Picture reject resolution too high.

The new HP 5520 I bought will not print pics via ePrint when the resolution is less than 100 dpi.  I am taking it back if I can't change it. 72dpi is fine for many uses. HP just wants to force me to use more ink. Any way to change it?

Hi,
Viewing on normal computer screen, 72DPI is goo enough but printing photos at 72DPI you actually waste your inks. To get a better prints, you need al least 150DPI.
Hope this helps.
BH
**Click the KUDOS thumb up on the left to say 'Thanks'**
Make it easier for other people to find solutions by marking a Reply 'Accept as Solution' if it solves your problem.

Similar Messages

  • Accidental​ly set my screen resolution too high

    I was playing around with screen resolutions and accidentally set one too high and now every time i load up my Computer, it says 'Input not supported' , please help me.

    It would help greatly if you:
    A) Identified the installed operating system
    B) Identified your HP desktop PC. (look on the service tag. Post the complete  p/n
    If your OS is Windows 7, start the operating system in Safe Mode. Press the power button and before Windows begins to boot, start tapping the F8 key. Choose Safe Mode.  In Safe Mode click on the start button and type  msconfig in the search all programs and files box . Click on the msconfig icon that appears above to invoke msconfig. In the msconfig dialog choose the Boot tab as in the following image. In Boot options put a tick inside the box to the left of base video, then click on apply and OK. Restart your PC and  right-click an unused area on the desktop and set your resolution. Choose the recommended resolution.  After you do that, go back to the msconfig and remove the tick mark in the Boot options -->Base video, click on OK and restart your PC. All should be back to normal again.
    The desktop I am using has a dual display setup, so yours will appear a bit differently. the operatng system will recommend an optimal resolution and designate it as recommended.
    Best regards,
    erico
    ****Please click on Accept As Solution if a suggestion solves your problem. It helps others facing the same problem to find a solution easily****
    2015 Microsoft MVP - Windows Experience Consumer

  • Resolution too high for monitor

    hi again, i had some problems installing arch linux, so i quit and tried ubuntu, but it seems that he doesnt like me and my ati card, so i couldnt get the cube and all efects working.
    so here i am again, my problem was:
    i install arch
    make all updates
    install gnome and gnome extras etc
    then, i run "x -configure"
    create an account
    and i activate gdm (through the "rc.config" i thing)
    now i get to the problem, when i try to start arch when it comes to the graphical enviroment, the screen goes blan and tell that can't support resolution, that its too high. should that be automatic? how can i solve the problem? driver problem, should i use my tft cdrom? help me please:(

    DarkForte wrote:Try editing your xorg.conf by hand and removing the unsupported resolutions.
    This can be done with a line that looks something like this:
    Modes "1280x1024" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
    Make sure the highest resolution is the one your monitor supports.
    Edit: that line goes below the "Depth" entries in the "Screen" section (usually near the bottom) of xorg.conf.
    Last edited by peets (2008-01-04 02:16:55)

  • Is it possible to make a photo's resolution too high

    I am struggling with printing my christmas photos. I scanned my 8 X 10 photos at 1200 dpi which gave me a 9620 X 11936 file which is 38.3 MB. If I am patient enough...meaning hours of waiting...my PC will print the photos to my HP 1200 dpi printer using the Kodak EasyShare Software. These prints turn out great but it is too painful. iPhoto won't even print to the HP, preview, or save a pdf of them. I just want excellent quality prints and the 600 dpi looks bad. I'm also interested in trying out a book order. Can anyone help me figure out how to print these files? Is it possible to send files this large in for a large hardcover book order? If I need to drop my resolution how can I do it without rescanning? And last, What resolution will give me photo store quality prints from both my printer and if I order prints from the iPhoto program?
    G5   Mac OS X (10.4.3)   imac and tower

