Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"assaarpa" <redterminator@fap.net> wrote in message
news:cd1sne$nc2$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> > fundamentally analog-controlled devices - it's just that in the case
> > of the LCD, a digital-to-analog conversion typically takes place
> > within the display panel itself.)
>
> J Clarke says that is infeasible to have the da converter in the display,
> comments on that?

Specifically, he said that it wasn't advantageous to have a
DAC in a CRT monitor, and he is correct about that. In the
case of an LCD panel, the "DAC" function happens in the
column drivers - it's a whole different sort of animal, and these
run much more slowly than the pixel rate due to the nature of
how an LCD panel is driven.


> A friend of mine "cleaned" his GeForce4 by removing resistors from his
> card's BCP few years back, which lead me to look into the articles on the
> topic back then. The generic idea in the article was that the resistors
were
> there to dampen the signal so that the cabling wouldn't emit too much
> interference, RFC regulation related anyway, the article might still be
> online somewhere.

Actually, what was removed was most likely small capacitors
(which in surface mount form, are difficult to distinguish from
SMT resistors). This can in some cases improve signal rise times,
but on the other hand it's certainly possible to put EMI-reducing
filter networks on video outputs that have no visible impact at all
on the signal (I've done this in several designs). Removing
RESISTORS from the outputs of video cards, if that's really what's
being done, generally isn't a good idea, as it is changing the
cable termination at the source end (which can lead to some
severe "ghosting" problems in many cases).

Bob M.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> > seem to be able to get a decent image out of NV and ATI cards with less
> > than multi-thousand-euro investment out of their products. Seems the
> > high-quality analogic output is priced accordingly. I don't have a
problem
> > with this because there is inexpensive alternative: DVI-D. Is this
really
> > that difficult to accept?
>
> What NV and ATI cards other than the one model AIW 9600 do not support
> DVI-D? Are you saying that you cannot get a decent image out of them
using
> that interface? I'm sorry, but you're making no sense at all here.

As usual, you are being idiot on purpose, ofcourse I was talking about
analogic signal. The digital one through DVI-I/D is excellent quality.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

assaarpa wrote:

>> > seem to be able to get a decent image out of NV and ATI cards with less
>> > than multi-thousand-euro investment out of their products. Seems the
>> > high-quality analogic output is priced accordingly. I don't have a
> problem
>> > with this because there is inexpensive alternative: DVI-D. Is this
> really
>> > that difficult to accept?
>>
>> What NV and ATI cards other than the one model AIW 9600 do not support
>> DVI-D? Are you saying that you cannot get a decent image out of them
> using
>> that interface? I'm sorry, but you're making no sense at all here.
>
> As usual, you are being idiot on purpose, ofcourse I was talking about
> analogic signal. The digital one through DVI-I/D is excellent quality.

My problem is that I have difficultly with your sentence structure. Your
English isn't exactly incorrect, just "unique"--the sentence structure you
use gives the impression of being the transliterated German commonly among
people of the Amish and Mennonite religious communities in the US. An
Amishman understands that the English he speaks is a bit different from the
English that the rest of us "English" (as he calls us) speak and makes
allowances. If you are not going to take the time to learn to speak
mainstream English you should do that as well when communicating in that
language.

And I notice that you ignore every other point that was raised.

By the way, the HDMI that you seem to think is something special is a
consumer interface consisting of DVI plus audio--it brings nothing new in
the way of video signalling.

And incidentally if you think that DVI is the end all then try playing
around with some TVs with DVI inputs. You may be surprised at the results.

Look, if TFT with DVI works for you, enjoy it. But if you're so happy with
what you've got then I still don't understand why the many long posts
bemoaning the lack of DVI interfaces on CRTs.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:koh8f0pg7tlbv8kj35npn8rlqllim7slnf@4ax.com...
>> Well, actually I asked you to nit-pick the LCD the way you did the
>> CRT, but instead I got a summary devoid of extreme nit-picking, which
>> I suppose suits me fine, anyway.
>
>If you can think of some relevant "extreme nit-picking" to
>add, please be my guest. If, on the other hand, you think
>anyone here is in any way required to write whatever you
>request, think again.

But you wrote "Ask and ye shall receive", Bob. That's a strong
implication that you were providing what I requested, is it not? Just
another misinterpretation of what I wrote, Bob?

