Search Results

Search found 3053 results on 123 pages for 'resolution'.

Page 1/123 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • KVM switching from lower resolution system resets Ubuntu high resolution

    - by Ed Manet
    I'm running 12.04 desktop on my main desktop and it's hooked to a KVM (IOGear miniview) that shares the peripherals with a SLES 11 machine. The SLES 11 machine can't get the same resolution as the Ubuntu machine because of different graphics hardware. If I switch from Ubuntu to SLES and stay there too long, when I switch back to Ubuntu the screen resolution on Ubuntu is reset to the same as SLES. I can get it back easily just opening the Displays configuration; it immediately resets to the high resolution as soon as the Displays window opens. But all my open windows have been maximized and it's a P.I.T.A. having to resize them all again. How do I get it to just stay at the high resolution between switching between systems? Is there a setting in the Xorg conf file I need to set?

    Read the article

  • Viewing a large-resolution VNC server through a small-resolution viewer in Ubuntu

    - by Madiyaan Damha
    I have two Ubuntu computers, one with a large screen resolution (1920x1600) that is running default ubuntu vnc server. I have another computer that has a resolution of about 1200x1024 that I use to vnc into the server (I use the default ubuntu vnc viewer). Now everything works fine except there are annoying scrollbars in the viewer because the server's desktop resolution is so much higher than the viewer's. Is there a way to: 1) Scale the server's desktop down to the viewer's resolution. I know there will be a loss of image quality, but I am willing to try it out. This should be something like how windows media player or vlc scales down the window (and does some interpolation of pixels). 2) Automatically shrink the resolution of the server to the client's when I connect and scale the resolution back when I disconnect. This seems like a less attractive solution. 3) Any other solution that gurus out there use? I am sure someone has experienced this before (annoying scroll bars) so there must be a solution out there. Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Viewing a large-resolution VNC server through a small-resolution viewer in Ubuntu

    - by Madiyaan Damha
    I have two Ubuntu computers, one with a large screen resolution (1920x1600) that is running the default Ubuntu VNC server. I have another computer that has a resolution of about 1200x1024 that I use to VNC into the server using the default Ubuntu VNC viewer). Now everything works fine except there are annoying scrollbars in the viewer because the server's desktop resolution is so much higher than the viewer's. Is there a way to: Scale the server's desktop down to the viewer's resolution. I know there will be a loss of image quality, but I am willing to try it out. This should be something like how Windows Media Player or VLC scales down the window (and does some interpolation of pixels). Automatically shrink the resolution of the server to the client's when I connect and scale the resolution back when I disconnect. This seems like a less attractive solution. Any other solution that gurus out there use? I am sure someone has experienced this before (annoying scroll bars) so there must be a solution out there.

    Read the article

  • XNA Windows Resolution / Mouse Position Bug

    - by Ian Hern
    In XNA, when in windowed mode and resolution (set via PreferredBackBufferWidth/Height) is close to the resolution of the display, the view is distorted (zoomed in a bit)and the mouse coordinates are wrong. Here is what it looks like when I draw a bunch of lines to the screen. (Normal, Error on my ASUS Notebook G73Jh, Error on my EEE PC 1001P) In the top left of the screen the mouse position is correct, but the further you get away the more out of sync it becomes. Here are some images of the mouse in different positions and the game drawing a circle underneath where it thinks the mouse is. (Top Left, Bottom Right) If you shrink the resolution by a couple pixels then it goes back to working like normal, my first though at a fix was to limit the max resolution to a little smaller than the display resolution. I figured out the maximum resolution that works in a couple different modes, but there doesn't seem to be a pattern that would allow me to determine it based off the display resolution. Computer | Screen Resolution | Max Error-Free | Difference ASUS Notebook G73Jh | 1920x1080 | 1924x1059 | +4x-21 ASUS Notebook G73Jh | 1024x600 | 1018x568 | -6x-32 EEE PC 1001P | 1024x600 | 1020x574 | -4x-26 Because the differences don't form a pattern I can't hack in a solution, the one even has +4 which baffles me. Here is a project that demonstrates the problem, just set the resolution to the resolution of your display. Any ideas on how I might fix this issue? As an insteresting aside, I tried to use FRAPS to capture a video of the issue but fraps actually records without distortion or mouse offset.