    then save as TIF or JPEG.
    Another really good alternative to TIFF or JPEG is PNG. PNG is a lossless file format that has about half the file size of a TIFF. I've been using it for scanning my slides.
    The resolution you should scan at depends on:
    1. The actual quality of your scanner. Is it really a full 1200 dpi scanner or is it interpolating to give that resolution. There are some other tricks that scanning software like Silverfast can do to decrease the noise and increase the dynamic range, that have more impact on image quality than sheer number of pixels.
    2. The quality and nature of what you're scanning. For an 8x10 photo, 1200 dpi will just show up the grain in the photo paper. Same thing for scanning a 35mm slide at over 1600 dpi -- depending on the film stock, you may hit the resolution of the film before you max out the resolution of the scanner.
    3. What you're going to do with the image. Obviously printing a very large print, or cropping down to a small portion of the frame requires more pixels (assuming they have real data in them). Prints from Kodak, etc., on photo paper actually require fewer pixels (150 dpi for the final print size) than printing from your inkjet or a photo book (which uses a halftone screen that does best with about 2x as many pixels as lines in the screen, or about 300 dpi).
    Bottom line, the final number of pixels across for your scanned image is more significant than the so-called resolution you scan at. A good quality 1200x1600 pixel image is more than adequate for many purposes.

  • Screen resolution too high - text is tiny - how to change?

    I'm a newbie to Audition, and spent 2.5 hours this weekend editing a 6.5 minute talk. Ended up with a massive headache, largely because of the small size of the text in the screen menues, etc.
    Anyone know how to change these? I Use a MS Surface 3 pro with very high resolution (21160*1440)  with a 22" screen set at 1680 *1050 (max for the screen) .
    Any help would be greatly appreciated...
    Pounding head...
    Mike Bland

    You don't mention which version of Audition you are using, but support for High DPI displays was added to Audition and other Adobe applications last year.  This adds support for icon and text scaling, which is configured at the OS level.  Found a good overview and write-up about this at How to Make the Windows Desktop Work Well on High-DPI Displays and Fix Blurry Fonts but the quick-and-dirty method is to right-click on your Windows desktop and choose Screen Resolution then click on the item Make text and other items larger or smaller.  There, you can select scaling at 125% and 150%.  You'll probably need to log back into your Windows account for the change to take effect.

  • Resolution too high for me

    All of the current Mac Book Pros and Mac Books have a native screen resolution that makes it difficult for me to read without getting a head ache. I do not believe that I have special needs and I am not a senior (in my fourties). However I still prefer my old 1.67 GHz 15 PB with the 1280x854 resolution. In fact I was lucky to get one of these old ones. I really wanted to get an Intel book when they came out but I could not deal with that resolution. I actually had to return it. Reducing the resolution does not work either since only the native screen resolution looks sharp and crisp. I just came back from the Apple store since I really want to get a Mac Book Pro now. I thought that maybe the 17 inch would be better for me. Unfortunately its the same problem. Reading the menu items alone gave me a head ache. These computers seem to be made for teenagers. So is there a solution for me such as a new graphic card or a replacement screen that would make it easier for "seniors" like myself to use the computer?
    15 inch PB   Mac OS X (10.4.9)   1.5 GB

    too me it is perfect, any higher would be really really pushing it.
    the resolution is great for production type work, animation, photography, film, design, illustration, etc. but maybe not the best for business type work.
    I am 20 and have become very adapted to reading tiny text, just in general i think, not just on computer screens but with everything.
    1680x1050 on a 17" when Apple uses 1680x1050 on their 20" monitors, but that is just how it works, Apple is not manufacturing these displays so they have to stick to the standard sizes available.
    Are you mostly at a desk with your laptop? or more taking it with you on your lap?
    I am kind of suprized however, that their isn't a way to increase text size of the Mac UI, maybe their is??
    if "Resolution Independence" turns out to work like it should, that will be a nice feature, and it should indeed solve your problem, if the whole UI is scalable like the icons, etc. are now.

  • Resolution too high with Reader X standard

    We installed Reader X on our computers,  all of the sudden the file sizes of all of the pdf's are around 20 megs.  Can't find anywhere to adjust the resolution?

    If I right click on the file and look at properties.....
    If I convert any file to a pdf, whether converting word doc, or a jpg the new pdf takes forever to open, I assumed that meant the file size was now giant.  You are saying that it has nothing to do with the conversion to a pdf?

  • Are JPEG 3504x2336 pixel pictures too high resolution for the photo books?

    Hi,
    I am done creating my photo book and I am ready to order, but I'd like to know if my pictures are too high resolution. They are professional wedding pictures so they are 7.4 mb each JPEG 3504x2336 pixel pictures. (Last time, I printed through MyPublisher but the pages with multiple pictures didn't turn out well and they said it was because the resolution was too high so when they compressed the file for the pages with multiple pictures it didn't turn out well.) Will I run into the same problem if I print directly through Iphoto?
    If I do need to lower the resolution, how do I do it, given that I've aready created the book?
    Thanks for any help you can give me!

