Non-native resolution for gaming

How bad does it look to play games in a non-native resolution?

From searching forums, I've heard everything from awful to not much different than playing in the native resolution.

 

My "Good" rating comes with a caveat: you have to use aspect-ratio preserving scaling in order to have a nice experience. Otherwise, it's awful.

 

What is aspect-ration preserving scaling....how do you implement this scaling?

 

It's in your graphics options. I'm on my work machine, which is an ATI card with a standard 4:3 display, so I can't tell you the exact clicks, but it works on my machine (I'm using the 93.XX series WHQL drivers from laptopvideo2go.com). It may be labeled like resizing the image without stretching or something similar.

 

It is very playable. I voted playable, because it doesn't really look good, but it is very playable and you can easily get into the game.

The problem is if you get a 1920x1200 that there aren't very many
16:10 aspect ratio screens available, and therefore you'll need to go to 16:9 or something, and then circles start looking all stretched, and things get strange. thats not really a big deal.

1920x1200 is still definatly worth it. You'll be very very happy.

 

Not good, but playable.

 

Its playable. Depending on your screens maximum resolution and the resolution you're playing at you may not notice a difference. It is best to scale the aspect ratio though. That would be if you have a widescreen monitor and a game for normal screens, you should set it so theres black bars on the sides of the screen so it doesnt stretch.

Edit: My 1,100th post! Yay!!

 

It's only bad when you it insists on stretching a 4:3 ratio on a 16:10 widescreen. Otherwise, playable! =)

 

I'd rather sacrifice the graphics setting to medium from high and play in native resolution, but that's just me.

 

problem when playing 1920 x 1200 is the font is too small

so most of the time i just play at 1440 x 900

 

I voted good because if I keep the 16:10 aspect ratio of my screen (or 5:4 for my external monitor), then there's no issue. Usually I don't have to lower the resolution with most of the games I play but there are always those times when something more demanding comes along . . .

 

I agree that playing in native res, with lower gfx quality looks better IMO.

 

I think it looks OK in non-native resolution, but I try to play in native unless I need the boost from lowering it.

 

Depends. My screen is 16:10 and most of the time I scale down the res, but keeping it widescreen, to turn other settings higher and don't really notice a difference. But as above, playing 4:3 doesn't work

 

The game will be playable, but the details and the eye candies grows out of proportion. Not to mention straining the eyes too.

 

I wonder what do you mean. My PC has a resolution of 1680x1024, but most games I play them at 1280x768 (same proportion). Now, I can't see any difference when I play games in my PC or when I play them in my friends 1280x800 resolution PC. In his PC I play in native resolution, not in mine, but both qualities are the same.
So, what do you mean with decreasing quality?

 

Non-native resolutions suck! If you need to use em, make shure AA is at 6x minimum! unless the non native resolution is higher. Some games allow me to put the resolution at 1600x1200 but the text is unreadable since my screen is only 1280x800

btw, for ati cards this is the option to use, to make the game look ALOT better, but really small!

 

Dude, where'd you get those sidebar gadgets? They look nice!

 

An LCD has a defined 'pixel grid' aka native resolution - when you put a non-native resolution on the screen, the pixels will no longer fit in the designated grid and have to be stretched over it. You loose sharpness and some clarity but the picture is still very viewable.

Change your resolution to 1280x768 outside of a game and you'll see what I mean.

 

http://vista.gallery.microsoft.com/vista/SideBar.aspx?mkt=en-us



microsoft's sidebar gadgets websites, they have several hundreds with tons added every day. I love the gadgets! They're so useful!

 

Just a quick question. Could someone post a screenshot of 1440x900 on a 17 inch screen? I'm planning to get a DX10 17 inch laptop (for gaming) later in the year but not sure which resolution I should go for... I don't like those extremely high ones (such as 1920x1020) since it looks way too small and games won't be very playable... I was thinking of either 1440x900 or 1650x1050... However, I don't want the icons on my desktop to be oversized either... Do you guys think 1440x900 would be enough for most new games? Thx in advance.

 

I see what you mean with the non-native effect. However the effect is unexpected:
Actually, strangely, I see a difference and the game doesn't look as good, only when I use an AA over 4x. Until now I didn't understand why people liked the AA so high, but now I see. If I use a AA over 4x I see the game blurry, 2x still looks better than no AA, but not over that.

 

I always like playing on native res. Lowering the screen resolution makes the picture blurry.

Here's a screenshot of 1440x900 for you maksin01

 

Thx a lot aznguy123. It actually looks alright... I was expecting the stuff to be a bit oversized but looks like 1440x900 for a 17 inch isn't a bad choice either...

 

I remember reading somewhere that running at non-native resolutions on an LCD, as long as the aspect ratio is maintained, can actually have the effect of giving a free AA effect because of monitor interpolation. Thinking about it I suppose that's true but the difference is that the effect is global rather than targeted so that is likely not optimal. Personally, I don't feel that games on my MBP look "bad" when running non-native. I'd be interested to see an interpolation review of different notebooks to see which ones have the best interpolation. When desktop LCD monitors are reviewed, they look at interpolation quality, it's too bad they don't do the same for laptops.