    Read the article

  • high resolution on small screen size

    - by vishesh
    I have recently got an intel ultrabook,but its screen size is 13.3' and the native resolution is 1600X900.So the problem is that the letters that appear on screen are very small.Reducing resolution blurs the display and making everything bigger also doesn't feel very good.is there a way to get around this problem without changing hardware. I am even ok with this high resolution but I am concerned about the harmful effects it might have on my eyes in long term. Any advice will be very useful.Please help

    Read the article

  • Making a 2D game with responsive resolution

    - by alexandervrs
    I am making a 2D game, however I wish for it to be resolution agnostic. My target resolution i.e. where things look as intended is 1600 x 900. My ideas are: Make the HUD stay fixed to the sides no matter what resolution, use different size for HUD graphics under a certain resolution and another under a certain large one. Use large HD PNG sprites/backgrounds which are a power of 2, so they scale nicely. No vectors. Use the player's native resolution. Scale the game area (not the HUD) to fit (resulting zooming in some and cropping the game area sides if necessary for widescreen, no stretch), but always fill the screen. Have a min and max resolution limit for small and very large displays where you will just change the resolution(?) or scale up/down to fit. What I am a bit confused though is what math formula I would use to scale the game area correctly based on the resolution no matter the aspect ratio, fully fit in a square screen and with some clip to the sides for widescreen. Pseudocode would help as well. :)

    Read the article

  • Making a game with responsive resolution

    - by alexandervrs
    I am making a game, however I wish for it to be resolution agnostic. My target resolution i.e. where things look as intended is 1600 x 900. My ideas are: Make the HUD stay fixed to the sides no matter what resolution, use different size for HUD graphics under a certain resolution and another under a certain large one. Use large HD sprites/backgrounds which are a power of 2, so they scale nicely. Use the player's native resolution. Scale the game area (not the HUD) to fit (resulting zooming in some and cropping the game area sides if necessary for widescreen, no stretch), but always fill the screen. Have a min and max resolution limit for small and very large displays where you will just change the resolution(?) or scale up/down to fit. What I am a bit confused though is what math formula I would use to scale the game area correctly based on the resolution no matter the aspect ratio, fully fit in a square screen and with some clip to the sides for widescreen. Pseudocode would help as well. :)

    Read the article

  • Why Is Vertical Resolution Monitor Resolution so Often a Multiple of 360?

