LCD on a Q700

Question

Level 2

199 points

LCD on a Q700

Up until a few weeks ago I was quite happily running my Quadra 700 using CRT monitors. Those I used were: 1) an original Apple 2-page grayscale monitor @ 1152x870; and 2) a more recent Apple multi-resolution 21" color monitor running through a Mac-VGA adapter, again @ 1152x870.

Because of their size and weight, I gave them away (to other Apple enthusiasts) after purchasing an LCD monitor. It's an IBM T860 - a few years old, but a good reliable monitor. Best of all, after doing a little adjusting of the DIP switch settings on the Mac-VGA adapter and in the Monitors control panel, it basically worked straight away! Plus, it takes up a fraction of the space that the 21" CRT monitor did - I can even sit it on top of the Q700's case, as it doesn't weigh much.

The monitor's native resolution is 1280x1024, and when connected to my G4 set to that resolution the display quality was very good - crisp and clear. The output from the Quadra, via the Mac-VGA adapter, is 1152x870. The monitor's image size is adjustable so that it can display 1152x870 "pixel for pixel", but this results in an unused black border around the image of approximately 25mm (1") top and bottom, and 18mm (3/4") left and right. When the image is set to "expanded" mode, it uses extrapolation to enlarge the image to fill the 1280x1024 pixel space of which the monitor is capable, but at 1152x870 resolution. However, this makes the image a little fuzzy - just like on a laptop which is not set to its "optimal" resolution.

I would love to be able to output 1280x1024 from the Quadra 700 and run the monitor at its real resolution. At the moment I have the option of either a good crisp image but with wasted space on the screen or a larger, but slightly fuzzy, image. The fuzziness is not driving me crazy and I can quite happily watch the screen without going goggle-eyed. In fact, I don't really notice it until I set the screen image size to "normal" and am reminded of the crispness of the image which I could be viewing, although only at approximately 85% of the full screen size.

From the "digging around" I have done so far, it appears that very few of the NuBus video cards from the 90's were designed to do anything higher than 1152x870 (although some would do that in glorious 24-bit color). Present-day availability, 15 years later, is also another problem.

Does anybody have any thoughts on a way of achieving what I have described, or is it just not possible? I don't need any more than 8-bit color, and for some things only need monochrome. I have all the VRAM slots filled, so that should not be a limitation.

Message was edited by: Steven Jones

Quadra 700 - sys 7.0.1•, PowerMac G4 DP 1.25 GHz - sys 10.4.11

Posted on Mar 3, 2009 2:39 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Mar 3, 2009 2:39 PM in response to Steven Jones

It appears from the technical specs lited below that the Quadra 700 built-in Video will not support 1280 by 1024:

SP235- Macintosh Quadra 700: Technical Specifications

Another option would be a Mac II display card, which could give you dual display capability with Extended Desktop.

Reply

Answer 2

Steven Jones Author

Level 2

199 points

Mar 3, 2009 3:34 PM in response to Grant Bennet-Alder

Hi Grant.

Amongst the info I originally checked out was indeed that page on the spec's of the Quadra 700. I have an Apple 8•24 NuBus video card which I have tried, but that is limited to whatever the Mac-VGA adapter is set to, which is a maximum of 1152x870. I have actually run two LCD's at a time - one from the built-in video and one from the card, with the same results on both as described in my original post. I am not so much interested in having two monitors, creating an Extended Desktop (although that is a very appealing idea), but rather in outputting 1280x1024 from the Quadra so that all the pixels on the monitor are used at the optimal resolution, thus giving the best image possible. It looks like I might have to hunt down a NuBus video card which can output 1280x1024.

