We read about the Parhelia being wonderful at 2D, and 'so so' at 3D, though
a Review at
http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphi...charts-04.html makes it
look useless amongst the rest. We never get a review comparing the 2D colour
accuracies and functionality of the 3D gamers cards and the serious 2D cards
like Matrox. Now I do graphics and want decent 2D graphics, but also I don't
see why I should be denied decent 3D, especially if I am doing some of the
graphics for the 3D arena ! Perhaps the days of the 3D card with pass
through facility should return, Matrox Millenium and a Voodoo 2 I recall,
best of both worlds and seemed sensible. Keep hearing that 3D cards are
developed with little thought to 2D but would a serious graphics person spot
the difference, what might those differences be ?
Lets have some comments reviewers please on how they compare for 2D as well,
or are they all top notch ?
What visibly does the Matrox Parhelia give on a single monitor setup that
makes it better at 2D than say a GeForce5959ultra ?
Steve
"Eric Gisin" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I don't see how a video card can have better colour calibration, there is
no
> difference between various 8-bit DACs. They can differ in very hi-res
modes
> you would use on a 21" monitor, that's about it.
>
> "Frederic W. Erk" <> wrote in message
> news:buqtls$gh3$...
> > I am interested with Matrox hardware, especially the Parhelia LX series.
I
> > am looking for multi-display, crisp quality, colour calibration and good
> > platform for multimedia creation. I have experience with ATI AIW, which
are
> > disappointing and not worth purchasing. ATI and NVidia mainstream
hardware
> > are optimised for 3D games, not video or serious photography.
> >
> > I would be interested to hear from people with experience using Parhelia
LX
> > series, and if possible, with former Matrox G550 (as a comparison).
>