    Welcome to the Apple Discussions.
    When you order the book it will be compressed and a PDF will be created. That PDF is what gets uploaded to Apple (via Kodak) for printing. So the best way to check your book before ordering is to create a PDF, then inspect it. Chances are, what you see in your PDF is what you will get printed.
    To do this, select your book and do File > Print. You'll get an "Assembling book" progress bar. That can take several minutes. When done, you get the Print Dialog box. Click the PDF button and choose "Save as PDF..." Choose a name and location for the file (the Desktop is convenient) and Save. Then switch to the Finder and open that PDF in Preview. You might select a page or two and do a test print yourself, to see if the quality looks good. The PDF saves you from having to print out the whole book yourself to check for errors.
    Regards.

  • Can't access my pictures in phone i can see folder but too high on screen to tap

    can't access my pictures in phone i can see folder but too high on screen to tap

    fixed problem

  • When trying to project video from their Win 7 laptop, the CTS1300 TP unit states that the resolution is too high

    Hi,
    Have a customer who advises as per the discussion title :-
    When trying to project video from their Win 7 laptop, the CTS1300 TP unit states that the resolution is too high
    It has worked fine up until the upgrade to Windows 7
    Customer advises colleagues can connect and project OK at another site, using Win7 laptop, however that site uses CTS3010 and CTS1000 and, as yet, it is unconfirmed which they used to test on
    I could raise a case with TAC but wondered if anyone knows of any issue with Windows 7 and the CTS1300
    Many Thanks
    Nigel

    I've had issues with Win7 laptops before, but it all depends on the model of the laptop, and what it's display is capable of, and whether the end user is using it in desktop extension / duplication / remote only mode, etc.
    In most cases, switching it to the 2nd screen only mode fixes the issue, and worst case, rebooting it while it's set this way, and it's connected, fixes the problem.
    So, from my expereince, it's pretty well always a problem wtth the laptop/user, and very rarely (if ever) a problem with the TelePresence device.
    Wayne
    Please remember to rate responses and to mark your question as answered if appropriate.

  • Alert: Logical disk transfer (reads and writes) latency is too high Resolution state

    Hi 
    We are getting following errors for my 2 virtual servers. We are getting this alert continuously. My setup Windows 2008 R2 SP1 2 node Hyper V cluster. Which is hosted 7 guest OS out of am facing this problem with to guest os. Once this alert started
    my backup running slow.  
    Alert: Logical disk transfer (reads and writes) latency  is too high
    Source: E:
    Path: Servername.domain.com
    Last modified by: System
    Last modified time: 4/23/2013 4:15:47 PM Alert description: The threshold for the Logical Disk\Avg. Disk sec/Transfer performance counter has been exceeded.
    Alert view link: "http://server/OperationsManager?DisplayMode=Pivot&AlertID=%7bca891ba3-e9f2-421f-9994-7b4d6e867b33%7d"
    Notification subscription ID generating this message: {F71E01AF-0BE6-8377-7BE5-5CB6F5C037A1}
    Reagrds
    Mahesh

    Hi,
    Please see if following helps
    Disk transfer (reads and writes) latency is too high
    The
    threshold for the Logical Disk\Avg. Disk sec/Transfer performance counter has been exceeded
    If they are of no help, try asking this question in Operations Manager - General forum since alerts are generated by SCOM.
    Regards, Santosh
    I do not represent the organisation I work for, all the opinions expressed here are my own.
    This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties or guarantees and confers no rights.

  • PGC...data rate too high

    Hallo,
    message
    nunew33, "Mpeg not valid error message" #4, 31 Jan 2006 3:29 pm describes a certain error message. The user had problems with an imported MPEG movie.
    Now I receive the same message, but the MPEG that is causing the problem is created by Encore DVD itself!?
    I am working with the german version, but here is a rough translation of the message:
    "PGC 'Weitere Bilder' has an error at 00:36:42:07.
    The data rate of this file is too high for DVD. You must replace the file with one of a lower data rate. - PGC Info: Name = Weitere Bilder, Ref = SApgc, Time = 00:36:42:07"
    My test project has two menus and a slide show with approx. 25 slides and blending as transition. The menus are ok, I verified that before.
    First I thought it was a problem with the audio I use in the slide show. Because I am still in the state of learning how to use the application, I use some test data. The audio tracks are MP3s. I learned already that it is better to convert the MP3s to WAV files with certain properties.
    I did that, but still the DVD generation was not successful.
    Then I deleted all slides from the slide show but the first. Now the generation worked!? As far as a single slide (an image file) can not have a bitrate per second, and there was no sound any more, and as far as the error message appears AFTER the slide shows are generated, while Encore DVD is importing video and audio just before the burning process, I think that the MPEG that is showing the slide show is the problem.
    But this MPEG is created by Encore DVD itself. Can Encore DVD create Data that is not compliant to the DVD specs?
    The last two days I had to find out the cause for a "general error". Eventually I found out that image names must not be too long. Now there is something else, and I still have to just waste time for finding solutions for apparent bugs in Encore DVD. Why doesn't the project check find and tell me such problems? Problem is that the errors appear at the end of the generation process, so I always have to wait for - in my case - approx. 30 minutes.
    If the project check would have told me before that there are files with file names that are too long, I wouldn't have had to search or this for two days.
    Now I get this PGC error (what is PGC by the way?), and still have no clue, cause again the project check didn't mention anything.
    Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    Regards,
    Christian Kirchhoff

    Hallo,
    thanks, Ruud and Jeff, for your comments.
    The images are all scans of ancient paintings. And they are all rather dark. They are not "optimized", meaning they are JPGs right now (RGB), and they are bigger then the resolution for PAL 3:4 would require. I just found out that if I choose "None" as scaling, there is no error, and the generation of the DVD is much, much faster.
    A DVD with a slide show containing two slides and a 4 second transition takes about 3 minutes to generate when the scaling is set to something other than "None". Without scaling it takes approx. 14 seconds. The resulting movies size is the same (5,35 MB).
    I wonder why the time differs so much. Obviously the images have to be scaled to the target size. But it seems that the images are not scaled only once, that those scaled versions of the source images are cached, and those cached versions are used to generate then blend effect, but for every frame the source images seem to be scaled again.
    So I presume that the scaling - unfortunately - has an effect on the resulting movie, too, and thus influences the success of the process of DVD generation.
    basic situation:
    good image > 4 secs blend > bad image => error
    variations:
    other blend times don't cause an error:
    good image > 2 secs blend > bad image => success
    good image > 8 secs blend > bad image => success
    other transitions cause an error, too:
    good image > 4 secs fade to black > bad image => error
    good image > 4 secs page turn > bad image => error
    changing the image order prevents the error:
    bad image > 4 secs blend > good image => success
    changing the format of the bad image to TIFF doesn't prevent the error.
    changing colors/brightness of the bad image: a drastic change prevents the error. I adjusted the histogram and made everything much lighter.
    Just a gamma correction with values between 1.2 and 2.0 didn't help.
    changing the image size prevents the error. I decreased the size. The resulting image was still bigger than the monitor area, thus it still had to be scaled a bit by Encore DVD, but with this smaller version the error didn't occur. The original image is approx. 2000 px x 1400 px. Decreasing the size by 50% helped. Less scaling (I tried 90%, 80%, 70% and 60%, too) didn't help.
    using a slightly blurred version (gaussian blur, 2 px, in Photoshop CS) of the bad image prevents the error.
    My guess is that the error depends on rather subtle image properties. The blur doesn't change the images average brightness, the balance of colors or the size of the image, but still the error was gone afterwards.
    The problem is that I will work with slide shows that contain more images than two. It would be too time consuming to try to generate the DVD over and over again, look at which slide an error occurs, change that slide, and then generate again. Even the testing I am doing right now already "ate" a couple of days of my working time.
    Only thing I can do is to use a two image slide show and test image couple after image couple. If n is the number of images, I will spend (n - 1) times 3 minutes (which is the average time to create a two slides slide how with a blend). But of course I will try to prepare the images and make them as big as the monitor resolution, so Encore DVD doesn't have to scale the images any more. That'll make the whole generation process much shorter.
    If I use JPGs or TIFFs, the pixel aspect ratio is not preserved when the image is imported. I scaled one of the images in Photoshop, using a modified menu file that was installed with Encore DVD, because it already has the correct size for PAL, the pixel aspect ratio and the guides for the save areas. I saved the image as TIFF and as PSD and imported both into Encore DVD. The TIFF is rendered with a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio and NOT with the D1/DV PAL aspect ration that is stored in the TIFF. Thus the image gets narrowed and isn't displayed the way I wanted it any more. Only the PSD looks correct. But I think I saw this already in another thread...
    I cannot really understand why the MPEG encoding engine would produce bit rates that are illegal and that are not accepted afterwards, when Encore DVD is putting together all the stuff. Why is the MPEG encoding engine itself not throwing an error during the encoding process? This would save the developer so much time. Instead they have to wait until the end, thinking everything went right, and find out then that there was a problem.
    Still, if sometime somebody finds out more about the whole matter I would be glad about further explanations.
    Best regards,
    Christian