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    Stare at a list of monitor resolutions long enough and you might notice a pattern: many of the vertical resolutions, especially those of gaming or multimedia displays, are multiples of 360 (720, 1080, 1440, etc.) But why exactly is this the case? Is it arbitrary or is there something more at work? Today’s Question & Answer session comes to us courtesy of SuperUser—a subdivision of Stack Exchange, a community-driven grouping of Q&A web sites. The Question SuperUser reader Trojandestroy recently noticed something about his display interface and needs answers: YouTube recently added 1440p functionality, and for the first time I realized that all (most?) vertical resolutions are multiples of 360. Is this just because the smallest common resolution is 480×360, and it’s convenient to use multiples? (Not doubting that multiples are convenient.) And/or was that the first viewable/conveniently sized resolution, so hardware (TVs, monitors, etc) grew with 360 in mind? Taking it further, why not have a square resolution? Or something else unusual? (Assuming it’s usual enough that it’s viewable). Is it merely a pleasing-the-eye situation? So why have the display be a multiple of 360? The Answer SuperUser contributor User26129 offers us not just an answer as to why the numerical pattern exists but a history of screen design in the process: Alright, there are a couple of questions and a lot of factors here. Resolutions are a really interesting field of psychooptics meeting marketing. First of all, why are the vertical resolutions on youtube multiples of 360. This is of course just arbitrary, there is no real reason this is the case. The reason is that resolution here is not the limiting factor for Youtube videos – bandwidth is. Youtube has to re-encode every video that is uploaded a couple of times, and tries to use as little re-encoding formats/bitrates/resolutions as possible to cover all the different use cases. For low-res mobile devices they have 360×240, for higher res mobile there’s 480p, and for the computer crowd there is 360p for 2xISDN/multiuser landlines, 720p for DSL and 1080p for higher speed internet. For a while there were some other codecs than h.264, but these are slowly being phased out with h.264 having essentially ‘won’ the format war and all computers being outfitted with hardware codecs for this. Now, there is some interesting psychooptics going on as well. As I said: resolution isn’t everything. 720p with really strong compression can and will look worse than 240p at a very high bitrate. But on the other side of the spectrum: throwing more bits at a certain resolution doesn’t magically make it better beyond some point. There is an optimum here, which of course depends on both resolution and codec. In general: the optimal bitrate is actually proportional to the resolution. So the next question is: what kind of resolution steps make sense? Apparently, people need about a 2x increase in resolution to really see (and prefer) a marked difference. Anything less than that and many people will simply not bother with the higher bitrates, they’d rather use their bandwidth for other stuff. This has been researched quite a long time ago and is the big reason why we went from 720×576 (415kpix) to 1280×720 (922kpix), and then again from 1280×720 to 1920×1080 (2MP). Stuff in between is not a viable optimization target. And again, 1440P is about 3.7MP, another ~2x increase over HD. You will see a difference there. 4K is the next step after that. Next up is that magical number of 360 vertical pixels. Actually, the magic number is 120 or 128. All resolutions are some kind of multiple of 120 pixels nowadays, back in the day they used to be multiples of 128. This is something that just grew out of LCD panel industry. LCD panels use what are called line drivers, little chips that sit on the sides of your LCD screen that control how bright each subpixel is. Because historically, for reasons I don’t really know for sure, probably memory constraints, these multiple-of-128 or multiple-of-120 resolutions already existed, the industry standard line drivers became drivers with 360 line outputs (1 per subpixel). If you would tear down your 1920×1080 screen, I would be putting money on there being 16 line drivers on the top/bottom and 9 on one of the sides. Oh hey, that’s 16:9. Guess how obvious that resolution choice was back when 16:9 was ‘invented’. Then there’s the issue of aspect ratio. This is really a completely different field of psychology, but it boils down to: historically, people have believed and measured that we have a sort of wide-screen view of the world. Naturally, people believed that the most natural representation of data on a screen would be in a wide-screen view, and this is where the great anamorphic revolution of the ’60s came from when films were shot in ever wider aspect ratios. Since then, this kind of knowledge has been refined and mostly debunked. Yes, we do have a wide-angle view, but the area where we can actually see sharply – the center of our vision – is fairly round. Slightly elliptical and squashed, but not really more than about 4:3 or 3:2. So for detailed viewing, for instance for reading text on a screen, you can utilize most of your detail vision by employing an almost-square screen, a bit like the screens up to the mid-2000s. However, again this is not how marketing took it. Computers in ye olden days were used mostly for productivity and detailed work, but as they commoditized and as the computer as media consumption device evolved, people didn’t necessarily use their computer for work most of the time. They used it to watch media content: movies, television series and photos. And for that kind of viewing, you get the most ‘immersion factor’ if the screen fills as much of your vision (including your peripheral vision) as possible. Which means widescreen. But there’s more marketing still. When detail work was still an important factor, people cared about resolution. As many pixels as possible on the screen. SGI was selling almost-4K CRTs! The most optimal way to get the maximum amount of pixels out of a glass substrate is to cut it as square as possible. 1:1 or 4:3 screens have the most pixels per diagonal inch. But with displays becoming more consumery, inch-size became more important, not amount of pixels. And this is a completely different optimization target. To get the most diagonal inches out of a substrate, you want to make the screen as wide as possible. First we got 16:10, then 16:9 and there have been moderately successful panel manufacturers making 22:9 and 2:1 screens (like Philips). Even though pixel density and absolute resolution went down for a couple of years, inch-sizes went up and that’s what sold. Why buy a 19″ 1280×1024 when you can buy a 21″ 1366×768? Eh… I think that about covers all the major aspects here. There’s more of course; bandwidth limits of HDMI, DVI, DP and of course VGA played a role, and if you go back to the pre-2000s, graphics memory, in-computer bandwdith and simply the limits of commercially available RAMDACs played an important role. But for today’s considerations, this is about all you need to know. Have something to add to the explanation? Sound off in the the comments. Want to read more answers from other tech-savvy Stack Exchange users? Check out the full discussion thread here.     

