[geeks] LCD display options

[Phil Stracchino]

Joshua Boyd wrote:
> And unlike CRTs, LCDs will also look very good at refresh rates like
> 48khz.
> 
> Which, BTW, is potentially very handy for an O2, where you can do
> 1600x1200, but only by accepting a refresh rate like 56hz.  Murder to
> look at on a CRT, but should be no problem on an LCD (note, I haven't
> actually tested that since I don't have an LCD that can do 1600x1200). 

The downside is, unlike a CRT where addressable resolution is variable, 
an LCD has a fixed physical resolution, which means that LCD displays 
tend to look bad unless being driven exactly *at* their native physical 
resolution -- a 1280x1024 LCD being driven at 1024x768, for example, 
will look much less sharp than a 1024x768 LCD the same size also driven 
at 1024x768.


More succinctly, an LCD running at a non-power-of-2 fraction of its 
native resolution tends to look like ass.  And not in a good way. 
Unless of course you're looking at pr0n on it, and then, well, the ass 
sorta looks like ...  well ...  you get the idea.  :)


-- 
  Phil Stracchino
  Renaissance Man, Unix generalist, Perl hacker
  phil.stracchino at speakeasy.net
  phil.stracchino at ceva-dsp.com
  Mobile: 408-592-8081