• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Anyone here use a UXGA monitor?

Well, there were double-scan proposals for both PAL and NTSC to reduce flicker. But NTSC is still 446x452, no matter how you color it. Let's see, what was the resolution of the AT&T 6300? 640x480?

So, in 30 years, we haven't really come all that far, have we?
 
Interlace and framerate flicker are two different things.

Anyway, I think we're both arguing the same point.
 
Well all this talk about monitors made me buy a new one. Newegg has a DELL S2340M 23" IPS 1080P monitor for $119 shipped.
 
KC9UDX said:
Interlace and framerate flicker are two different things.

Anyway, I think we're both arguing the same point.
Click to expand...

I think so--recall the brief interval where high-end NTSC sets delivered 525 lines non-interlaced at 60 fps (double-displaying complete frames).
 
Last edited:
KC9UDX said:
Certainly the 640x480 "SD", which is supposed to be the equivalent of NTSC, is not even remotely near the quality of modern analog NTSC.
Click to expand...

... I'm still sort of confused by this myself. By "Analog NTSC" are you referring to the very best picture quality you could get from devices that used NTSC's "525i@30fps" video framing but transferred color data separately (IE, SuperVHS/Component), and therefore aren't "according to Hoyle" NTSC, or comparing, say, the video quality you get from a "broadcast quality" NTSC source (or close, like a LaserDisc) vs. the "bastardized" NTSC you get from sources like a VHS player? (Or, on the other end, broadcast NTSC vs. the digital artifacts you get from, say, MPEG-2 compression on DVDs displayed on NTSC?) NTSC has fundamental limitations that make its effective (color) resolution *much* less than 640x480 "SD".

(Here's a link discussing how the effective horizontal resolution of an NTSC signal is affected by the sampling bandwidth of the data source, which notes that even the highest quality broadcast/LaserDisc formats are only good for about 400 lines horizontal resolution, but the real picture is worse than that since that figure is for *luminance* only, IE, the monochrome intensity part of the signal that's essentially "colorized" by the color subcarrier. The color (chrominance) resolution of an NTSC picture can, in the worst cases, be as low as *25 lines* horizontally; granted it's more typically in the 100-ish ballpark.

Again, these issues are completely baked into NTSC; systems like S-Video and Component which divorce the color information from the luminance signal and therefore avoid the bandwidth limitations of the broadcast comb filter are pretty much the only way to improve the situation. Notably the recording format of both LaserDisc and CED is "composite", IE, the few LaserDisc players that offered S-Video outputs had to pass the signal through a comb filter just like the one in the TV, effectively "faking it"; a well-encoded DVD, MPEG-2 limitations and all, is at least theoretically capable of far higher color resolution and better fidelity than a LaserDisc, and of course if we're talking about "uncompressed" content... there's no comparison, period; 640x480 at 16 bit or better color depth going to a VGA or digital monitor is going to blow away the same thing pushed through NTSC encoding...

So, yeah, are you talking about the ravages of digital encoding vs. uncompressed analog or am I missing something? I have as much nostalgia for the good ol' days as anyone, but, well, part of that involves fond memories of how back in the day if someone made the mistake of wearing a checkered or pinstripe tie on TV it would shimmer with all the colors of the rainbow as they moved around...
 
Last edited:
Yeah, and there's also another apples-vs-oranges thing.

Computer tool (serious work) images are largely static, so resolution differences are readily visible to the eye. Video, on the other hand, no matter if it's on a computer or a TV, is moving images that are "averaged" by the eye, so they seem sharper than they really are. This is readily visible if you take, for instance a frame of NTSC-quality video and examine it carefully. It generally looks terrible.

That's why I find that it's odd that monitor makers, by and large, seem to think that everyone is going to watch videos on their monitors.

I use mine for CAD/EDA and other uses; nothing moves unless I tell it to.

Don't get me started on OTA DTV quality, with fast motion dissolving into a mass of artifacts. Really, really annoying.
 
I'd like to point out 60MHz@1074 x 768 using this BRAVIA LCD TV as a monitor hasn't cause me to take any asprin or panadol in the month I've been using it.
 
Caluser2000 said:
Lol. No reading glasses required:cool: Didn't cost a cent either. Apperently wasn't suitable for this new fangled digital TV transmission without a freeview box.
Click to expand...

Oddly, I still use a CRT TV for OTA viewing--a late Samsung flat-screen model. The DTV box works well and has a recording capability as well. Since I watch mostly retro TV shows when I watch TV (Superman is on now); I gain nothing from widescreen LCD screens. And the colors look better.

When I started using EDA tools on a PC, it was a 5160 with a Hercules (350x720) monochrome. I was a lot younger then and didn't have much of a problem. Now, with colors and wiggly lines and fine print, it's much more challenging. I can use every pixel that I can get.
 
My first monitor was .28 dot pitch vga screen and it was terrible compared to the VeiwSonics at work.. Next was a 17" HP P70 crt (which this tv has replaced) which I used for a long time and it out lived a few xp boxes ;)

I've got an IBM flat screen 18.5" crt in the "lab" which is connected to a switch and shared between my 286 and whatever other machine I'm playing with at the time.

There's two all-in-one Compaqs, 486 and P75, with 14" crts I play with on occasion as well.

Have a 17" lcd tv with SCART, RCA, arial and VGA connectors. It's really cheap n nasty as well as lite, but does come in handy at times, as does the 17'' lcd HP monitor which feels more robust.
 