    Read the article

  • Low resolution Dektop intel i7 3770 and intel board DH67BL

    - by rtorres
    I installed Ubuntu 12.04.1 in a desktop with the following specs: CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz Motherboard: Intel DH67B However the monitor is not identified (Monitor: Unknown) such that maximum resolution is 1024x768. This occurs with Samsung Syncmaster 2033 (resolution 1900x600), and is the same with ViewSonic VX2453mh-LED (resolution 1920x1080). I'd be very grateful if anyone could give me a suggestion as to how to fix the resolution.

    Read the article

  • Problem mirroring two monitors with different resolution

    - by quad
    Hello I am trying to put two monitors in mirror mode (Windows 7 Professional) with Ultramon 3.1.0. The two monitors: Main monitor: 24" Asus. 1680x1050 resolution (16/10). Secondary monitor: 19" LG. 1280x1024 resolution. The graphic card is a Nvidia GeForce 8600 GT. I have installed the Ultramon 3.1.0 and I have created a mirror, with the "stretch mirror image to fill monitor" and the "disable video overlays and 3D acceleration". When I start the mirroring, there are two zones in the lateral edges that are not displayed in the second monitor. I think this is because the width of the main monitor is 1680 px. and the width of the secondary monitor is 1280 px., but I have indicated "stretch mirror image to fill monitor" in the options. The same occurs in the top and the bottom edges, but the diference is minimal (1050 vs 1024 pixels). I want the same image (distortioned in the secondary monitor if is neccesary), but I don't know what is failing. Someone can help me, please? I have read Mirrored monitors of different resolution. Cloned screen on monitors with different resolutions

    Read the article

  • Display resolution problem with Sony TV and Intel integrated graphics

    - by user96195
    I am trying to set the correct display resolution for my Sony TV (KDL-32V2000, native resolution 1366x768) connected via HDMI to my HTPC running Ubuntu 12.04. I have a Intel Core i3-530 and Intel mobo (DH57JG), so no proprietary graphics drivers. The problem is that I can't get the correct resolution to display on the TV. Initially I only had 1024x768 (or similar) as a maximum resolution, which was not displayed properly. I tried a few steps, including generating an xorg.conf (initially didn't have one) and adding the segment as described in this post regarding this particular TV. I couldn't get this to work, and at this stage have reverted to running without an xorg.conf. Another post suggested upgrading to kernel 3.5, which did give me a 1920x1080 resolution option. This results in the TV cutting off a fair bit of the edges of the screen. My Dell laptop with ATI drivers recognises the TV screen and works well via HDMI. Any idea how to proceed?

    Read the article

  • Change resolution in Waking Mars

    - by Wes
    I purchased and installed the humble bundle game "Waking Mars" via the Ubuntu Software Center and it works really well except for some issues with changing settings, namely with the resolution. The in-game settings for changing resolution and entering/exiting fullscreen were easy enough to find and toggle, and when you do it asks to restart the application. When you restart it, all other settings you updated are reflected except for the changes to the resolution. (I'm trying to get it to play in windowed mode that fits onto one monitor, but it will only default to windowed mode with the full dual monitor resolution). I noticed that it writes these values to ~/.local/share/WakingMars/UserSettings.ini. When I change the resolution, it is properly written to in this settings file...but it never is reflected when you restart the application. Any ideas what's wrong?