  • PGC has an error--data rate of this file is too high for DVD

    Getting one of those seemingly elusive PGC errors, though mine seems to be different from many of the ones listed here. Mine is telling me that the data rate of my file is too high for DVD. Only problem is, the file it's telling me has a datarate that is too high, is a slideshow which Encore has built using imported jpg files. I got the message, tried going into the slideshow and deleting the photo at the particular spot in the timeline where it said it had the problem, now getting the same message again with a different timecode spot in the same slideshow. The pictures are fairly big, but I assumed that Encore would automatically resize them to fit an NTSC DVD timeline. Do I need to open all the pictures in Photoshop and scale them down to 720x480 before I begin with the slideshows?

    With those efforts, regarding the RAM, it would *seem* that physical memory was not the problem.
    I'd look to how Windows is managing both the RAM addresses and also its Virtual Memory. To the former, I've seen programs/Processes that lock certain memory addresses upon launch (may be in startup), and do not report this to Windows accurately. Along those lines, you might want to use Task Manager to see what Processes are running from startup on your machine. I'll bet that you've got some that are not necessary, even if IT is doing a good job with the system setup. One can use MSCONFIG to do a trial of the system, without some of these.
    I also use a little program, EndItAll2 for eliminating all non-necessary programs and Processes, when doing editing. It's freeware, has a tiny footprint and usually does a perfect job of surveying your running programs and Processes, to shut them down. You can also modify its list, incase it wants to shut down something that IS necessary. I always Exit from my AV, spyware, popup-blocker, etc., as these progams will lie to EndItAll2 and say that they ARE necessary, as part of their job. Just close 'em out in the Tasktray, then run EndItAll2. Obviously, you'll need to do this with the approval of IT, but NLE machines need all available resources.
    Now, to the Virtual Memory. It is possible that Windows is not doing a good job of managing a dynamic Page File. Usually, it does, but many find there is greater stability with a fixed size at about 1.5 to 2.5x the physical RAM. I use the upper end with great results. A static Page File also makes defragmenting the HDD a bit easier too. I also have my Page File split over two physical HDD's. Some find locating to, say D:\ works best. For whatever reason, my XP-Pro SP3 demanded that I have it on C:\, or split between C:\ and D:\. Same OS on my 3 HDD laptop was cool having it on D:\ only. Go figure.
    These are just some thoughts.
    Glad that you got part of it solved and good luck with the next part. Since this seems to affect both PrPro and En, sounds system related.
    Hunt
    PS some IT techs love to add all sorts of monitors to the computers, especially if networkded. These are not usually bad, but are usually out of the mainstream, in that most users will never have most of these. You might want to ask about any monitors. Also, are you the only person with an NLE computer under the IT department? In major business offices, this often happens. Most IT folk do not have much, if any, experience with graphics, or NLE workstations. They spend their days servicing database, word processing and spreadsheet boxes.

