# Native vs. Maximum Resolution on LCD monitors?



## remember

I very confused about the difference between Native and Max resolution.

The reason why I ask is .. . . because I just bought a Blu Ray burner. And because I want to be able to enjoy the full picture quality of that, I am tyring to understand what kind of monitor I should be buying.

I have my heart set on a 23"-28" monitor size,(24" seems to the most common size in my range) and some say that their "Maximum resolution" is, for example, 1920 x 1200 and others that say "Native resolution" is 1920 x 1200. I am very confused. Does anybody have any pointers for me to consider when trying to find the right monitor for enjoying my monitor? 

I just found this. . . ."Flat panel TVs (LCD, Plasma) or any fixed pixel technology (such as DLP/LCD projectors etc) have a fixed display mode, their so called "native resolution". That is, they can only display the actual resolution of their panel (1024 x 768, 1366 x 768, and 1920 x 1080 being just a few examples). Everything else must be scaled and/or processed to that native format of the device.". . .http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/feature-article-1080p-3-2007-part-2.html

Does anyone know if the above quote is something I should keep in mind when doing my monitor shopping? or are there other things to consider?


----------



## The_Other_One

Typically, they are the same thing.  I did a little research to double check and it seems some devices(mainly projectors) might have a higher maximum resolution than it's native resolution.  Native resolution is simply how many pixels can be displayed at once.  If the maximum resolution is higher than the native, then that means the image is being compressed to fit on the screen.


----------



## Cromewell

> Does anyone know if the above quote is something I should keep in mind when doing my monitor shopping? or are there other things to consider?


I would keep it in mind but it's only a big deal if you know you are going to run a different resolution. Running non-native resolutions on LCDs is awful, it's blurry as anything and very hard to read.


----------



## heyman421

i'd suggest getting a higher resolution than you think you'll NEED, as computer resolutions are all divisible into each other (or atleast easily scaled to one anothers) as are tv-resolutions

so if you're getting a computer monitor, go 1680, if you're going tv, go 1920

i would never plan on being able to compress a larger image with good results


----------



## remember

*Many issues*

To the Other one:

You say, "If the maximum resolution is higher than the native, then that means the image is being compressed to fit on the screen."

I dont understand what you say. Shouldn't the maximum resolution always be more than the native resolution?

My problem comes when many of the same monitors Im looking at use recommended/maximum/optimum/native resolution all interchageably.

Sorry for asking so many questions about this, but a 22" monitors costs about $270, whereas I have not been able to find a 24" monitor for less than $500.

The problem is that. . .from what I have read, my Blu Ray movies are meant to display 1920 x 1080 resolution. But Im not sure if the 22" monitors are capable of that. Like I said, the interchangeable use of maximum,native,etc. has made this very confusing for me.

The 24" monitors are super incredibly expensive, but I have only seen 22" monitors that list the resolution at 1680 x 1050. The 24" monitors say 1920 x 1200 resolution(sometimes native, sometimes, max, optimum, or recommended.) So, maybe I will have to get the 24" monitor in order to take full advantage of Blu Rays, but if anyone knows if the 22" monitors can display the full video quality of Blu-Ray please let me know.

I just thought that if I understood the difference between native and max/recommended resolution specs, then I'd be able to figure it out by myself. But there are quite a few different monitor brands, especially for the 22" sized and they almost all say 1680 x 1050 resolution, but again, some brands say that res is the max, others say native, and I thought maybe the ones that say its the native res, might have a higher max resolution and thus capable of displaying my 1920 x 1080 Blu Ray resolution, plus obviously save me a heck of a lot of money.

To Cromewell,

The only thing I know about changing the resolution on my monitors, is that when I increase the resolution, the lettering/display on the screen gets smaller and smaller. I assume that when I will be watching Blu Ray movies, its ok, because there is nothing to read, but then if I have to lower the res, to a more common 1366 or 1280 x 720, then maybe what you are saying will be true?

