dj_johnnyg wrote:The thing is.
I agree that there is a fixed pixel size on LCD screens, but when you send a 640x480 VGA signal to a 1280x1024 capable monitor, the image is still only 640x480. It fills the screen because the internal "scaler" uses multiple pixels to display each pixel of data.
A Simple example would be a monitor that displays 4x4 pixels being fed a 4x4 signal. Each pixel on the monitor is mapped to the pixel of signal. But if you feed the same monitor a 2x2 signal, the image still fills the screen, but each data pixel is represented by 4 display pixels.
By using an external scaler, you can upscale the 640x480 image data to 1280x1024.
By the way, are you sure the monitors native resolution is 1280x1024, and not just the max supported resolution?
My Plasma is capable of 1080i, but only has a native resolution of 1024x768.
It would seem that we are agreeing here without really realizing it.
You are correct when you point out that the LCDs internal scaler is used to display the smaller resolution image to fill the screen. This is why I'd like to use an external scaler--it would pre-scale the image so that the LCD would display it at 1-to-1 ratio. Should result in a sharper and clearer image (theoretically).The LCD is actually a 19" computer monitor. I am sure about the native resolution being 1280x1024. I believe the max resolution is 1600x1200. It's actually a pretty sweet monitor! I haven't noticed any ghosting or anything, so maybe I should just be happy with it as is. It's also got a nice rotating stand, so I can play vertical shooters with absolutely no hassle! When I bought it a couple of years ago, it was touted as a gamer's LCD and had one of the fastest pixel refresh rates.
Additionally, most people use scalers for de-interlacing as well as scaling and that adds to the price of the unit. I was hoping that someone here might have seen one in action--I'm sort of unwilling to foot the bill for one unless I know it will make a perceptible difference.