Max 4:3 resolution for 1920x1080

[3on3putt]

I'm trying to decide once and for all on an aspect ratio and projector placement. Due to space limitations in my garage, I have a square 9x9 screen so I have to live with empty space on the top and/or bottom. It's the cross we bear as square screen users.

I've used 4:3 and 16:9 and recently tried the 1:1 Nvidia trick to fill the screen entirely. At first I liked it, but the more I played with it I ultimately backtracked on that due to the picture quality.

I posted this question in another thread but didn't get any bites so I figured I would try asking in it's own thread. The question is this....

My projector is 1920x1080 native. If I run it in 4:3 and select 1600x1200, am I really getting 1600x1200? The projector only has 1080 vertical pixels native, so how could it magically come up with 1200 vertical pixels?

I know you can select 1600x1200 as an option --- and that's what 4:3 users do --- but are you actually getting 1200 this way? My guess is that what you are actually getting --- despite what the settings tell you --- is 1440x1080 (the max 4:3 resolution that involves 1080 vertical pixels).

Am I correct on this? I know 4:3 users will swear up and down that they use 1600x1200. But I think that would only be true if your projector had a native resolution of at least 1200 vertical pixels. I know you can select 1600x1200 as an option and I know the control panel and the TGC graphics settings will tell you that it's 1600x1200. But my question is whether or not you are actually getting 1200? And if you are actually getting 1200, how is that possible when the projector is only capable of 1080 vertical pixels? Because by that logic, why not pump it up even more to 1856x1392 or 1920x1440?

Hopefully someone can give me a definitive answer. I've researched this forum and elsewhere online and there seems to be some conflicting information about this. Looking to re-position my projector tonight and am on the fence about going 4:3 or 16:9.

[jasonreg]

So, the highest native resolution you would get at 4:3 (without sacrificing clarity) with a 1920x1080 input would be 1440x1080. Just math. You can force higher resolutions if your graphics card (or AVR or Projector or TV) supports it but you are now "upscaling".

Simplistically, the Graphics card (or other viewing device) will make a "guess" to add the extra pixels required to produce the higher resolutions (1792x1344, 1856x1392, 2304x1728, 2704x2028, 2720x2040, 2732x2048 etc...). some devices are better at this then others and there are multiple techniques used to "fill in the blanks" but that is what is going on. Hence, (and generally speaking) the image loses sharpness or color clarity etc. Doesn't mean it won't look good (or even better) - it will all depend on how close you are to the screen and how good your device is at the upscaling.

There are some really impressive pieces of equipment which do this really well - probably less expensive though to just change your projector to a 4K version if this is really a priority for you, then you will have plenty of pixels to work with.

For me, I would fill the most screen area I can with what I have to work with and if close (or a tie) default to the projector's native resolution if at all possible. I think in your case that might be 4:3 but you will know best. I would not bother with trying to upscale the resolution but you can play around with that once you land on the ratio. My two cents.

[3on3putt]

So, the highest native resolution you would get at 4:3 (without sacrificing clarity) with a 1920x1080 input would be 1440x1080. Just math. You can force higher resolutions if your graphics card (or AVR or Projector or TV) supports it but you are now "upscaling".

Simplistically, the Graphics card (or other viewing device) will make a "guess" to add the extra pixels required to produce the higher resolutions (1792x1344, 1856x1392, 2304x1728, 2704x2028, 2720x2040, 2732x2048 etc...). some devices are better at this then others and there are multiple techniques used to "fill in the blanks" but that is what is going on. Hence, (and generally speaking) the image loses sharpness or color clarity etc. Doesn't mean it won't look good (or even better) - it will all depend on how close you are to the screen and how good your device is at the upscaling.

There are some really impressive pieces of equipment which do this really well - probably less expensive though to just change your projector to a 4K version if this is really a priority for you, then you will have plenty of pixels to work with.

For me, I would fill the most screen area I can with what I have to work with and if close (or a tie) default to the projector's native resolution if at all possible. I think in your case that might be 4:3 but you will know best. I would not bother with trying to upscale the resolution but you can play around with that once you land on the ratio. My two cents.

Thanks for the response. Very helpful, especially that first line there that I bolded. That confirms my suspicion that most people who think they are getting 1600x1200 are actually only getting 1440x1080 (despite what the control panel and graphics settings says).

Plus, those 1080 vertical pixels are now being asked to cover a taller space on the screen, which degrades the picture even more. (In my case, that's 1,080 pixels covering 61 vertical inches in 16:9 vs. 1,080 pixels covering 81 vertical inches in 4:3).

So I still have the decision to make of smaller and higher quality picture vs. larger and less quality. But thanks for clarifying that. Sometime down the road I may look at a projector upgrade that will allow me to actually achieve 1600x1200.

[Fhacker]

3on3putt thanks for confirming this. I had the same doubts as you. Not possible for a 1080 projector to do 1200 vertical