Computer monitors

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

  1. m Ransley

    cjcampbell Guest

    All very nice for the lab guys, but we do not spend our day looking at
    test patterns in optimized conditions. In the real world, you are not
    going to get all the dynamic range out of your picture on a monitor,
    let alone a printer. And unlike monitors, printed pictures do not glow
    in the dark.

    The only way you are going to get decent prints is practice and
    comparing prints with your monitor. An accurate monitor makes the job
    easier. Good software can make the job easier. But it still comes down
    to your personal eye and taste. The best equipment in the world does
    not make you a good artist.
     
    cjcampbell, Dec 16, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. If you have discrete samples, how can they not be quantized? At the
    least, it will be binary (either there or no there). That is quantized.
    That is correct.
    No. It's just like bandwidth, you've exceeded the resolution of
    the system, and cannot create that many unique pixels.

    The fact that you've exceeded the CRT's analog ability, and in
    the process reached the point where you are looking at discrete
    dots on the screen doesn't make the CRT digital. It just makes
    it produce a poor looking image when its capabilities are
    exceeded.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 16, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. So it does require sync, it just requires sync...
    Poor you, having to be tutored by somebody like that...
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 16, 2005
  4. There *is* a feedback loop. The user is part of it.
    So does twisting the knobs on the front panel... and *that* is
    feedback.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 16, 2005
  5. Wheres the lie? I've provided *two* standard definitions of
    "pixel", from authoritative sources, and *you* don't use the
    word correctly.

    Then you claim I'm lying when you read "then" as "there".
    So? Can't you read at all?
    So you haven't got an answer to why your word usage isn't correct.
    Your logic is faulty. The fact that is does not mention an LCD
    does *not* say that pixels don't exist on an LCD. It does *not*
    say that pixels exist only on a CRT.
    You still can't speak to the point huh. Who does that mean
    is lying?
    pixel: In a raster-scanned imaging system, the smallest
    discrete scanning line sample that can contain
    gray scale information.

    Obviously I didn't make it up, and my use is precisely correct.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 16, 2005
  6. pixel: In a raster-scanned imaging system, the smallest
    discrete scanning line sample that can contain
    gray scale information.

    Obviously you are wrong.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 16, 2005
  7. More laughter...
    So you are now saying that rather than the same spot, it is some
    set of different (but specific spots)?

    All that does is define a larger spot, which *is* the "same"
    _spot_ every time.
    Leo did, and you've been defending it.
    Surely you can't believe that. What about horizontal sync... how
    about vertical sync? Nothing to do with the position?????
    Laughter is a good thing... thank you for providing even more.
    Or on any other form of display too, because the word of import is
    "image". (For those who can read...)
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 16, 2005
  8. I did not. When *will* you learn to read!
    You may have two degrees, and I suppose you worked for a company
    that went out of business... because none of what you've said
    indicates anything close to understanding the term "pixel".

    And when given standard definitions you can't even read them!
    *You* have repeatedly claimed that the above standard definition
    means there are no pixels on an LCD. *I* have repeatedly
    corrected you.

    Please do *not* attribute your lies to me.
    And do not attribute any of your other characteristics to me either.
    Pixels are not required to have color.

    (I suppose now you'll claim that since it doesn't say anything about
    color, LCD's don't have color... :)
    It is *not* a spot of "a color". Otherwise, yes it is a
    "picture element", or as I've been trying to tell you, a
    "component of an image".
    CRTs and LCDs are not used to display images????

    They are. And therefore they necessarily, by definition, have
    pixels.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 16, 2005
  9. An here I was betting he's a right wingnut Repugnican.

    Hey Ray, did you vote for GWB twice???
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 16, 2005
  10. Ray Fischer wrote:
    []
    ... so what is the difference in principle between an RGB triplet CRT
    colour display of 40 years ago and today?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 16, 2005
  11. A monitor with analog input should be fine for most people running image
    editing applications. Are you insisting on DVI, and if so, why?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 16, 2005
  12. Of course, when the purity is correctly adjusted.

    []
    The system lends itself to standard sampled data systems analysis, albeit
    complicated by the RGB triplets.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 16, 2005
  13. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Yes you did. When will you stop lying?
    You're lying again. You have provided no "standard" definitions.
    YOUR "standard definition" says that pixels are on CRT screens.

    You can't even read your own definition.
    LOL! You really are a bullshitter.
    pixel: any of the small discrete elements that together constitute an image

    That's from Mirriam-Webster.
    Learn to read.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 16, 2005
  14. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    In your insistence that _my_ definition is wrong.
    That's a lie.
    That's another lie.
    And that's a third lie.
    You use terms like "full res" and then refuse to define them.

    Are you too stupid?
    So you can't explain why you're a liar and an asshole.
    Prove it.
    Is says, specifically, that a pixel exists on a CRT.
    Learn to read.
    You still can't stop lying. You have not shown "my" definition of
    pixel to be at all faulty.
    Notice no mention of any electron beam. Notice also that you're now
    using two different "standard" definitions.
    Obviously you're lying again.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 16, 2005
  15. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    LOL! And tell us: How does the user respond to adjust the position of
    each of a million pixels seventy times every second?
    Knobs?!? This is the 21st century. No knobs.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 16, 2005
  16. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Learn to read. Consistency is not synchronization.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 16, 2005
  17. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    So what, bigot?
    And will you stop at 6,000,000 dead or are you shooting for hundreds
    of millions?
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 16, 2005
  18. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Now you've pissed off Kerby, who _is_ a right wingnut Repugnican.
    I'm not as stupid as you are.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 16, 2005
  19. m Ransley

    Denis Marier Guest

    A monitor with analog input should be fine for most people running image
    editing applications. Are you insisting on DVI, and if so, why?

    David

    Reply: I enjoyed digital photography. My monitor (17") was purchased in
    1998 and refurbished in 2001. My 266 PC was bought at the same time. Both
    are still working good for their age both are not adequate for today's
    standards. Now the time has come for new replacement. If I am to caught
    off that much money I might as well go for the best.
    What I have in mind is a PC with the AMD 4200 + two hard drives and the
    latest acceptable technology for monitor.
    BTW: CRT monitors are hard to purchase as new unit, the stores are our of
    stock. The big fad for television is the Plasma screen. Maybe it will be
    available for monitor soon. LCD monitors do not produce the best pictures.
    When you touch the screen with your finger it leave a mark that fads away
    soon after.

    "David J Taylor"
     
    Denis Marier, Dec 16, 2005
  20. m Ransley

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Prove it wrong.

    (crickets chirping)
    You're really not very smart, are you?
    Except that it isn't. Magnetic fields move electron beams.
    So you were lying when you claimed that I made such a claim.
    Prove it wrong.
    That's not what your "standard" definition says. It says "on a CRT
    screen" specifically.
     
    Ray Fischer, 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.