640x480 + Windows XP = no?
Windows 2000 supports 640x480 on my Radeon 9700 Pro/Hitachi CM823F combination. Using the same drivers, Windows XP which I just "Upgraded" to for purposes of additional wireless security doesn't feature 640x480 as a selectable resolution.
This doesn't bode well for the MPEG4-lover in me, who produces his volumes typically in 640x272 as opposed to 720x362ish for reasons of mpeg4 compliance. Having 640 allows me to watch my movies at a 1:1 ratio with movie:screen. Loosing this resolution annoys the piss out of me, and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas as to how to put it back in.
This doesn't bode well for the MPEG4-lover in me, who produces his volumes typically in 640x272 as opposed to 720x362ish for reasons of mpeg4 compliance. Having 640 allows me to watch my movies at a 1:1 ratio with movie:screen. Loosing this resolution annoys the piss out of me, and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas as to how to put it back in.
0
Comments
fc
What monitor are you using?
EDIT: Just about managed to grab it out your sig - Hitachi CM823F
NS
me loves my new NEC 22inch
I found my 15" hard enough
I'm going to buy a 19" that does 1600x1200@100hz so nerr
NS
Mistake, my monitor could do 120hz at 1600x1200,
I encode movies at 640x272, they're designed for a 640x480 display for the cleanest picture. If I don't have 640x480, that means I have to fullscreen them at 800x600, approximately 20% larger than that which the movies were designed for. The image becomes stretched and is now 800x326 or so. Pixels are doubled and tripled to fit the resolution at the encoded aspect ratio, and the end result is a muddy, blurry image.
Just take an image, any image...And then enlarge it to 200% its original size. That's the effect I'm trying to avoid, it's blurry, lacking detail...Ugly.
Try it.
I noticed this when I had to use lower resolutions before. At lower resolutions the picture takes up more of the screen and doesn't look as bad as it would consuming the same amount of space on a higher resolution. Basically the same as VCDs. It looks great taking up the whole TV downstairs, but if I maximise it on my PC it looks yak (though taking into acount the less crispness of the TV).
NS
Precisely, NS.
I did. It was perfectly fine, and I know my monitor isn't better than Thrax's because I can't get anywhere near his resolution, much less his resolution and the same refresh rate. Now, it's possible that my monitor sucketh royally and is why the image looks just a clear at 640x480 that it does when run higher, but I seriously doubt it because the math behind it is the same. The picture clariity should be the same.
The reason your VCD looks fine on a TV but like crap on a monitor is because you're probably sitting much further away from your TV than you are your monitor and your monitor is a much higher resolution device than your TV.