Gazzz Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Why so? digital all the way, so clearly no need to overscan, and why oh why did nvidea scrap their overscan slider in their new drivers? at 1900x1080 i lose about 10-15% ... this knocks out most of the task bar and a row of icons on the side. Win XP, 6600gt, DVI -> HDMI, 42" schaub lorenz any ideas? Ta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davep Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 What TV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlpnut1503560389 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 What TV? 42" schaub lorenz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam5 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 According to another poster the schaub lorenz 1900x1080 cannot do that resolution via DVI only does 1366x768. So maybe that is what you are seeing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 There is still a need for overscan with digital, just not as much as with old systems. If it’s a TV it must overscan by design, if it did not the manufactures would be flooded with customer complaints. 10-15% is certainly too much, 5% is more typical these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ajax9000 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 any ideas? Ta Have a look in the Acer AT3705-MGW 37" LCD TV thread, some of the advanced timing hacks may work for your display. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omega1503559526 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Yeah its still always going to overscan at this stage. Im outputting 1920x1080 to my 1080p display and still get overscan. And if i use a resolution thats too small for the screen (rather than an overscan corrected resolution) but is still in the "ballpark" of 1920x1080 (so the TV still operates in '1080p mode') you actually see errors on the edge of the picture. Like teh menu's in Vista MCE for instance are slightly smaller than the video, so you get annoying flickers at the edge, and some of the WMVHD stuff has bright lines right on the edge which are annoying as well. So overscan isnt necessarily a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzz Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Sam, I was the one that posted that the old DVI input maxs out at 1366, however I have since upgraded to the MkII Schaub. in the first post I state I am using the DVI -> HDMI cable. Omega, The flickering on the edges you see during video can easily be overscanned via the nvidia (or ati) drivers under 'video overlay' My issue however is that it overscans the desktop itself. Silly. Currently running at 1792x998... it fits the panel perfectly however I'm frustrated that I am still yet to see true 1080p after investing all this money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omega1503559526 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Sam, I was the one that posted that the old DVI input maxs out at 1366, however I have since upgraded to the MkII Schaub. in the first post I state I am using the DVI -> HDMI cable.Omega, The flickering on the edges you see during video can easily be overscanned via the nvidia (or ati) drivers under 'video overlay' My issue however is that it overscans the desktop itself. Silly. Currently running at 1792x998... it fits the panel perfectly however I'm frustrated that I am still yet to see true 1080p after investing all this money. Yeah but not in Vista (yet), the drivers dont have support for the overscan correction feature that ive seen, and it was just an example of when overscan is a good thing. Just to clarify your situation though...1792x998 gives you a desktop image JUST escapes cropping by overscan....and 1920x1080 gives you a desktop image that is heavily overscanned correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzz Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 yes that is exactly correct. The PC gave me an overscan option (doesn't work) and an underscan option. The underscan option reduces the resolution to the exact pixel amount that will fit the panel. I don't know where the PC got this information as I don't think DVI transports such info, and its recognised as a plug and play monitor, but it's running at 1798 x 998 and goes perfectly to the edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Templer!oftheDog Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I guess im lucky with Bravia X, that there is a 1:1 pixel option. I was first of all trying to find the best underscan/overscan option, but once I found this option on my TV, I havent had to worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzz Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 Templar, please tell me more of this function? It's on the panel itself? How does it get such information, and via what cable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ajax9000 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Templar, please tell me more of this function? It's on the panel itself? How does it get such information, and via what cable? 1:1 is an option in the panel firmware. Some panels have it, others don't, so what happens on the Bravia X, Teac, and Toshiba displays may be of no help with your panel if the firmware doesn't support it. In the previously mentioned Acer thread you will see that forum members were able to override the firmware's lack of direct 1:1 support. Such tricks may work, but there are some?/many? panels for which 1:1 is an intractable problem (e.g. the BenQ 37" IIRC). Monitor Asset Manager 1.26 can give you some insights into how the panel's inputs (VGA/DVI/HDMI) have been set up. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts