Max resolution of monitors

[kensiko]

Hey, it's been a while that I saw that some big monitors support more resolution than the specifications. Now I've got one like that. It says 1600X1200 @ 75 Hz, but also work (with Plug&Play driver in WinXP) in 2048X1536 @ 60Hz and the view is good enouph. I'd like to know if it's right to continu like that, and if not, what could happen. Thanks for answers !

 

[Admiral Michael]

I dont think its a good idea, you making the monitor work harder to deliver that resolution. It was designed for a max of 1600x1200 and I would suggest you stick to that.
Besides 2048x1536: that would be so small and hard to read - I dont think it will help your eyes either.

 

[LeeJend]

Worst case is the high voltage flyback transformer overheats and fails. Cost of replacing it is about the same as a new monitor.

Besides 60 hz is too slow it will give you head aches and eye strain.

 

[kensiko]

Ok that's a good explanation. Look at what a Nec-Mitsubishi technician told me :

"The monitor's maximum resolution is 1600 X 1200, this is due the number of phosphors available to project the image. If you where able to put the resolution higher than the monitor can display, assuming your video card will let you do that, then you would get a 'display out of range' error message with no display."

He just don't get it ahah !

60 Hz isn't so much bad, I worked one year with a 20 inch monitor Mitsubishi Diamond Scan 1991 in 1280X1024. I don't see a difference with my new monitor @ 70 Hz. 2048X1536 is impressive ! But I think I'll forget it. Thanks a lot anyway !

 

[jonifen]

Aye, I would recommend going no higher than the recommended maximum resolution as specified by the manufacturer. 2048x1536 does look good... but 1600x1200 isnt so bad (especially as using 1600 will not dmg your monitor)