1440x900 (17-19) and 1680x1050 (20-22) settings,
but scaling will look ugly and make small text unreadable.

 

[Del Rio]

Did you mean 1600x1000? I cannot imagine a monitor with 16:1
resolution ratio.

BTW, FP241W's native resolution is 1920 x 1200 as per BenQ
<http://www.benq.us/products/LCD/?product=638>
yes it is 16:10

You're right of course. I ran into this problem months ago,
and I'd forgotten some of the details. The native resolution
is 1920 x 1200, and but it does offer 1600 x 1000 natively,
which I immediately changed to 1600 x 1000 (thus my statement
that the FP421W only offers one aspect-ratio-correct mode in
hardware was false: it offers two). 1600 x 1000 was still too
hard on my eyes, which is how I found my way to 1440 x 900.

Alternatively you may want to setup your GUI's setup with bigger
fonts, bigger icons, etc.

That only scales OS-related stuff though, which fixes maybe half
of my issues...

I think they usually use maximum resolution, whatever it is.

Maybe you're right, but I don't see how people can work at
those resolutions.

 

[Del Rio]

All LCDs require you adjust Display properties for their small dot pitch.
Start with 120dpi in Settings/Advanced, then large fonts and icons in Apperance.

Resizing the GUI fixes some of the visibility problems I have,
but not all. I suppose between resizing the fonts/icons and
the ability of many browsers to scale web pages etc, I could
probably compensate for 70 or 80% of my issues without having
to re-scale the desktop. But scaling the desktop to a
comfortable resolution fixes all the problems at once.

You should have 1440x900 (17-19) and 1680x1050 (20-22) settings,
but scaling will look ugly and make small text unreadable.

Actually, unlike on some older monitors, the scaling looks
really nice. I used to scale my old 17" LCD from its native
1280 x 1024 to my prefered 1024 x 768 - now *there* you could
really see the scaling artifacts. On this one, the scaling
looks fine.

 

[John Adams]

Maybe you're right, but I don't see how people can work at
those resolutions.

I have to use reading/computer glasses to use computers and my 22" LCD
is 1680x1050 and I can read text fine. For websites that use really
small fixed fonts I use the zoom feature in the browser. For Firefox it
is ctrl+scroll wheel on mouse. Maybe you need to invest in some reading
glasses? I buy mine at the drug store and they only cost $20.00. Make
sure to get the correct and comfortable strength for reading text though
or else they will make you feel dizzy if they are too strong. Some use
cheap glass too that smudge easily so look for ones with decent quality.
One of my favorite pairs only cost four bucks at the dollar store. I
have four pairs lying about here.

 

[John Adams]

1. What the hell is a video company thinking, only offering
one correct-aspect-ratio resolutions (that would the native
mode 1600x1000) plus a bunch of 16:9 ones on a piece of
16:10 hardware??

Did you install the monitor .inf file? The video card won't know what
resolutions the monitor can support until you install that.

 

[Bob Myers]

Did you install the monitor .inf file? The video card won't know what
resolutions the monitor can support until you install that.

In many cases, the video card will know what timings are
supported by the monitor from the EDID information it
provides. Probably most, if not all, cases, these days.

Re the original comments - indicating support for 16:9 timings
makes a lot of sense, given that many people will want to use
these monitors with HDTV material. Whether or not the
monitor does the right thing and displays such inputs at the
correct aspect ratio (or at least gives the user the option to
do this) is another question entirely, but clearly a 16:10
display CAN correctly present 16:9 material. I've never
understood the objection to, say, having 1920 x 1080
video displayed on a 1920 x 1200 panel via "letterboxing"
- you are getting exactly the same number of pixels as you
would be if the panel had only 1920 x 1080 pixels in the
first place. If the black areas bother you, either try not to
think about it or do what the theaters do - install curtains.

Bob M.

 

[Del Rio]

I have to use reading/computer glasses to use computers and my 22" LCD
is 1680x1050 and I can read text fine. For websites that use really
small fixed fonts I use the zoom feature in the browser. For Firefox it
is ctrl+scroll wheel on mouse. Maybe you need to invest in some reading
glasses? I buy mine at the drug store and they only cost $20.00. Make
sure to get the correct and comfortable strength for reading text though
or else they will make you feel dizzy if they are too strong. Some use
cheap glass too that smudge easily so look for ones with decent quality.
One of my favorite pairs only cost four bucks at the dollar store. I
have four pairs lying about here.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not quite ready to resort
to reading glasses yet for things that are still fixable in
software. ;-)

You know I'm not sure, I'd have to do the math, but I bet I've
probably been viewing things at roughly the same DPI for years.
Every time I get a big, high res monitor I run it at some
fraction of the current-standard "best resolution".

