Computer monitors

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

  1. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Like you claimed that TVs 40 years ago worked with computer graphics
    Take your own advice, moron. I know pixels. I've got the university
    degrees and the work experience to show it.
    And LCDs don't have any pixels, according to you.

    You're an idiot.
    And it says nothing about color.
    A pixel is a PICTURE ELEMENT. A spot of a color. That's it.
    It has nothing to do with CRTs or LCDs or any other display hardware.
    Ray Fischer, Dec 15, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Of course, but that has nothing to do with pixels. There is nothing
    in a computer CRT display that maps pixels to any location(s) in the
    phosphor triples.
    Ray Fischer, Dec 15, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    As has been explained repeatedly, you are a liar.
    Ray Fischer, Dec 15, 2005
  4. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Learn to stop lying.
    The "standard of of a pixel" says nothing at all about resolution.
    Stop being an ashsole.
    That's the point, asshole. According to YOUR definition, an LCD
    doesn't have pixels because pixeks exist on CRTs.
    Stop lying, asshole.
    Stop making up your own definitions.
    Ray Fischer, Dec 15, 2005
  5. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    There is nothing to sync _to_.
    Doesn't follow. It does not require synchronization to create a
    stable image. It merely requires that the same pixel end up in the
    same spot on the screen.
    You're making this shit up as you go, aren't you? You really don't
    know anything at all about computers or computer hardware.
    Ray Fischer, Dec 15, 2005
  6. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Typical bigot to accuse anybody you don't like of being a "liberal".

    How's your attempt to create concentration camps for "liberals"
    coming along?
    Ray Fischer, Dec 15, 2005
  7. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    True, but it's impossible to align the electron beam with any
    particular phosphor triples on the screen. Just turning the display
    90 degrees would be enough to shift the electron beam because of the
    Earth's magnetic field.
    I haven't seen a CRT with a beam small enough to illuminate just a
    single triple, but then I dont' usually examine them with a loupe
    to check.
    Ray Fischer, Dec 15, 2005
  8. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Learn to not be a lying asshole. You made a claim which was patent
    bullshit and now you're trying to weasel your way out of it.
    It happens to be the truth.
    Learn to read, asshole. "Specific" is not synonymous with "same".
    1) I made no such claim.
    2) Sync has nothing to do with the position of the image on the screen.

    You're reduced to outright lying. No surprise.
    You first, moron.
    "on a CRT screen"
    Ray Fischer, Dec 15, 2005
  9. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    There is one definition. A pixel is a picture element. A spot of
    color. That's it.

    A pixel's REPRESENTATION can be either a LCD triple, a region on
    the face of a CRT, a number of digital bits in a computer's memory,
    a combination of dyes in color film, a charge in a camera's CCD.
    But a pixel IS not phosphors on a screen any more than a letter is
    ink on paper.

    Ink-jet printer's don't actually do pixels. Because they have only
    a small number of ink colors, they actually convert groups of digital
    pixel information into varying densities of the different inks. There
    isn't a 1:1 mapping of pixels to ink dots.

    Here's a better definition from
    pixel: any of the small discrete elements that together constitute an image
    Ray Fischer, Dec 15, 2005
  10. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    I've got several years working as a software enginner developing 3D
    graphics software as well as decades of experience in the computer
    business and a couple degrees in CS. I know the mechanisms for
    converting computer data to most of the visible representations

    You've had to resort to outright lying in order to defend a ridiculous
    position based upon decades-out-of-date experience with analog TV sets.

    You're not smart enough or honest enough to be condescending, and it
    is obvious that all of your bluster is nothing but an attempt to
    salvage the ego of an ignorant dinosaur.
    Ray Fischer, Dec 15, 2005
  11. m Ransley

    Leonard Guest

    You can have discrete sampled systems without quantizing the samples.
    Let me rephrase what I'm wondering about.