    Read the article

  • NVIDIA Graphics - resolution problems with new 12.04 LTS installation

    - by Daveisuser56810
    I've been trying to install Ubuntu 12.04 LTS on my desktop most of the day. The desktop uses a NVIDIA GEFORCE 9800 (GT I think) graphics card. I am unable to set the correct resolution (1680 x 1050) for the display. The first problem I had was that of the "Black Screen" during install. I overcame this by utilising the "nomodeset" switch on the install options (once I'd found how to do that). The second problem of course was the "Black screen" following the first reboot. Once again this was overcome by using "nomodeset", this time by "editing" the GRUB. This gave me a resolution of 1280x768 which, the Displays GUI allowed me to change to 1280x720 (appears to fit on screen). I then tried to install the NVIDIA drivers. 1) using additional drivers 2) manually by downloading driver and installing in root As soon as NVIDIA drivers are installed - resolution become restricted to 640x480 (max). At this resolution Ubuntu GUI is not usable as most screens are larger than the display. Removing the NVIDIA driver and removing the XORG.CONF file does not lift this restriction. I have tried most things that I have found and that were vaguely intelligible, but nothing appears to get me closer to a resolution of 1680x1050. UPDATE: reinstalled Ubuntu 12-04 and used the "NoModeSet" in the Grub to restore the resolution to 1280x720, which is at least usable. Will live with this for now.

    Read the article

  • Viewing a large-resolution VNC server through a small-resolution viewer in Ubuntu

    - by Madiyaan Damha
    I have two Ubuntu computers, one with a large screen resolution (1920x1600) that is running default ubuntu vnc server. I have another computer that has a resolution of about 1200x1024 that I use to vnc into the server (I use the default ubuntu vnc viewer). Now everything works fine except there are annoying scrollbars in the viewer because the server's desktop resolution is so much higher than the viewer's. Is there a way to: 1) Scale the server's desktop down to the viewer's resolution. I know there will be a loss of image quality, but I am willing to try it out. This should be something like how windows media player or vlc scales down the window (and does some interpolation of pixels). 2) Automatically shrink the resolution of the server to the client's when I connect and scale the resolution back when I disconnect. This seems like a less attractive solution. 3) Any other solution that gurus out there use? I am sure someone has experienced this before (annoying scroll bars) so there must be a solution out there. Thanks,

    Read the article

  • How to change resolution to 1920 x 1080?

    - by jacknad
    The display looks a bit stretched and there is a system pop-up that says something like "Resolution Notice: for best quality change resolution to 1920 x 1080" but in Monitor Preferences the only choices in the Resolution drop-down are 1600 x 1200 (the current setting), 1280 x 1024, and less (which all look worse). The monitor preferences calls the Monitor "unknown," the monitor is a ViewSonic VX2450WM, and the PC is an HP p7-1120.

    Read the article

  • Xubuntu 14.04 resolution low

    - by user3203576
    I installed Xubuntu 14.04 amd64 on the computer at the computer repair shop where I work, but the screen resolution is way low, like 1024 x 768 (that wouldn't be low for a laptop or anything, but for a large desktop screen it is) I went to the display settings, but the resolution wouldn't go higher than that. When I installed Xubuntu 14.04 i386 at my computer at home, I didn't have any problems with the resolution. Any help? update: I ran lspci | grep VGA and got: 00:0d.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation C61 [GeForce 6150SE nForce 430] (rev a2)

