Computer monitors

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by m Ransley, Dec 11, 2005.

  1. The electron beam is roughly the same size as the phosphor dots, so
    talking about where it goes on or off in relation to the dots is
    rather pointless.
    Indeed, and that's why the picture looks so bad when the pixel
    resolution gets too close to the dot pitch.
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 14, 2005
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. m Ransley

    miso Guest

    The BNC connector is good to about 1Ghz, way beyond what the monitor
    needs. It is a true high bandwidth connector. The D-sub is kind of
    cheesy. The high end monitors often have two inputs (BNC and D-sub),
    but only reach the full bandwidth on the BNC inputs.

    The high bandwidth cables use 5 bnc connectors. Three for color (RGB),
    one for horizontal sync and one for vertical sync.

    Of course, on a modern video card, one output is from a D-sub.

    If you ever tested a video DAC, you would find there is quite a bit of
    "specmanship" going on. For instance, some cards use 10 bits per color,
    but does the DAC settle to 10 bit accuracy in one pixel? Hardly. Nobody
    talks about the glitches in these DACS at certain transitions. If you
    run Nokia's Ntest program, you can spot them right on the monitor, i.e.
    no test instruments required other than your eyes.



    M
     
    miso, Dec 14, 2005
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. m Ransley

    miso Guest

    The monitors have a moire control, which I will admit I don't know how
    it work, but it does get rid of the moire pattern without any
    perceptable loss of sharpness.
     
    miso, Dec 14, 2005
    #63
  4. m Ransley

    cjcampbell Guest

    I generally find LCD monitors the most comfortable to look at. They
    have come a long way and are getting close to CRT monitors in quality.

    Monitors are about 1 megapixel resolution, so no matter what monitor
    you have you cannot see all the resolution your photo has available.
    Neither can you see all the dynamic range.

    So no matter what monitor you have, the final print is largely a matter
    of experience gained through trial and error. There is no way an under
    $500 monitor is going to look anything like a final print. And if you
    are never going to print your pictures, then using any camera with more
    resolution than the typical cell phone is a waste of money.
     
    cjcampbell, Dec 14, 2005
    #64
  5. Strange definition of pixel you have then.
    Maximum number of pixels would be a fairly simple definition.
    From WordNet (r) 2.0[wn]:

    pixel
    n : (computer science) the smallest discrete component of an
    image or picture on a CRT screen (usually a colored dot);
    "the greater the number of pixels per inch the greater
    the resolution" [syn: pel, picture element]

    You'll notice the reference to "a CRT screen" in that definition.
    The difference between an LCD and a CRT is the former is *digital*
    and the latter is *analog*. That means the LCD has discrete pixels,
    while the CRT does not. Which explains why I said a CRT can run
    at anything less than full resolution.

    This is pretty basic stuff, and really is not open to "debate" on
    the meaning of terms.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 14, 2005
    #65
  6. Every time you cut a pixel in half on a CRT you are simply
    creating another pixel.

    And it is also a fact that LCD's can also handle much lower
    resolutions just as well as CRT's. The difference is that LCD's
    have a discrete set of pixel counts, and cannot arbitrarily run
    at just any resolution.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 14, 2005
    #66
  7. So nobody used TV's 40 years ago? Or had electronics that drove
    CRT images????

    Stop being silly.
    Because the location in an image would not be assigned to the same
    pixel each and every scan, while in fact that *is* exactly what happens.
    And you didn't learn a thing from that experience? Strange, most folks
    do...
    Go find a good dictionary and don't redefine terms for your own
    purposes.

    pixel

    n : (computer science) the smallest discrete component of an
    image or picture on a CRT screen (usually a colored dot);
    "the greater the number of pixels per inch the greater
    the resolution" [syn: pel, picture element]
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 14, 2005
    #67
  8. Ray that is simply not true. The screen itself, the size of the
    beam, and the bandwidth of the signal applied to the beam all
    affect the maximum rate at which pixels can be lit up, or turned
    off, on a screen. All of that determines how many pixels are available
    on a CRT display.
    The source has nothing to do with it.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 14, 2005
    #68
  9. The finite size of the triplet sets a limit to the number of separate
    full-colour pixels which can be displayed. We're talking images here, not
    vector displays.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 14, 2005
    #69
  10. I am not convinced that a well set-up [CRT?] monitor doesn't have at least
    as great a dynamic range as a typical consumer printer.

    If you have a 1600 x 1200 monitor, using a 3200 x 2400 camera does allow
    you to crop to a quarter of the scene. For that reason alone, having a
    camera with a resolution considerably in excess of your monitor resolution
    is worthwhile.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 14, 2005
    #70
  11. Which is to say that using BNC connectors is a bit outdated, and
    that the D-sub is all but universal these days.

    (I wouldn't recomment BNC connectors at 1Ghz, BTW.)
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 14, 2005
    #71
  12. Scan lines light up pixels...
    Your definition of pixel is flawed, which is causing a great
    deal of confusion.
    Typically that is not the circumstance though. The beam is
    larger than the "phosphor field". The slew rate (i.e.,
    bandwidth) will not allow it to be turned on and off that fast
    either.
    Just for starters, the color would be significantly out of adjustment,
    and *very* noticably so.
    Let see you produce a few.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 14, 2005
    #72
  13. "Turn on or turn off time" *is* the bandwidth!
    You don't have to run it at max res. You just can't run it at
    arbitary resolutions less than maximum. There are specific
    resolutions that will work, while all others will not.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 14, 2005
    #73
  14. m Ransley

    Leonard Guest

    Well I'm sure they're analog, but are they discrete or continuous?
    Yes but you wouldn't spend all that money on say a 23" Apple display
    and then run it at a lower resolution than it is capable of.

    - Len
     
    Leonard, Dec 14, 2005
    #74
  15. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Nonsense. You can't even identify any pixels on a CRT screen.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 14, 2005
    #75
  16. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Not even that since a CRT can display a pixel smaller than a RGB
    triplet in the shadow mask even if it cannot do so in the correct
    color.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 14, 2005
    #76
  17. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Don't play games with me, asshole. TV sets of 40 years ago didn't use
    graphics boards to connect to a computer.
    And it isn't now.
    Yopu're full of shit, again. There is NOTHING in a CRT that places a
    pixel at a specific spot on the screen. Most modern computer displays
    even let you move the image around on the screen.
    screen >And you didn't learn a thing from that experience?

    Much more than you, obviously.
    ON a CRT screen. Not part of a CRT screen, you stupid asshole.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 14, 2005
    #77
  18. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    You're obviously an idiot troll who doesn't know anything about either
    computers or CRT displays.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 14, 2005
    #78
  19. If it's not the correct color it's not a pixel in my book.
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 14, 2005
    #79
  20. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    It's not a definition of "pixel" at all, halfwit.
    "Maximum" according to what standard?
    So according to that definition, an LCD display doesn't actually have
    any pixels at all.
    And the absense of any mention of LCD screen.
    Simplistic and wrong.
    Ah, so you admit that a CRT does not have discrete pixels.
    Which means that the electron beam can be turned on and off
    without regard for pixel boundaries. Which also means that
    your ealier claim to the contrary was wrong.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 14, 2005
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.