I've struggled with video quality on the PC all along. First was a 5150 with MDA driving a 15" OEM kit monitor. Then it was EGA with a Sony 1302 (0.25 mm pitch) trinitron. Then I picked up a heavy Mitsubishi 19" workstation monitor from a Daisy CAD setup. Still driven by an EGA card. Then moved to an HP 17" Sony monitor driven by a Tsenglabs VGA card with a special ROM. Then moved to a Sony 21" monitor. I probably have about a dozen LCD monitors kicking around, as well as a couple of monochrome and my Mitsubishi do-anything DiamondScan monitor. I used a NEC Multisync LCD2010 20.1" 4:3 monitor for a number of years, but it's acquired lines in the display and probably not worth fixing. Still, a very clear large display. Right now, I'm sitting in front of a NEC LCD1960Nxi in 1280x1024 Not the best, but pretty clear.

So, are any of you wealthier folks running (color) plasma or OLED on your PCs?
 
Last edited:
When the time approached to give in and buy an HDTV I initially swore up and down that I'd get a plasma because of the better color range than LCD (or the affordable single-element DLP sets; I ruled those right out because it turned out I was one of the X-percent of the population that can perceive the flicker from the color wheel) but both times I've actually gone to the well I ended up with LCD (rear projection the first time, direct-view now) because... reasons. You hang around plasma TVs enough and you'll start to notice that standing next to one is disturbingly like sitting near a furnace register, and I was also turned off by seeing a disturbingly large number of plasma TVs only a year or two old with *horrible* burn-in. A lot of companies in my neck of the woods simultaneously became enamored with sticking plasma TVs in their lobbies and running promo loops with mostly-static logo graphics; Plasma TVs *really* don't like that. Based on that experience I'd never use one as a computer monitor unless you're okay with having a blotchy ghost of your Start Menu (or equivalent) etched onto your screen forever.

(I know supposedly newer plasma screens have some "burn-in prevention" features, but I suspect the cure might be worst than the disease if you were using the thing as a production monitor; as I recall said prevention involves tricks like "shaking" the image slightly or selectively playing games with image contrast, which sounds incredibly annoying.)

If it's sheer pixel count you're going for there are *incredibly cheap* UHD/4K TVs; here's an example. I know several people who bought them to use as gigantic desktop monitors, usually on Linux boxes. The notable limitation (besides it being a cheap LCD with mediocre color fidelity and almost guaranteed to have a few bad pixels) is at least the 2013 models used a flavor of HDMI that only allows for a 30fps refresh. Works fine for GUI work or a screen full of Xterms but supposedly less than ideal for gaming or video.
 
On 4K monitors it would be hard to notice a stuck pixel. Plasma TV's died with Pioneer a year or two ago (Samsung still makes them I think), which is why many doctors offices purchased one on firesales (at least around here).

I waited until 720P TVs were pretty much a commodity to buy one, now that people want 4K TV s (no idea what they will play on them) I might get a 1080P TV in a year or two.

Thankfully monitor price have dropped like a rock since the days I used to pay $800 for a Sony 17" CRT, $119 for a 23" IPS screen is cheap as hell (last year I paid the same for a 24" DELL widescreen).
 
HP ZR30w.

I had a L2440P WUXGA but it broke down so I threw it out. I had two Samsung 24" FHDs but I sold those. I also had many different CRTs. Now I have a generic brand 14" VGA CRT for my 286 and 2 E520s for > 286s vintage boxes. I also had many 4:3 TFTs / PCDs but donated / gave away those.
 
Chuck(G) said:
Don't get me started on OTA DTV quality, with fast motion dissolving into a mass of artifacts. Really, really annoying.
Click to expand...

You must be watching some really awful broadcasts, because most everything I've seen Digital (DISH aside) is pretty fantastic. OTA DTV is usually the best.
 
Chuck(G) said:
Oddly, I still use a CRT TV for OTA viewing--a late Samsung flat-screen model. The DTV box works well and has a recording capability as well. Since I watch mostly retro TV shows when I watch TV (Superman is on now); I gain nothing from widescreen LCD screens. And the colors look better.
Click to expand...

Ah, there we go. Usually the "retro" TV broadcasts are not the primary program being broadcast and are usually not terribly good quality.

Still, if we're going to compare analog to digital TV broadcasts, I'd still take the lesser quality digital broadcast. Weaker signals that would be almost impossible to watch as analog are completely fine digital.
 
I rarely have artifacts using OTA digital signals (bad weather). OTA broadcasts look much better then anything from DISH network.
 
Eudimorphodon said:
When the time approached to give in and buy an HDTV I initially swore up and down that I'd get a plasma because of the better color range than LCD (or the affordable single-element DLP sets; I ruled those right out because it turned out I was one of the X-percent of the population that can perceive the flicker from the color wheel) but both times I've actually gone to the well I ended up with LCD (rear projection the first time, direct-view now) because... reasons. You hang around plasma TVs enough and you'll start to notice that standing next to one is disturbingly like sitting near a furnace register, and I was also turned off by seeing a disturbingly large number of plasma TVs only a year or two old with *horrible* burn-in.
Click to expand...

I've noticed a lot is made of plasma's greater contrast ratios and blacker blacks than most of the other technologies, however almost nobody I know uses one in a really dim room to take advantage of this fact. They tend to look dimmer in normally lit rooms I think and tend to have a lot of nasty reflections. OLED seems like the way to go these days... once the big price drop happens on those we will probably replace our florescent backlit LCD with one.

I am a bit surprised that the TV makers <60" have been pushing 4K TVs, since to get any advantage out of it (programming aside) is with either really large projection sized displays or unreasonably close viewing distances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top