The 32WL58 alternatively only offers analog VGA, giving an image quality that was unimpressive. I ended up with somthing like 1088圆84 for the 32WLx1016 for the 400DX.Īs you see, despite all the drawbacks, I settled for HDMI in both cases. In both cases, the image edges were cut off for some reason, so the desktop had to be resized to fit the panel, further reducing image resolution. The 32WL58's native resulution, which is supposed to be 1366x768, did not give a good enough picture, I had to settle for 720p. The 400DX's native resolution of 1366x768 is available only when using DVI. I am not into HDMI enough as to point out a reason for this, but it occured to me on both monitors. That might depend on the monitor too.Īlso, HDMI never let me use the native panel resolution. For example, the HDMI input offers a color saturation control, while DVI does not. Also, the two offered different sets of image controls on the monitor. Right away, a HDMI connection seemed to deliver a very contrasted, maybe over-contrasted picture with lots of black in it, while DVI delivered less contrast and color. In my experience, a great difrerence is made by the way the monitor is connected to the computer. See here for more details on that: Greyscale & Colour Calibration For Dummies HDMI vs DVI If you want to get really adventurous, then buy yourself an EyeOne Colorimeter and calibrate like a pro, including adjusting your grayscale. See the forum post Display calibration for more details: a decoder for the new track could not be found. Use MPC Video Decoder or ffdshow DXVA to leverage hardware acceleration and get the best possible picture quality.
0 kommentar(er)