I ran my 17" LCD at 1024 x 768, my 21" CRT at 1152 x 864,
and now my 24" widescreen at 1440 x 900.

 

[Del Rio]

Did you install the monitor .inf file? The video card won't know what
resolutions the monitor can support until you install that.

Yes, I did. Btw, I corrected my original statement in a
different branch of the thread: the monitor actually offers two
16:10 resolutions (plus a bunch of 16:9 ones). What doesn't
make sense to me is why doesn't it offer a variety of 16:10
ones, and no 16:9 ones, since the latter all cause vertical
stretching??

 

[Del Rio]

Re the original comments - indicating support for 16:9 timings
makes a lot of sense, given that many people will want to use
these monitors with HDTV material. Whether or not the
monitor does the right thing and displays such inputs at the
correct aspect ratio (or at least gives the user the option to
do this) is another question entirely, but clearly a 16:10
display CAN correctly present 16:9 material. I've never
understood the objection to, say, having 1920 x 1080
video displayed on a 1920 x 1200 panel via "letterboxing"
- you are getting exactly the same number of pixels as you
would be if the panel had only 1920 x 1080 pixels in the
first place. If the black areas bother you, either try not to
think about it or do what the theaters do - install curtains.

Bob, the panel's hardware scaling "stretches" the 16:9 modes to
cover the whole screen, which looks really messed up if you're
using it for video, CAD, art, etc! My Nvidia card actually
offered your best compromise solution above, of putting black
bars at the top and bottom. But I never use the monitor for TV
display anyway, just computer usage. So finding a supported
16:10 mode (at a resolution that I like) hidden in my Nvidia
drivers was a godsend, even if I had to use a tweako utility to
get at it...

The only thing I was wondering was how much performance hit it
puts on the card, running the desktop in a strange alternative
mode like that and then upscaling it for output at the
monitor's native res. I wonder if I'm losing framerate in
games from doing that?

 

[Mephisto]

All LCDs require you adjust Display properties for their small dot pitch.
Start with 120dpi in Settings/Advanced, then large fonts and icons in
Apperance.

Nope. Doing that messes up some apps and games.

 

[Eric Gisin]

Nope. Doing that messes up some apps and games.

Irrelevant. Don't use broken apps. DPI settings have been there since Win NT 3.1.

 

[Bob Myers]

Irrelevant. Don't use broken apps. DPI settings have been there since Win
NT 3.1.

It's not the app that's broken - Windows, prior to Vista,
simply does not understand display resolution correctly.

Bob M.

 

[Del Rio]

Irrelevant. Don't use broken apps. DPI settings have been there since
Win NT 3.1.

Well, you don't always have a wide variety of choice in
non-business/non-productivity apps. Sometimes there *an* app
that does what you want, and you wouoldn't want to do without
it because the (probably amateur) developer didn't anticipate
the radical changes in display techology that have come along.

Anyway, for the visibility problems I was having, the point is
moot, since a little research determined that the display *can*
be scaled correctly by the graphics card. Really, to me it was
more a question of why panel monitors routinely do internal
firmware scaling to incorrect aspect ratios, and why this
fact isn't more widely publicized.

 

[Bob Myers]

Anyway, for the visibility problems I was having, the point is
moot, since a little research determined that the display *can*
be scaled correctly by the graphics card. Really, to me it was
more a question of why panel monitors routinely do internal
firmware scaling to incorrect aspect ratios, and why this
fact isn't more widely publicized.

The "why" in this case is pretty simple - it's because the
majority of customers want it that way. People don't
like to see the black bars that come with letterboxing,
even though that sort of scaling does preserve the proper
aspect ratio of the source material (or permits a 1:1
mapping of image and physical pixels, as would happen
in the case of a 1920 x 1080 image on a 1920 x 1200
panel, just to give one common example). There's a
belief that this represents "wasted space" on the screen,
even though it IS the right thing to do from an image
quality standpoint.

It's by no means a new problem, either - the same sorts
of complaints were heard in the case of 4:3 material
being displayed on a 5:4 (1280 x 1024) monitor.