  • Disk Transfer (reads and writes) Latency is Too High

    i keep getting this error:
    the Logical Disk\Avg. Disk sec/Transfer performance counter  has been exceeded.
    i got these errors on the following servers:
    active directory
    SQL01 (i have 2 sql clustered)
    CAS03 (4 cas server loadbalanced)
    HUB01
    MBX02(Clustered)
    a little info on our environment:
    *Using SAN storage.
    *Disks are new ,and working fine
    *the server has GOOD hardware components(16-32 Gb RAM;Xeon or quadcore........)
    i keep having these notifications everyday; i searched on the internet and i found the cause to be 1 of the 2:
    1) disk hardware issue( non common=rarely )
    2) the queue time on the hard-disk( time to write on the Hard-disk)
    if anyone can assist me with the following:
    1) is this a serious issue that will affect our enviroment?
    2) is it good to edit the time of monitoring to be 10minute(instead of the default 5min)
    3) is there any solution for this?(to prevent these annoying -useless??--- notifications)
    4)what is the cause of this queue delay;;and FYI sometime this happens when nothing and noone is using the server (i.e the server is almost Idle)
    Regards

    The problem is....  exactly what the knowledge of the alert says is wrong.  It is very simple.  Your disk latency is too high at times. 
    This is likely due to overloading the capabilities of the disk, and during peak times, the disk is underperforming.  Or - it could be that occasionally, due to the design of your disks - you get a very large spike in disk latency... and this trips the
    "average" counter.  You could change this monitor to be a consecutive sample threshold monitor, and that would likely quiet it down.... but only doing an analysis of a perfmon of several disks over 24 hours would you be able to determine specifically
    whats going on.
    SCOM did exactly what it is supposed to do.... it alerted your, proactively, to the possible existence of an issue.  Now you, using the knowledge already in the alert, use that information to further investigate, and determine what is the corrective
    action to take. 
    Summary
    The Avg. Disk sec/Transfer (LogicalDisk\Avg. Disk sec/Transfer) for the logical disk has exceeded the threshold. The logical disk and possibly even overall system performance may significantly diminish which will result in poor operating system and application
    performance.
    The Avg. Disk sec/ Transfer counter measures the average rate of disk Transfer requests (I/O request packets (IRPs)) that are executed per second on a specific logical disk. This is one measure of storage subsystem throughput.
    Causes
    A high Avg. Disk sec/Transfer performance counter value may occur due to a burst of disk transfer requests by either an operating system or application.
    Resolutions
    To increase the available storage subsystem throughput for this logical disk, do one or more of the following:
    •
    Upgrade the controllers or disk drives.
    •
    Switch from RAID-5 to RAID-0+1.
    •
    Increase the number of actual spindles.
    Be sure to set this threshold value appropriately for your specific storage hardware. The threshold value will vary according to the disk’s underlying storage subsystem. For example, the “disk” might be
    a single spindle or a large disk array. You can use MOM overrides to define exception thresholds, which can be applied to specific computers or entire computer groups.
    Additional Information
    The Avg. Disk sec/Transfer counter is useful in gathering throughput data. If the average time is long enough, you can analyze a histogram of the array’s response to specific loads (queues, request sizes, and so on). If possible, you should
    observe workloads separately.
    You can use throughput metrics to determine:
    •
    The behavior of a workload running on a given host system. You can track the workload requirements for disk transfer requests over time. Characterization of workloads is an important part of performance analysis and capacity planning.
    •
    The peak and sustainable levels of performance that are provided by a given storage subsystem. A workload can either be used to artificially or naturally push a storage subsystem (in this case, a given logical disk) to its limits. Determining these
    limits provides useful configuration information for system designers and administrators.
    However, without thorough knowledge of the underlying storage subsystem of the logical disk (for example, knowing whether it is a single spindle or a massive disk array), it can be difficult to provide an optimized one size fits all threshold value.
    You must also consider the Avg. Disk sec/Transfer counter in conjunction with other transfer request characteristics (for example, request size and randomness/sequentially) and the equivalent counters for write disk requests.
    If the Avg. Disk sec/Transfers counter is tracked over time and if it increases with the intensity of the workloads that are driving the transfer requests, it is reasonable to suspect that the logical disk is saturated if throughput does not increase and
    the user experiences degraded system throughput.
    For more information about storage architecture and driver support, see the Storage - Architecture and Driver Support Web site at
    http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=26156.

  • Screen Resolution to high..

    Hi,
    after installing iOS4 my screen resolution is too high. How to reset to see all of the screen again ?

    Same problem here. I have an iPhone 3GS, but iOS4 seems to recognise the screen as having a 4G resolution. Thus I can only see 1/4 of the screen and it won't scroll.
    Tried a reset, but it isn't fixing it.

Maybe you are looking for