Monitor Resolution with VS10+

blplhp · Post by **blplhp** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:40 pm

I currently have a Dell Ultra Sharp 19¡¨ LCD flat panel monitor for my computer. It has a maximum resolution of 1280 x 1024, .294 dot pitch, 700:1 contrast ratio, 300 cd/m2 image brightness and an 8 ms response time. It¡¦s a beautiful monitor and has done a great job so far, but I want a monitor with more resolution, especially when it comes to viewing and editing digital photographs with PI 12.

I am considering buying a Dell Ultra Sharp 20.1¡¨ LCD flat panel monitor that has a maximum resolution of 1600 x 1200, .255 dot pitch, 800:1 contrast ratio, 300 cd/m2 image brightness and a 16 ms response time.

My questions are these:

1) Does the resolution size (in this case 1600 x 1200) have any affect on the performance of VS10+? I do not do any HD editing, just standard DV with a 720 x 480 frame size.

2) Should I expect to see an improved image quality in my video playback in the Preview Screen with the increased resolution?

3) Does the response time of 16 ms on the new monitor have any affect on the quality of video playback, especially if there are any fast moving scenes? In other words, is 16 ms response time still within acceptable tolerance of video playback with fast moving scenes?

I wanted to make sure that this monitor will work with VS10+ properly before I plunk down $400 for a slightly better monitor than the excellent one I already have.

CycleWriter · Post by **CycleWriter** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:21 pm

Monitor resolution and color depth affect how much of your video card's memory is used. Higher resolution and 32-bit color depth will take more of the card's VRAM to render images on the display. This can be critical with games that use lots of hexagons and polygons to make shapes and/or use anti-aliasing routines to make the images look cleaner. With most image or video editing software it isn't a big concern so long as you have a video card with at least 128mb of VRAM. If your computer is using on-board video and shared system RAM, it becomes more problematical, particularly with video as it can appear choppy or grainy, especially at higher resolutions and with full screen video.

The only affect high resolutions has with the program VS is to make the workspace smaller. Actually, the space becomes larger, but the text and graphical elements become smaller. As far as playback/previewing, if you have a dedicated video card with plenty of VRAM, you probably won't see any negative effects from going to a higher resolution other than your preview screen will be smaller. On a system with integrated video and shared RAM, video playback may be unacceptable at higher resolutions. A system like this may not even support higher resolutions regardless of what the monitor supports. Know your system before you buy a new monitor. If it does not have a dedicated video card with sufficient VRAM you may be disappointed in the performance with a new monitor.

blplhp · Post by **blplhp** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:55 pm

CycleWriter,

Thanks for your reply. I have the GeForce 6800, which has 256 MB of vRAM on the card. This video card is suppose to be a high powered card. It is a PCI Express x16 card with dual 400 MHz RAMDAC's. The GeForce website says that this card supports a resolution size of up to 2048 x 1536.

Based on that, would you think I would have any problems going from a monitor that maxed out at 1280 x 1024 to one that maxed out at 1600 x 1200?

CycleWriter · Post by **CycleWriter** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:03 pm

blplhp wrote:CycleWriter,

Thanks for your reply. I have the GeForce 6800, which has 256 MB of vRAM on the card. This video card is suppose to be a high powered card. The GeForce website says that this card supports a resolution size of up to 2048 x 1536.

Based on that, would you think I would have any problems going from a monitor that maxed out at 1280 x 1024 to one that maxed out at 1600 x 1200?

512mb is now the recommended standard, but for a system that only occasionally is used for gaming, 256mb should be more than acceptable. The thing you need to check is what color depth is supported at the various resolutions your card is capable of. As resolution increases, color depth often decreases due to the increased VRAM needs. If the resolution you desire to use is at or very near the crossover point of 32-bit and 16-bit color depth, this could leave your VRAM maxxed out and provide marginal video playback quality. If your desired resolution is at least 2-3 settings below the highest 32-bit resolution setting your card offers, you should be fine.

blplhp · Post by **blplhp** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:20 pm

CycleWriter,

Thanks again for your quick reply. I don't do any gaming on my computer - strictly video editing with VS10+, photo editing, web surfing, music listening, Microsoft Word and Excel documents and occasional DVD watching. I will most likely go ahead and buy the monitor and try it out. If the 1600 x 1200 resolution gives me trouble with VS10+ as far as reduced video playback quality, I can always use the 1600 x 1200 for photo viewing and editing and everything else and revert back to the 1280 x 1024 for video editing.

Thanks again.

heinz-oz · Post by **heinz-oz** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:36 pm

You might find with a slower refresh rate of 12 ms, the video might look inferior on the higher resolution monitor. Don't forget, video is nowhere near a resolution as still images. Because of the relatively slow response time of LCD monitors, I still use a 20" Sony CRT for my video editing PC and preview on a TV.

CycleWriter · Post by **CycleWriter** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:45 pm

heinz-oz wrote:Because of the relatively slow response time of LCD monitors, I still use a 20" Sony CRT for my video editing PC and preview on a TV.

Same here. I run a dual monitor setup and the extra desk real estate of using LCDs would be wonderful, but not at the expense of video performance. Besides, those two 20" monitors keep my office nice and toasty in the winter months.

blplhp · Post by **blplhp** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:30 pm

CycleWriter and heinz-oz,

Thanks for your replies. You have convinced me to keep what I currently have and not order the larger, higher resolution LCD monitor. My current 19" LCD has a refresh rate of 8 ms, which from what I have read recently, is one of the fastest response times of an LCD monitor. The lowest I've heard of is 6 ms. The new 20" LCD monitor has a refresh rate of 16 ms, which I've read is borderline for high quality video playback. Like I said originally, my current 19" LCD monitor produces beautiful images, both color richness and sharpness. The sole reason I wanted a higher resolution monitor was for viewing my 8 mp resolution photos when downloaded from my digital camera. But I don't want to sacrifice performance in any of my other areas of interest on my computer, like video editing, so I will stay with what I have. This monitor performs very well with VS10+. Thanks for your input.