Obviosly, I dont want to have run a non-native res and suffer the blurry, garbled image, but then why does Windows give the option of changing the res, if its going to garble the quality?

Again, my main concern is getting the right monitor that can fully take advantage of the high res output of the Blu Ray, but now that you've mentioned the blurry image from running non-native resolutions, then I've got another issue to think about.

To heyman,
Unless Im mistaken the Blu Ray's are capable of 1920 x 1080 resolution. I can only remember the 24" monitors stating a res spec of higher than that. All the 22" monitors only state 1680 x 1050 resolution.

Im sorry but I just dont understand what you mean by "i would never plan on being able to compress a larger image with good results". Keep in mind, that the 22" monitors are 1680 x 1050 and the 24" monitors are 1920 x 1200. So one way or the other, the are no monitors that have the exact same res as the 1920 x 1080 Blu Ray's, and ultimately, Im still trying to figure out if the less expensive 22" monitors can fully take advantage of the 1920 x 1080 Blu Ray output resolution.

Im so confused over all of this.


----------



## Archangel

remember said:


> To the Other one:
> 
> You say, "If the maximum resolution is higher than the native, then that means the image is being compressed to fit on the screen."
> 
> I dont understand what you say. Shouldn't the maximum resolution always be more than the native resolution?



Not in an LCD.   if a monitor has 1280 x1024 pixels (for example ofcourse) then 1280x1024 IS also its native resolution, and its the resolution you would want to put the computer on too.   because if you put it higher, you wont notice a difference (except the screen going a bit dodgy perhaps), and some monitors even shut down when they get an input higher than their native resolution.
so no,  The native and maximum resolution are the same on LCD's

as for the letters going smaller when you increase the resolution,.  basicly, the letters stay the same high (like 10 pixels or so)  but when you start squeezing more pixels onto the screen, the pixels itself become smaller. but the letters will still be 10 pixels high.   (this is on CRT monitors, and usually LCD monitors when youre under the native resolution till the native resolution.)


----------



## Dual_Corex2

Archangel said:


> Not in an LCD.   if a monitor has 1280 x1024 pixels (for example ofcourse) then 1280x1024 IS also its native resolution, and its the resolution you would want to put the computer on too.   because if you put it higher, you wont notice a difference (except the screen going a bit dodgy perhaps), and some monitors even shut down when they get an input higher than their native resolution.
> so no,  The native and maximum resolution are the same on LCD's
> 
> as for the letters going smaller when you increase the resolution,.  basicly, the letters stay the same high (like 10 pixels or so)  but when you start squeezing more pixels onto the screen, the pixels itself become smaller. but the letters will still be 10 pixels high.   (this is on CRT monitors, and usually LCD monitors when youre under the native resolution till the native resolution.)



I have a montior (ViewSonic 17 CRT) and its from Sept. 1996, and iv always run it at 1280x960 for my desktop (and some games).  

Since im pretty sure standard resolution back then was pry 800x600 or 1024x768, could running high resolutions on older monitors damage them after time?  1280x1024 is pretty much my monitors max before it starts to act funny, and its at 70hz. 

I dont really want a new monitor, though some day id like to go to an LCD monitor, but ill wait till this one decides its done.


----------



## Cromewell

> but then why does Windows give the option of changing the res, if its going to garble the quality?


Because windows doesn't care if you are on an LCD, the monitor will tell the video card what resolutions are OK but it's up to you to decide which to use. On CRTs you can set the resolution to any supported and it will be clear, windows treats LCDs the same way, it's the hardware on the LCD that makes it blury when you run non-native resolutions.





> as computer resolutions are all divisible into each other (or atleast easily scaled to one anothers) as are tv-resolutions


This is true to a point, but only exact multiples scale cleanly resulting in relatively little loss of quality. For example 640x480 would display fairly clearly on a 1280x960 native resolution monitor but 800x600 would not be as clear. 1280x1024 would look horrid (different aspect ratio but still a valid resolution)


----------

