The joys of 2048x1536 on a 333mhz Celeron

[IsaacKuo]

The joys of 2048x1536 on a 333mhz Celeron

I've just installed Mepis on the following system:

333mhz Pentium II Celeron
160megs of RAM
old Ati Rage128 AGP 1x video card
old 17" monitor

Even with these modest specs, 2048x1536 interlaced at 85hz is simply incredible! I boosted performance by using a 16 bit deep display and turning off font antialiasing. On an old 17" monitor, running 2048x1536 AND antialiasing is overkill anyway!

The spacing of the pixels is smaller than size of a phosphor triplet, so it's sort of a CRT user's version of "sub-pixel rendering". The difference is that this "sub-pixel rendering" works for EVERYTHING, not just fonts. 128 pixel Konqueror icons and 32 pixel menu/taskbar icons are so sharp and detailed!

One nice thing about such a high resolution is that it makes serifed fonts very good looking. In particular, URW Palladio looks lovely at 18pt. It's as if you're using 9pt at 1024x768, but with fine little serifs instead of fuzzy pixels.

This is the modeline I use:

ModeLine "2048x1536" 193.40 2048 2144 2624 2816 1536 1540 1565 1617 interlace +hsync +vsync

The horizontal and vertical sync rates are the same as a 1024x768 display at 85hz, so just about any monitor can handle it. The limitation is really the video card; nVidia cards can't handle interlaced modes (in Linux). I was actually pleasantly surprised that this old Rage128 could handle 2048x1536, since NewEgg claims they're limited to a lower resolution. Probably, a Rage128 can't handle 2048x1536 in non-interlaced mode; this requires twice as much bandwidth. Note that the "128" in Rage128 refers to the bit width of the graphics engine, not the number of megabytes of video RAM.

[bsm2001]

post a screenshot.

[madcompnerd]

Lol....bsm that does no good. Maybe if he posted a shot of a picture of the screen.

Now if only we could all afford a very expensive "old" LCD....

'Till then my cheap 19" CRT will have to do at 1280x1024

[IsaacKuo]

Umm...my old 17" monitor is a CRT, not an LCD. The technique I used only works with CRTs, not LCDs. I suppose an LCD display would probably do SOMETHING with an interlaced signal, but it wouldn't be a good result.

I'll post a couple screenshots later--one at normal size and another scaled down to 50% which will give a rough idea what it looks like.

On my old 17" CRT, the effect of 2048x1536 is pretty good, but on a 19" CRT it would look quite a bit better. On my old 21" CRT, the effect of 2048x1536 is simply eye-popping.

BTW, 1280x1024 resolution is abomination, at least on a 4:3 CRT. Sacrifice a few scanlines to get true square pixels on a 1280x960 display!! Abolish the 1280x1024 perversion!!! RANT RANT RANT!!!!

I used to use 1280x960, so all my computers matched the screen resolution of my HTPC. But now that I've found that even my lowly 333mhz Celeron can take on 2048x1536i, I'll never go back!

[madcompnerd]

My monitor remembers:
800x600
1024x768
1186xsomethin
1280x1024
1600x1200

Since 1600x1200 runs at 60 Hz I can't use it. 1280 is the only good option, so I use it and don't mind it.

[Parcival]

Originally posted by IsaacKuo

One nice thing about such a high resolution is that it makes serifed fonts very good looking. In particular, URW Palladio looks lovely at 18pt. It's as if you're using 9pt at 1024x768, but with fine little serifs instead of fuzzy pixels.

Psychological experiments have shown that we read on average 20% slower when reading a text from a computer screen vs. reading it from a sheet of paper. With a resolution of 1600x1200 (or above) and good luminance reading from a screen gets equal to reading printed text.

Have fun reading your digital book. :D

[psi42]

1400x1050 on a 19" screen, because I need an 80Hz+ vert refresh rate...


By the way, could someone explain to the ignorant such as me, how to create an X modeline? For example, let's say I wanted to figure out exactly how high I could increase my resolution while maintaining an 80Hz refresh rate, and then make a modeline for it, where would I start?