In some cases, the monitor will give you the option of
preserving the image aspect ratio, at the cost of the image
appearing "letterboxed" as shown on that screen.

Bob M.

 

[chrisv]

The "why" in this case is pretty simple - it's because the
majority of customers want it that way. People don't
like to see the black bars that come with letterboxing,
even though that sort of scaling does preserve the proper
aspect ratio of the source material (or permits a 1:1
mapping of image and physical pixels, as would happen
in the case of a 1920 x 1080 image on a 1920 x 1200
panel, just to give one common example). There's a
belief that this represents "wasted space" on the screen,

Probably by the same morons who didn't figure-out how to stop (really)
wasting space on their CRT's by adjusting the horizontal and vertical
stretch.

even though it IS the right thing to do from an image
quality standpoint.

It's by no means a new problem, either - the same sorts
of complaints were heard in the case of 4:3 material
being displayed on a 5:4 (1280 x 1024) monitor.

In some cases, the monitor will give you the option of
preserving the image aspect ratio, at the cost of the image
appearing "letterboxed" as shown on that screen.

Would that be something easily found in the specs? I'm guessing not.
More contempt for the thinking user shown by the manufacturers.

 

[chrisv]

The "why" in this case is pretty simple - it's because the
majority of customers want it that way. People don't
like to see the black bars that come with letterboxing,
even though that sort of scaling does preserve the proper
aspect ratio of the source material

Another thought. It seems like people would be getting used-to
"letterboxing", from watching 2.35:1 DVD's on 16:9 displays.

 

[Del Rio]

The "why" in this case is pretty simple - it's because the
majority of customers want it that way. People don't
like to see the black bars that come with letterboxing,
even though that sort of scaling does preserve the proper
aspect ratio of the source material (or permits a 1:1
mapping of image and physical pixels, as would happen
in the case of a 1920 x 1080 image on a 1920 x 1200
panel, just to give one common example). There's a
belief that this represents "wasted space" on the screen,
even though it IS the right thing to do from an image
quality standpoint.

It's by no means a new problem, either - the same sorts
of complaints were heard in the case of 4:3 material
being displayed on a 5:4 (1280 x 1024) monitor.

It's funny you should mention that, because I'd been bothered
by what I prerceived to be stretching distortion on an
otherwise excellent quality monitor that I was using prior to
getting my new widescreen. After I discovered this aspect
ratio nonsense, I went back and researched the issue. It turns
out that my previous monitor was in fact 5:4 which was
stretching my images because I was running it in a 4:3 mode.

In some cases, the monitor will give you the option of
preserving the image aspect ratio, at the cost of the image
appearing "letterboxed" as shown on that screen.

Yep, although in my case, it was my video card that offered
that option: the Nvidia control panel has a "preserve aspect
ratio" checkbox which will cause just about any video mode to
be scaled correctly at the cost of having blank monitor space.
And I do hate the "wasted space" problem, but I hate distorted
images even more. So thankfully it's not impossible to fix it,
by doing a little research and uncovering the hidden modes
supported in video card drivers.

Another total mystery to me is that after having done the
necessary work to support those correct-aspect ratio modes, the
video card manufacturers would then conceal them by leaving
them out of the user interface panel...! (I've been told that
Nvidia "intended" to indirectly support them through the
"user-defined mode" on the control panel, but that the user
defined mode functionality is broken is the current release of
the control panel. Thankfully, it's just the control panel
that's broken, not the video drivers themselves.)

 

[Bob Myers]

Yep, although in my case, it was my video card that offered
that option: the Nvidia control panel has a "preserve aspect
ratio" checkbox which will cause just about any video mode to
be scaled correctly at the cost of having blank monitor space.

Right - that's the other option. In that case, though, the monitor
is seeing the "full-screen" timing. For instance, in the case of a
1920 x 1080 image being shown on a 1920 x 1200 monitor,
the monitor is in this case getting a 1920 x 1200 timing - it's
just that the graphics card is filling 60 lines on the top and
60 lines on the bottom with solid black.

And I do hate the "wasted space" problem, but I hate distorted
images even more. So thankfully it's not impossible to fix it,
by doing a little research and uncovering the hidden modes
supported in video card drivers.

My only advice for the "wasted space" problem is - try
not to think about it. You don't want distortion, and you
DO want the pixels in the image to line up 1:1 with the
pixels on the screen. If it helps, put tape that matches the
color of your bezel over the "wasted" black areas.

Bob M.