Reply

Answer 3

Mar 3, 2009 4:59 PM in response to Steven Jones

Bad news, I am afraid. Although some of those cards did support the 21 inch Color display, and the Multiple Scan 20 display, it appears they only did so at a maximum resolution of 1152 by 870. The 1710 and 1710AV, which could support that resolution, were not supported by Mac II display cards, according to this article from the archives:

TA21616- Macintosh: Monitor and Video Chart (4 of 4)

This fourth in the series of articles deals with resolutions of 1152 by 870 and 1280 by 1024 and other high resolutions. Articles 1, 2, and 3 in this series deal with lower resolutions.

This article consists of a series of charts; the first three are of "high end" monitor capabilities. That is followed by charts of computer capabilities:

• LC family
• Performa family
• Mac-II family \[ex models that required a display card; see the last table for that info]
• Centris/Quadra family (confirming the limitations of the Quadra 700 built-in Video)
• Power Macintosh family through the 9600 with a note about the early G3
• PowerBook family (through the DouDocks and original PowerBook G3)
• and finally, the Macintosh II Video card family.

Reply

Answer 4

Steven Jones Author

Level 2

199 points

Mar 3, 2009 5:54 PM in response to Grant Bennet-Alder

Thanks again, Grant. You are a storehouse of knowledge.

I wonder if a third-party manufacturer, such as Radius, SuperMac, eMachines, etc. made a NuBus video card which would handle 1280x1024. This would obviate the need to depend on either the Quadra 700's built-in video or an Apple NuBus video card. I'll keep looking in case such a card ever existed - with the hope of acquiring one (I know I'm optimistic, but it occasionally pays off).

Reply

Answer 5

Mar 4, 2009 6:16 PM in response to Steven Jones

Hi, I think Grant pretty much has you covered.

I have some Supermac Thunder 24 cards that came out of our Quadra 950's at work and if I recall these were the best we could find at the time but they highest they will support is 1152x870 at 24 bit.

A fellow has a chart here, http://home.earthlink.net/~gamba2/vid-mon-matrix.html but only Mac cards and Low End Mac has a page of video cards here, http://lowendmac.com/video/index.html

and something from Chris Lawson here, http://chrislawson.net/writing/macdaniel/2k1010cl.shtml

Reply

Answer 6

Steven Jones Author

Level 2

199 points

Mar 14, 2009 8:46 PM in response to Niteshooter

A solution has been found.

Rather than trying to make the output from the Quadra 700 to be the same as the LCD display's native (optimum) resolution (1280x1024), I have simply attached a different display. No, it's not one for which 1152x870 is its native resolution (I don't think such a beast exists), but a 20" LCD @ 1600x1200 (HP LP2065) - I had to use a modern Apple VGA-DVI adapter as it does not have any VGA inputs. It has 1152x870 as one of its supported resolutions and, as the interpolated image to fill the screen is spread over a greater number of pixels, the fuzziness is greatly reduced compared with the 1280x1024 18" LCD display which I had been using. Also, in the on-screen controls it has two other features which help: 1) "Image Sharpness" (pretty standard these days) with five settings from soft to sharp to adjust the visual "feel" to the liking of the user; and 2) where another 20" LCD which I tried had "Fill Screen" and "One to One" as the only settings for displaying any resolution other than the native one, this display also has an intermediate setting of "Fill to Aspect Ratio". When I selected it, the displayed image shrank at the sides by about 4 or 5 pixels, which is negligible. The Aspect Ratio of 1152x870 is 1.324, which is almost exactly that of 1600x1200 (1.333). 1280x1024 = 1.250, which contributed to the fuzziness on the smaller LCD display by being a little non-proportional when expanding it to a 1.333 ratio. The "One to One" setting gave a very crisp picture, but it wasted nearly half the screen space with black margins of 40mm top and bottom and 55mm left and right.

This seems to be the most satisfactory solution I am likely to achieve. The displayed image is large and it is very acceptable - mission accomplished. The image on this display is actually a bit larger overall than on a 20" CRT monitor, as the LCD's measurement represents the actual image area and does not include the unused space which was customarily included in the measurement of a CRT monitor's screen.

Reply