>> I note that there was nothing in the summary regarding disadvantages
>> of the CRT due to it's thick glass front. Apparently the effects are
>> so small as to not be worthy of your reasonably complete summary.
>
>Obviously, getting into every detail of both technologies would
>require a book. I've done a book before, and it's not all that
>much fun - and it's certainly not something I'm going to be doing
>for the sheer hell of it here.
>
>> This, of course, bolsters my case that the effects of the thick glass
>> do indeed NOT cause a "big difference" relative to the LCD.
>
>Boy, when you get hung up on something, you really get hung
>up on it, don't you?

Yes, Bob, I will stick to the issue at hand, thank you. It's routine
for people to try to change the subject on me, when their case in the
issue at hand is weak. I won't allow that, Bob.

>Is it as "big" a difference as, say, the problems with color purity
>or convergence or susceptibility to external fields? No, not in the
>minds of most customers. Still, the optical effects of the thicker
>faceplate IS a very obvious and visible difference

If you're purposely scrutinizing the display for imperfections, maybe.
For normal usage, I disagree.

> (and yes, it IS
>one that I have known to be a deciding factor in the purchasing
>decision in some cases). But, as with all things, it's going to depend
>a lot on what a particular customer considers to be "big."

So, even though CRT's can have excellent images, despite issues with
color purity, convergence, and susceptibility to external fields, the
relatively benign effects of the "thick glass" can be reasonably
described as a "big difference"? Sorry, Bob, but I don't think that's
a reasonable opinion, which is the entire point here.

>> I've been right all along, and you knew it, Bob.
>
>Hey, Chris, if it makes you feel good to keep score on this, and
>you think you "got one" here, by all means - knock yourself out.
>It makes very, very little difference to me one way or another.

Appearently it does, Bob. You've sure spent a lot of effort trying to
prove I was "wrong".

>You're certainly "right" in that you do not see this as a significant
>difference. You are equally certainly wrong if you believe that
>everyone trying to decide between these types shares that view.
>All I can do is to try to explain what differences exist, where they
>come from, and what if anything can be done to compensate for
>them.

That doesn't explain your aggressive, confrontational attempt to
discredit my entirely reasonable stance on this issue, Bob.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

You're waste of time, thanks for nothing.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:lddaf05dinke50ghuguhc1nlt71a3nnjli@4ax.com...
> But you wrote "Ask and ye shall receive", Bob. That's a strong
> implication that you were providing what I requested, is it not? Just
> another misinterpretation of what I wrote, Bob?

From this, I am going to have to assume that you have
some difficulty recognizing the more subtle attempts at
light-heartedness or humor that may show up here. I will
endeavor to include a "smiley" or similar flag in the future
to assist you in identifying these, if necessary.


> Yes, Bob, I will stick to the issue at hand, thank you. It's routine
> for people to try to change the subject on me, when their case in the
> issue at hand is weak. I won't allow that, Bob.

Golly, gee, yes, sir, and we will all certainly try to abide
by your rules and requirements more strictly in the future.


> If you're purposely scrutinizing the display for imperfections, maybe.
> For normal usage, I disagree.

Slight correction: for YOUR normal usage. You still seem
to have some difficulty wrapping your mind around the
concept that different people have different purchasing
criteria. As I said, I HAVE known this to be an important
and even a deciding factor in a number of cases. I don't
attempt to tell the customer what is important to them (unless,
of course, they ask for the input).


> So, even though CRT's can have excellent images, despite issues with
> color purity, convergence, and susceptibility to external fields, the
> relatively benign effects of the "thick glass" can be reasonably
> described as a "big difference"? Sorry, Bob, but I don't think that's
> a reasonable opinion, which is the entire point here.

Exactly. YOU don't think it's a reasonable opinion - which
does not mean that others might think that it is, and also be
perfectly correct within their own contexts. You simply do not
have a sufficiently broad perspective on the market to begin
to understand its complexities and varied demands.

> Appearently it does, Bob. You've sure spent a lot of effort trying to
> prove I was "wrong".

Not at all. I participate here basically just to get a feel for what
one sort of display user is thinking, and to hopefully correct
some of the technical misunderstandings which are so prevalent
in this particular segment of the market.


> That doesn't explain your aggressive, confrontational attempt to
> discredit my entirely reasonable stance on this issue, Bob.

No, but then, I can't possibly explain your perceptions. They're
still up to you.


Bob M.