Will I damage my monitor?

[az]

Originally posted by steliosneo
On the notebook monitor I cannot tell between 60Hz and resolutions above 60Hz

This is because LCDs work entirely different than CRTs.
On a CRT, you need to refresh the picture at least 85 times per second because the phosphor's glow dims REAL quick, and needs to be "lit" again by the electron beam.
On an LCD, the "refresh" rate is really just a picture change rate - there is no need to refresh the picture content if the picture doesn't change, because an LCD's pixel will stay lit (or unlit) until its state is changed. The original GameBoy's LCD had a refresh rate of ~8Hz IIRC, and you wouldn't notice that (though of course the screen was crappy in about every other respect, too).

AZ

[VJ]

Originally posted by Nuno
Modern monitors generally don´t synch and show something like "signal out of range" if you try to run it over spec. So if it runs, don´t worry, and 1600x1200@85 is definitly on spec for your G420. I never heard nobody complaining about ruining a monitor running it at higher resolutions.

Well, the specs of my 17" Philips are:
max resolution 1600x1200@75 Hz
recommended resolution 1280x1024@85 Hz

Does that difference have to do with the monitor's components, or is is mentioned for user's comfort ?


Jörg

[az]

It basically means "it'll not be sharp above 1280x1024" (it will likely not be really sharp at 120x1024 as well, but if they'd quote 1024x768 or 1152x864 people would buy other monitors that are "1280 recommended"). And maybe that anything over 1280x1024 would be too small in windows anyway.

AZ

[VJ]

Thanks for the info; at 1280x1024 is is very sharp... (it is one of those "Brilliance"-models + I still have Matrox )


Jörg

[Greebe]

Pardon me AZ but...

This could mean that components selected have reduced performance at the fringe range or that the IQ is flawed at the upper res with wavey lines or it could mean that the unit won't properly converge at that res or focus etc etc etc.

The bottem line is the upper resolution is very close to the maximum operating spec, this is not the same as the design spec.

Design Spec max bandwidth: 91.1kHz ; 1280x1024@85

At 1600x1200@75 = 93.8kHz

Max bandwidth (most likely) = 95kHz
anything above 95 simply is out of the frequency range the drive electronics can do.

[az]

Well, I basically meant the same

But I was thinking more of the dot pitch that's not fine enough on a typical (even high price) 17" to properly and sharply display 1600x1200 - and no one would recommend any resolution today that can't be displayed at 85 Hz anyway.

AZ

[GNEP]

Stoopid question, but how do you work out the bandwidth from:
-Resolution
-& Refresh rate?

That is to say, if I wanted to know what my monitor could do at 1400x1050, and already knew for "normal" resolutions, what's the proper calc? (Apart from linear interpolation of course )

[WyWyWyWy]

max refresh rate = (Horizontal frequency / vertical resolution) * 0.95

Example:
I have a Dell P790 which has 92kHz horizontal freq, and I want to run it at 1280x1024.

So.

refresh rate = (92000 / 1024) * 0.95
refresh rate = ~85Hz

Remember to * 0.95 because most monitor only have 95% efficiency (can't find a better word).

[steliosneo]

Originally posted by GNEP
Stoopid question, but how do you work out the bandwidth from:
-Resolution
-& Refresh rate?

That is to say, if I wanted to know what my monitor could do at 1400x1050, and already knew for "normal" resolutions, what's the proper calc? (Apart from linear interpolation of course )

Click me

EDIT: WyWyWyWy beat me to it

[GNEP]

Cool. Thanks guys!

Gnep