I read the X Video Timings Howto, and learned a bit about what the modelines represent, but I don't know how to go about creating one...

~psi42

[IsaacKuo]

Yeah, it's like reading print, it's that lovely!

I find that 2048x1536 interlaced at 85hz is easier on the eyes than 1600x1200 noninterlaced at 60hz (or any other resolution at 60hz). At 60hz, there is a disturbing full screen flicker effect which is unpleasant over time. The interlaced display at 85hz only flickers where there are high contrast thin horizontal lines, and even then it's not something that is fatiguing.

If your CRT can handle 1024x768 at 85hz with a normal display, then it can tackle 2048x1536 interlaced at 85hz. The horizontal and vertical sync rates are the same. Unless you've got an nVidia card, just give the 2048x1536 modeline a try and see what you think! At worst, your X server will complain that it doesn't support "interlace".

Anyway, I spent tonight troubleshooting dial-up AOL on a Windows 2000 machine of a coworker of a friend...I also have some networking I want to set up at home tonight so I might not get around to that screenshot tonight...

[rocketpcguy]

you mean i can make my 15" crt give a higher res than 800x600 at 80Hz+?

[psi42]

That modeline works on my old NEC 15" monitor... but I had to tone it down a bit, my eyes can't read text that small. :)

[Parcival]

Originally posted by IsaacKuo
At 60hz, there is a disturbing full screen flicker effect which is unpleasant over time. The interlaced display at 85hz only flickers where there are high contrast thin horizontal lines, and even then it's not something that is fatiguing.

That's why I avoid anything below 75Hz, but not everyone can see the flickering. It drives me nutts when I'm at a friends place working with him at the computer and they operate their screen below 75 because they're just fine with it. :rolleyes:

[psi42]

I've been running 1400x1050 (interlaced) on a 15" screen for a little while now, it looks incredible...

[Pafnoutios]

Originally posted by IsaacKuo
On my old 17" CRT, the effect of 2048x1536 is pretty good, but on a 19" CRT it would look quite a bit better. On my old 21" CRT, the effect of 2048x1536 is simply eye-popping.

BTW, 1280x1024 resolution is abomination, at least on a 4:3 CRT. Sacrifice a few scanlines to get true square pixels on a 1280x960 display!! Abolish the 1280x1024 perversion!!! RANT RANT RANT!!!!

I used to use 1280x960, so all my computers matched the screen resolution of my HTPC. But now that I've found that even my lowly 333mhz Celeron can take on 2048x1536i, I'll never go back!


First, I agree with the 1280x1024 rant.

Second, I've been running at a native 2048x1536 on my 21" CRT for three years. Linux was always much better at using fonts larger than 96dpi than Windows. Changing Windows to "Large Fonts" always fscked up all those stupid constant-pixel spaced windows. I thought Windows had 'twips' to measure screen distance to accomodate for things like that! Eh? Linux, or rather X, has seemed to be able to auto-detect my screen's physical size of 400x300mm, and set the system dpi to 130ish for at least the past two years. When I first switched to Redhat 7, RH's utilities wouldn't allow me to choose anything above 1024x768, but I think they fixed that by Redhat 8. KDE's utilities have been handling it for me since I switched to Gentoo. The only application that doesn't seem to cooperate with the 130ish dpi is Openoffice, which seems to use 100dpi bitmap fonts for it's menus and sort.

Third, how do you quadruple your desktop size by interlacing the video? When TVs run with interlacing, it only doubles the number of horizontal lines, there are still 512 vertical columns. A 2048x1536 desktop can be divided into 4 1024x768 quadrants. For this image, now suppose that each 2x2 block of pixels is split such that the (0,0) pixel goes to buffer 0, (0,1) to buffer 1, (1,0) to buffer 2, and (1,1) to buffer 3, such that each buffer looks about the same (the differences are the anti-aliasing at work). Normal interlacing as I know it, would only be able to shuffle two buffers back and forth, probably 0 and 2. I don't understand how you get the equivalent of 2048x1536 instead of 1024x1536 (squashed 50%).