    Read the article

  • Loads wrong resolution when installing

    - by Kevin DB
    I'm trying to install Ubuntu 11.04 from a USB. My computer does load the USB file and I get some sort of BIOS-like screen where I can choose between 'Install from USB' and 'Boot-up from USB'. When I entered the corresponding number my screen resolution is totally messed up. I see that Ubuntu is starting up when I used Boot from USB, but the screen looks the same as you'd have a too high screen resolution. Same story with Install from USB. I can see the screens loading and the menu's and stuff, but not clearly because it load in a too high screen resolution. I'm trying to dual-boot is with Windows XP and max. screen resolution is 800x600.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 10.10 netbook Screen Resolution Sony Vaio FS315

    - by Fatos
    Hello, I've just installed ubuntu 10.10 on my laptop its all great but the screen resolution is a bit crap i have it set 1200:800 and when i do xrandr it indicates that the i can have a bigger screen resolution but i dont seem to to be able to increase it more 1200:800 through monitor tool. another interesting thing is that xorg.conf does not exist on the /etc/X11/ is there a way to increase the screen resolution for Sony laptops? The graphics card is Intel Graphics Please help! I didnt think it would be so hard to change the screen resolution

    Read the article

  • Resolution stuck in 640x480 in grub, 11.04 and 12.04

    - by user89797
    I have three operating systems on my machine, Windows 7x64, Ubuntu 11.10 and 12.04 both x64 as well. All three were running at full resolution for my monitor, as well as in the Grub 1.99 boot screen. After booting into Windows, I rebooted my machine and found my Grub resolution was suddenly 640x480. Booting into both versions of Ubuntu, I find myself stuck at that resolution as well. I made no driver changes recently, and hadn't even booted into the 11.10 build in a month or more. I've gone through both proprietary Nvidia driver options for my card (GeForce 9800GT) as well as the open source drivers in 12.04 to no avail. I can't figure out what could have caused this change in both versions of Ubuntu and Grub simultaneously. Windows 7 is unaffected so I think that safely rules out hardware failure. EDIT Ok, so I couldn't boot an graphical live disks, I tried ubuntu 12.04 i386 and x64 as well as 12.10 beta x64 and all of them would flash the initial logo, go to a blank screen with a flashing cursor in the upper left and then my display would die. I managed to boot 12.04 server and get into recovery. I reinstalled grub and went into recovery mode for my 12.04 build. If I boot in safe graphics mode I can get 1280x768, but as soon as I reboot it's broken again. I've tried reinstalling the nvidia drivers and that leaves me with a system stuck at max 640x480. None of these changes have had any impact on the 11.10 build, which is still stuck at 640x480 Given that I can push a somewhat higher resolution in 12.04, and full resolution in windows 7 I'm pretty convinced it's not an issue of my monitor failing. It must be something to do with the graphics drivers. I can't figure out what could be the issue though. I'm especially perplexed that I can't boot any live images

    Read the article

  • Resolution Independent 2D Rendering in XNA

    - by AttackingHobo
    I am trying to figure out the best way to render a 2d game at any resolution. I am currently rendering the game at 1920x1200. I am trying scale the game to any user selected resolution without changing the way I am rendering, or game logic. What is the best way to scale a game to any arbitrary resolution? Edit: I am trying to achieve this: http://www.david-amador.com/2010/03/xna-2d-independent-resolution-rendering/ but I think the code he has is for a different version of XNA because I cannot find that method overload he uses.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.10 - Resolution stuck at 1024x768 using Open Source Radeon Driver

    - by mumble
    I'm using Ubuntu 12.10 with an ATI Radeon HD5670 card. I currently have the open source xorg-edgers driver. I've been using this driver interchangeably with the Radeon open source driver since fglrx seems to give me a lot of freezes. So I can't really use proprietary drivers, the Radeon driver seems to be stable for me, the resolution is the only problem. The resolution is stuck at 1024x768, where my monitor's native resolution is 1366x768. How do I enable that resolution? Going to System Settings Display only gives me 800x600 and 1024x768 by the way. And just another question, how do I know if xorg-edgers driver is enabled? When I run sudo lshw -c video, I still see the radeon driver. configuration: driver=radeon latency=0 Thanks a lot in advance!

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >