Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › Crossover 3020MDP at 3840x2160 Resolution O__O
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Crossover 3020MDP at 3840x2160 Resolution O__O - Page 2

post #11 of 18
Thread Starter 

Well if its down sampling, that would explain alot even tho I'd expect windows not to show the option, I mean Nvidia panel allows you to force it but I never saw windows showing the option like this, got excited =S, Ill stay like this tho the desktop space is insane, plus this monitor has an image quality that is quite something else.

The Panda v2.5
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-3570K [4.7Ghz] MSI MPower Z77 Asus Sritx 1070 Aura 2x Corsair Vengeance 4Gb  
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
2x 2Tb WD Caviar Green Samsung 850 pro Outdated, Me uses pen drives. Windows 10 x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Crossover 3020MDP Dell 2007fpb Dell 2007fpb Steelseries 6G v2 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair RM850 Thermaltake Core P5 Corsair M90 Corsair MM200 
  hide details  
Reply
The Panda v2.5
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-3570K [4.7Ghz] MSI MPower Z77 Asus Sritx 1070 Aura 2x Corsair Vengeance 4Gb  
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
2x 2Tb WD Caviar Green Samsung 850 pro Outdated, Me uses pen drives. Windows 10 x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Crossover 3020MDP Dell 2007fpb Dell 2007fpb Steelseries 6G v2 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair RM850 Thermaltake Core P5 Corsair M90 Corsair MM200 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deacon View Post

Well if its down sampling, that would explain alot even tho I'd expect windows not to show the option, I mean Nvidia panel allows you to force it but I never saw windows showing the option like this, got excited =S, Ill stay like this tho the desktop space is insane, plus this monitor has an image quality that is quite something else.
See if you can get it to 3840x2400 if you're going to keep it. Right now, you're running your panel at a non-native aspect ratio, which means things will be stretched vertically; things will be about 10% taller than they ought to be.
post #13 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinsbane View Post


See if you can get it to 3840x2400 if you're going to keep it. Right now, you're running your panel at a non-native aspect ratio, which means things will be stretched vertically; things will be about 10% taller than they ought to be.

 

Nope it doesn't allow me to go to 3840x2400, my guess its because I'm running this tro Hdmi, I need to get my hands on a display port cable then try again.

The Panda v2.5
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-3570K [4.7Ghz] MSI MPower Z77 Asus Sritx 1070 Aura 2x Corsair Vengeance 4Gb  
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
2x 2Tb WD Caviar Green Samsung 850 pro Outdated, Me uses pen drives. Windows 10 x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Crossover 3020MDP Dell 2007fpb Dell 2007fpb Steelseries 6G v2 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair RM850 Thermaltake Core P5 Corsair M90 Corsair MM200 
  hide details  
Reply
The Panda v2.5
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-3570K [4.7Ghz] MSI MPower Z77 Asus Sritx 1070 Aura 2x Corsair Vengeance 4Gb  
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
2x 2Tb WD Caviar Green Samsung 850 pro Outdated, Me uses pen drives. Windows 10 x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Crossover 3020MDP Dell 2007fpb Dell 2007fpb Steelseries 6G v2 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair RM850 Thermaltake Core P5 Corsair M90 Corsair MM200 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 18
I think downsampling even at the desktop level is worth it at least to me. When it comes down to it my cell phone has a 200+ PPI and my korean monitor has a 19PPI so there is a lot of room for improvement from a density standpoint. I have also seen monitors that i have downsampled and then compensated the slight blur it creates with the sharpness setting on the panel along with some contrast tweaking. You simply could not even tell it was a none standard resolution(depends how far you go though too)

Another thought is he is likely downsampling but by how far. MANY CPUs come underclocked for an overall standpoint of stability for the lineup. I would imagine that there are likely monitors that are made for 1600x900 that don't quite cut it and then get set to 1440x900 or 1280x800 instead. So it would be a good experiment to actually do a pixel count and see if the 2560x1440 resolution is actually the ceiling. Heck it could be 2880x1800 or something and could not quite do it on all the monitors so they dropped it down to 1440p.

I am going to have to set my Qnix down to 60hz(or lower) and do some testing. thumb.gif
post #15 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan F8 View Post

Another thought is he is likely downsampling but by how far. MANY CPUs come underclocked for an overall standpoint of stability for the lineup. I would imagine that there are likely monitors that are made for 1600x900 that don't quite cut it and then get set to 1440x900 or 1280x800 instead. So it would be a good experiment to actually do a pixel count and see if the 2560x1440 resolution is actually the ceiling. Heck it could be 2880x1800 or something and could not quite do it on all the monitors so they dropped it down to 1440p.
I don't believe that's possible. The native resolution of an LCD panel can't be changed. Once it's been cut from the substrate and merged with a backlight, the panel is finished and can't be changed.

So, as far as I know, he's doing downsampling... from 3840x2160 to exactly 2560x1600.
post #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinsbane View Post

I don't believe that's possible. The native resolution of an LCD panel can't be changed. Once it's been cut from the substrate and merged with a backlight, the panel is finished and can't be changed.

So, as far as I know, he's doing downsampling... from 3840x2160 to exactly 2560x1600.

If you use CRU and modify the monitor driver files you can change the native resolution of your display and it is not downsampling. Whether this is a higher resolution or a lower resolution you can change it. Just the same as downscaling a CPU they may have done this with some monitors and the panel is capable of a certain resolution but the majority(or minority) or the panels could not handle the panel resolution at the standard 60hz refresh rate therefor they may have lowered the resolution to accommodate. This has actually been seen with TVs all the time. For example many westinghouse TV are CHEAP but the three that i have owned would never display the native 1080p resolution at 60hz but if you set the resolution to something like 1820x980 it would. So in this since they underclocked the refresh of a bad screen to keep there marketing FHD term. On the same turn a PC monitor may have its resolution reduced to reach 60hz.

Another good example is we have a Dell monitor at my office that runs at 1600x900@60hz but if you set it in CRU to 1920x1080@47hz it will work but gets a noticeable sharpness issue in the bottom left hand portion of the screen. With using CRU and with scaling set to the monitor there is no way this monitor is downsampling it is running 1080p and the panel is clearly capable of it. However with the defect that you see at that resolution i know why they would set it back to 1600x900 instead of a whole bin of monitors possibly going to waste.

I am not arguing the fact that yes after a panel is made the MAX resolution is the max resolution but i am saying the manufacturer may not have set it to that maximum due to sometimes obvious problems just like any other computer component. I mean every 1080p monitor may be 1440p and every 1440p monitor could be higher.
post #17 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan F8 View Post

If you use CRU and modify the monitor driver files you can change the native resolution of your display and it is not downsampling. Whether this is a higher resolution or a lower resolution you can change it. Just the same as downscaling a CPU they may have done this with some monitors and the panel is capable of a certain resolution but the majority(or minority) or the panels could not handle the panel resolution at the standard 60hz refresh rate therefor they may have lowered the resolution to accommodate. This has actually been seen with TVs all the time. For example many westinghouse TV are CHEAP but the three that i have owned would never display the native 1080p resolution at 60hz but if you set the resolution to something like 1820x980 it would. So in this since they underclocked the refresh of a bad screen to keep there marketing FHD term. On the same turn a PC monitor may have its resolution reduced to reach 60hz.

Another good example is we have a Dell monitor at my office that runs at 1600x900@60hz but if you set it in CRU to 1920x1080@47hz it will work but gets a noticeable sharpness issue in the bottom left hand portion of the screen. With using CRU and with scaling set to the monitor there is no way this monitor is downsampling it is running 1080p and the panel is clearly capable of it. However with the defect that you see at that resolution i know why they would set it back to 1600x900 instead of a whole bin of monitors possibly going to waste.

I am not arguing the fact that yes after a panel is made the MAX resolution is the max resolution but i am saying the manufacturer may not have set it to that maximum due to sometimes obvious problems just like any other computer component. I mean every 1080p monitor may be 1440p and every 1440p monitor could be higher.

I think we have a confusion in terms here.

The way you're using "native resolution" is not the same as what I say is native resolution.

Here is what I understand:
Native resolution only makes sense in the context of the LCD panel itself - a given panel has a given native resolution, and cannot be changed. The panel is the panel. You cannot change native resolution via software, since native resolution is a hardware concept, and applies only to the LCD panel, not the monitor.

For LCD's, no matter what kind of signal you feed it, it will always display that resolution; for a 1080p panel, it will display 1080p no matter what.

Let's say you have a 1440p monitor.
You feed it a 1440p signal - things are at size 100%, it displays a 1440p image.
You feed it a 1080p signal - things are at size 177% (larger, less desktop space), it displays a 1440p image, upsampled from the video signal. This upsampling is done in the monitor scalar.
You feed it a 2880p signal - things are at size 25% (smaller, more desktop space), it displays a 1440p image, downsampled from the video signal. This downsampling is done in the monitor scalar.

There's another option, with video card scaling; this, the video card renders at 720p/1080p/2880p, then upsamples/downsamples it into a 1440p signal, then sends the monitor a 1440p signal which is displayed at 1440p.

Whatever the case may be, the native resolution never changes. Your Dell may be processing a 1080p signal @47hz, but it's native resolution is still 1600x900. That's how many discrete pixels are on the panel. I do not see by what process a 1080p panel could possibly be sold as a 900p panel; they aren't manufactured that way, they aren't binned that way and they definitely can't fail in the same way that CPUs do that allow for lower clocked CPUs.

I can see how what you say applies to CRT monitors, which have a "max" resolution as opposed to a native resolution... but LCD's don't work that way.
post #18 of 18
There isn't a huge difference between 1600p and 4K.

and yes I would think the OP is downsampling if he in fact did get a 1600p monitor as a monitor cant magically create extra pixels.

Although the possibility that the OP got a different panel cant be ruled out.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Monitors and Displays
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › Crossover 3020MDP at 3840x2160 Resolution O__O