    I always thought that the reason for paying extra for a CRT with
    a fine dot pitch, was that the number of distinct pixels that a CRT
    can display is limited to the number of dot triples that it has. You
    can instruct your graphics card to throw more pixels at it, but that
    will just result in some adjacent pairs of source pixels being smudged
    into one displayed dot. Is this not correct? And if so does that not
    indicate that the CRT displays a sampled (discrete) analogue

    - Len
    Leonard, Dec 15, 2005
  12. And the difference is?
    =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 15, 2005
  13. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Synchronization requires a closed loop - something that feeds back to
    the magnets that control the electron beam. But there isn't anything
    like that. The beam is strictly one way and there is no feedback.
    The image appears stable because the controlling electronics are
    (mostly) stable. It's not usually obvious, but the image on a CRT
    computer display does move. Environmental magnetic fields will affect
    it and the warmup of electronics will affect it.
    Ray Fischer, Dec 15, 2005
  14. We were talking about the limitations imposed by the display device. As
    the RGB-triplets form a sampling off the image deposited by the electron
    gun on the screen, that discrete quantisation must be allowed for in the
    system design.

    David J Taylor, Dec 15, 2005
  15. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    You are correct. Floyd is in over his head. He's trying to map his
    40-year-old understanding to today's computer displays.
    Ray Fischer, Dec 15, 2005
  16. m Ransley

    Denis Marier Guest

    I have postponed my purchase until after the holidays.
    This afternoon I had problem to select a monitor suitable for DVI supplied
    with the pertinent cable. Then I found out that new PC do require another
    type of video card costing about $100.00 to $200.00 to make the Digital
    monitor functional.
    If this is the case is it worth it to wait until PC's are sold with the
    proper video card to match the digital monitor. Not to mention that a few
    monitor are compatible for analog and digital.
    Denis Marier, Dec 15, 2005
  17. m Ransley

    miso Guest

    miso, Dec 15, 2005
  18. m Ransley

    George Kerby Guest

    Doesn't say anything about "anybody you don't like" here, fool.
    Quiet nicely, actually. Are you ready for "The Shower Game"?

    Now run along and keep making 'friends' on the Internet like you have for
    all these years in all these diverse newsgroups.

    What a moron...

    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
    George Kerby, Dec 15, 2005
  19. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    David J Taylor
    Well, it does. Just compare CRT with an equivalent resolution (and,
    of course, gamma & gamut) LCD: LCD has much worse performance on very
    low spatial frequencies (hard to get high contrast), but the image is
    MUCH crisper at high frequencies (e.g., this explains why text display
    is much better on LCD).
    I do not see how this "theoretic" argument correlates with reality...
    Thickness of the glass being an order of magnitude less, LCDs
    (according to the same report) have no similar degradation.

    Hope this helps,
    Ilya Zakharevich, Dec 16, 2005
  20. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    David J Taylor
    Not necessarily; but close to reality for most displays I saw.
    Nonsense. One gun hits one type of color cells.
    Spot is not a "spot". You forget about a mask.
    Theoretically, one could try use the difference in eye resolution of
    color and luminance channels to use this "extra resolution".
    Practically, I've never heard about anything like this.
    RGB is not relevant. Two sides of this discussion talk on
    cross-purposes. Mask is relevant; it acts as an array of

    Forget about 3 guns and 3 colors; consider how a monochrome monitor
    with mask would work. For similicity, replace electrons with photons,
    phosphorus with matte screen, and mask with microlenses.

    A gun projects a cone of "light" to the mask; it illuminates (e.g.) a
    circle on the mask; this circle touches several microlenses; each
    microlens focus light from a gun into (practically) a point. Thus the
    illuminated circle on the mask plane is replaces with several
    illuminated points on the matte screen. The brightness of each point
    is the average brightness over the corresponding microlens.

    One side of the debate says: with good enough gun (narrow cone) one
    can get arbitrarily high resolution image on the microlens plane.
    Correct (by simple common sense).

    The other side of the debate says that one cannot get higher
    resolution than the step of the microlens array. Also correct (also
    by simple common sense).

    How can both sides be correct? Microlens array aliases high
    frequencies (together with corresponding attenuation of frequencies),
    thus high resolution picture on the microlens plane is hopelessly
    distorted on the matte screen plane.

    Hope this helps,
    Ilya Zakharevich, Dec 16, 2005
    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.