LG C2 42" OLED - Change resolution?

[🆃 🆈 🅻 🅴 🆁]

Is there any possible way the image can be shrunk, with black bars surrounding it, but to also keep the same 4K or even 1440p resolution? While 42" is perfect for open world and RPG games, I find it far too large for games like Halo multiplayer. I have found a way to shrink the display via the Nvidia Control panel, but it also really lowers the resolution and looks a bit crappy. It's probably not possible, but always worth an ask here.

[_I_]

its called letterboxing, black bars on sides and/or top bottom

in gpu control panel, tick no scaling, and perform scaling on gpu

[smokerob79]

you dont need it.....set the windows resolution to 4k and then set the game to 1080p......GPU will scale to 4k and give you full screen without black bars....

[_I_]

Цитата допису smokerob79:

you dont need it.....set the windows resolution to 4k and then set the game to 1080p......GPU will scale to 4k and give you full screen without black bars....

not by default, windows will change the output res to what the game is set to
gpu scaling is off by default
you will need to enable it, and disable scaling on it

some displays have an option on how to display non native res, to scale or stretch, not all have option to center/letterbox

[🆃 🆈 🅻 🅴 🆁]

Cheers for the replies.

I did some messing around and set a custom resolution with no scaling I'm happy enough with. Plays at something like half the screen size and 1440p which for Halo MCC is fine, as it's hardly a graphically amazing game anyway. Much better now attempting to fourshot someone than on a 42" display as before!

[C1REX]

Gaming TV also offer Ultra Wide and Super Ultra Wide mode.
It adds black bars on top and bottom but also makes the image more similar to a regular ultra wide monitor.


Also there is no such thing as screen too big - just a desk too small. :)

[Paraskeet]

I got a c3 42". it allows me to set the image to 21:9 but what you ask is impossible. there are only 8 million pixels in the c2 and by shrinking the image you also use fewer pixels

this would perhaps work on a 8k tv but we have no oled 8k available to us

have fun gaming

[🆃 🆈 🅻 🅴 🆁]

Yeah, it's cool. I decided to buy a Corsair OLED 27" for gaming, and will use the larger LG one just for watching stuff.

Cheers again!

[RTX 5080 FE(Mr Happy)]

Цитата допису 🆃 🆈 🅻 🅴 🆁:

Yeah, it's cool. I decided to buy a Corsair OLED 27" for gaming, and will use the larger LG one just for watching stuff.

Cheers again!

Nice I got the LG C3 and like you I needed something smaller for non single player games. I ended up with a 4k 27 inch as well, but sadly noy oled for the monitor. How do you like the corsair oled? is it matte or glossy?

[🆃 🆈 🅻 🅴 🆁]

Цитата допису Man Cave Mike:

Цитата допису 🆃 🆈 🅻 🅴 🆁:

Yeah, it's cool. I decided to buy a Corsair OLED 27" for gaming, and will use the larger LG one just for watching stuff.

Cheers again!

Nice I got the LG C3 and like you I needed something smaller for non single player games. I ended up with a 4k 27 inch as well, but sadly noy oled for the monitor. How do you like the corsair oled? is it matte or glossy?

It's got a matte coating, but is the best OLED Monitor I've owned yet. I think there's only one or two that are glossy. I owned the Asus ROG Swift PG27AQDM earlier this year for a few weeks but the matte finish on that was too much.

[Tonepoet]

Paraskeet is right. This is among the reasons we should have never abandoned C.R.T. 'Twas the only display technology with amorphous pixels. Everything else is a fixed pixel display with an actual physical pixel corresponding to each point on the screen.

Ergo, you chop off the top 10% of the screen, and you chop off the 10% of the pixels on that portion of the screen, necessitating the image to be of a 10% lower resolution, matching the new aspect ratio you have created.

I also wouldn't recommend letterboxing or pillarboxing an O.L.E.D. anyway because it would lead to uneven wear, where you'll notice the middle of the screen is duller than the edges. They call it reverse burn-in, although 'tis really just burn-in of the middle of the screen.

[_I_]

crt do not have 'pixels' but they do have a dot pitch
distance between the dots on the display that are r/g/b that light up when hit by the electron beam

they dont really have a native resolution, but do have a max res that they can effectively display

basically its h or w in inches / dots per inch

anything higher and it wont display the row or column

[Tonepoet]

Had to issue a correction. I meant to write duller rather than brighter, 'cause the middle of the screen will be more worn.

Цитата допису _I_:

crt do not have 'pixels' but they do have a dot pitch
distance between the dots on the display that are r/g/b that light up when hit by the electron beam

they dont really have a native resolution, but do have a max res that they can effectively display

basically its h or w in inches / dots per inch

anything higher and it wont display the row or column

Every image has pixels. The word is abbreviated from picture element, and refers to the smallest visual detail comprising that image. The thing about a C.R.T. is that they do not have a definite shape or placement on a screen. You are right that dot pitch is a limiting factor on the maximum resolution of the display though. So is scan rate if I recall correctly.

Well,I guess it's not entirely accurate to call it a dot pitch on a Trinitron since Trinitrons use aperture grilles instead of shadow masks to direct the electron beam to the differently colored phosphors, and aperture grilles are more like striped wires than the metallic speaker mesh like dots that constitute R.G.B. triads.

In any case, I wanted to explain it in relatively simple terms. Hence my use of the word "amorphous" meaning that the pixel structure of a C.R.T. isn't fixed in place and thus lacks definite form. You can have larger or smaller dots and change the resolution, allowing you to squeeze the same resolution signal in the middle of the screen, provided that the display has the resolving capability. They also don't even have to be square. You can have rectangular pixels on a C.R.T. That's kind of what happens when the S.N.E.S's. oddball 8:7 output resolutions get stretched to fit onto the typical 4:3 aspect ratio of a typical C.R.T. television.

Also, you can push a monitor past the proper on paper the spec given by the manufacturer. The FD Trinitron GDM-FW900 officially only goes up to 2403x1440, but some people report report managing to get it running at 2560x1600. Rather impressive for a display that was first manufactured in 2003. Also, by that point in time, the dot pitch was so fine as to be practically imperceptible anyway.

On O.L.E.D. pixel placement has a rigid structure, so you lack that flexibility, and that is why we have to upscale lower resolution images to fill the screen. A proper 320x240 image addressed to singular pixels would be the size of a postage stamp, And upscaling sucks for numerous reasons that are beyond the scope of this thread.

[Paraskeet]

Цитата допису Tonepoet:

Had to issue a correction. I meant to write duller rather than brighter, 'cause the middle of the screen will be more worn.

Цитата допису _I_:

crt do not have 'pixels' but they do have a dot pitch
distance between the dots on the display that are r/g/b that light up when hit by the electron beam

they dont really have a native resolution, but do have a max res that they can effectively display

basically its h or w in inches / dots per inch

anything higher and it wont display the row or column

Every image has pixels. The word is abbreviated from picture element, and refers to the smallest visual detail comprising that image. The thing about a C.R.T. is that they do not have a definite shape or placement on a screen. You are right that dot pitch is a limiting factor on the maximum resolution of the display though. So is scan rate if I recall correctly.

Well,I guess it's not entirely accurate to call it a dot pitch on a Trinitron since Trinitrons use aperture grilles instead of shadow masks to direct the electron beam to the differently colored phosphors, and aperture grilles are more like striped wires than the metallic speaker mesh like dots that constitute R.G.B. triads.

In any case, I wanted to explain it in relatively simple terms. Hence my use of the word "amorphous" meaning that the pixel structure of a C.R.T. isn't fixed in place and thus lacks definite form. You can have larger or smaller dots and change the resolution, allowing you to squeeze the same resolution signal in the middle of the screen, provided that the display has the resolving capability. They also don't even have to be square. You can have rectangular pixels on a C.R.T. That's kind of what happens when the S.N.E.S's. oddball 8:7 output resolutions get stretched to fit onto the typical 4:3 aspect ratio of a typical C.R.T. television.

Also, you can push a monitor past the proper on paper the spec given by the manufacturer. The FD Trinitron GDM-FW900 officially only goes up to 2403x1440, but some people report report managing to get it running at 2560x1600. Rather impressive for a display that was first manufactured in 2003. Also, by that point in time, the dot pitch was so fine as to be practically imperceptible anyway.

On O.L.E.D. pixel placement has a rigid structure, so you lack that flexibility, and that is why we have to upscale lower resolution images to fill the screen. A proper 320x240 image addressed to singular pixels would be the size of a postage stamp, And upscaling sucks for numerous reasons that are beyond the scope of this thread.

that is a nice information dump. thank you