OT: New LCD Monitor Not That Crisp?

Discussion in 'Asus' started by (PeteCresswell), Mar 10, 2007.

  1. Fried my trusty 20" CRT sometime last week. Suspect bad AC at the client site
    since the group I'm working for has toasted three laptops in the past month.

    Swapped in my monitor from home to the client site, and then went out and bought
    a GateWay 24" (1920x1200) LCD monitor for home use.

    Seems to work ok, but it lacks the crispness of the Sony 19" (1600x1200) that
    I'd been using at home.

    They're both running digitally and I set Windows' smoothing to "ClearType".
    I also stepped through GateWay's (quite user-friendly) setup/tuning utility a
    couple of times. Only anomaly is that the instruction manual refers to a
    "Geometry" setting which is present on the monitor's menu, but not enabled.

    Am I missing something?

    The GateWay product seems well thought out and well executed - it's just that
    fonts are noticeably soft on it. It's about 25% of the softness you seen when
    running an LCD monitor at some other rez than it's native rez.

    I'm thinking I'm missing something.

    But what?
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Mar 10, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. (PeteCresswell)

    Bishoop Guest

    Re: New LCD Monitor Not That Crisp?

    "(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Fried my trusty 20" CRT sometime last week. Suspect bad AC at the client
    > site
    > since the group I'm working for has toasted three laptops in the past
    > month.
    >
    > Swapped in my monitor from home to the client site, and then went out and
    > bought
    > a GateWay 24" (1920x1200) LCD monitor for home use.
    >
    > Seems to work ok, but it lacks the crispness of the Sony 19" (1600x1200)
    > that
    > I'd been using at home.
    >
    > They're both running digitally and I set Windows' smoothing to
    > "ClearType".
    > I also stepped through GateWay's (quite user-friendly) setup/tuning
    > utility a
    > couple of times. Only anomaly is that the instruction manual refers to a
    > "Geometry" setting which is present on the monitor's menu, but not
    > enabled.
    >
    > Am I missing something?
    >
    > The GateWay product seems well thought out and well executed - it's just
    > that
    > fonts are noticeably soft on it. It's about 25% of the softness you seen
    > when
    > running an LCD monitor at some other rez than it's native rez.
    >
    > I'm thinking I'm missing something.
    >
    > But what?
    > --
    > PeteCresswell


    Is the screen resolution from the video card set to the native resolution of
    the Gateway monitor?
     
    Bishoop, Mar 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. (PeteCresswell)

    geoff Guest

    Re: New LCD Monitor Not That Crisp?

    I assume by digital, you mean you are using a dvi connection from your video
    card to the monitor and if the video card is set to the native resolution of
    the lcd, and it is still blurry, then don't know why.

    -g
     
    geoff, Mar 11, 2007
    #3
  4. (PeteCresswell)

    Nonymous Guest

    Re: New LCD Monitor Not That Crisp?

    "Bishoop" <> wrote in
    news::

    > "(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Fried my trusty 20" CRT sometime last week. Suspect bad AC at the
    >> client site
    >> since the group I'm working for has toasted three laptops in the past
    >> month.
    >>
    >> Swapped in my monitor from home to the client site, and then went out
    >> and bought
    >> a GateWay 24" (1920x1200) LCD monitor for home use.
    >>
    >> Seems to work ok, but it lacks the crispness of the Sony 19"
    >> (1600x1200) that
    >> I'd been using at home.
    >>
    >> They're both running digitally and I set Windows' smoothing to
    >> "ClearType".
    >> I also stepped through GateWay's (quite user-friendly) setup/tuning
    >> utility a
    >> couple of times. Only anomaly is that the instruction manual refers
    >> to a "Geometry" setting which is present on the monitor's menu, but
    >> not enabled.
    >>
    >> Am I missing something?
    >>
    >> The GateWay product seems well thought out and well executed - it's
    >> just that
    >> fonts are noticeably soft on it. It's about 25% of the softness you
    >> seen when
    >> running an LCD monitor at some other rez than it's native rez.
    >>
    >> I'm thinking I'm missing something.


    You mentioned native resolution, so I'm assuming you check that it's set
    to that.

    Also, disable the ClearType. It dithers the edges of fonts with various
    shades from the grey scale making the fonts look less blocky but at the
    expense of making them look softer.
     
    Nonymous, Mar 11, 2007
    #4
  5. Re: New LCD Monitor Not That Crisp?

    "Nonymous" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns98F077442AA33nonymous666@216.196.97.131...
    > "Bishoop" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> "(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Fried my trusty 20" CRT sometime last week. Suspect bad AC at the
    >>> client site
    >>> since the group I'm working for has toasted three laptops in the past
    >>> month.
    >>>
    >>> Swapped in my monitor from home to the client site, and then went out
    >>> and bought
    >>> a GateWay 24" (1920x1200) LCD monitor for home use.
    >>>
    >>> Seems to work ok, but it lacks the crispness of the Sony 19"
    >>> (1600x1200) that
    >>> I'd been using at home.
    >>>
    >>> They're both running digitally and I set Windows' smoothing to
    >>> "ClearType".
    >>> I also stepped through GateWay's (quite user-friendly) setup/tuning
    >>> utility a
    >>> couple of times. Only anomaly is that the instruction manual refers
    >>> to a "Geometry" setting which is present on the monitor's menu, but
    >>> not enabled.
    >>>
    >>> Am I missing something?
    >>>
    >>> The GateWay product seems well thought out and well executed - it's
    >>> just that
    >>> fonts are noticeably soft on it. It's about 25% of the softness you
    >>> seen when
    >>> running an LCD monitor at some other rez than it's native rez.
    >>>
    >>> I'm thinking I'm missing something.

    >
    > You mentioned native resolution, so I'm assuming you check that it's set
    > to that.
    >
    > Also, disable the ClearType. It dithers the edges of fonts with various
    > shades from the grey scale making the fonts look less blocky but at the
    > expense of making them look softer.

    As a 'comment', the geometry settings won't be available, running through
    the DVI connection (and are not needed).
    Some monitors do have a 'sharpness' setting of their own, and combined
    with font smoothing (as mentioned above), this could be giving the 'soft'
    results you have.

    Best Wishes
     
    Roger Hamlett, Mar 11, 2007
    #5
  6. (PeteCresswell)

    peter Guest

    Re: New LCD Monitor Not That Crisp?

    Even LCD monitors have specifications similar to CRT monitors other than
    resolution and refresh rate.
    As I look at a page of listings for LCD monitors I see .250 to .298 DPI..and
    under contrast I see 300:1 all the way up to 1000:1
    The way I understand it the more DPI ...the finer the picture.So check your
    monitor for its DPI...and compare that to your old CRT

    In an LCD the thing to look at is Dot pitch which is the granularity of LCD
    Pixels....the smaller the better...the higher the number.
    CRT have a theoratical infinite contrast ration....LCD do not and as such
    the higher the contrast ration the better the image.Poor contrast ration
    manifests itself in the lack of true black...making type look less
    sharp...soft.

    peter


    "(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Fried my trusty 20" CRT sometime last week. Suspect bad AC at the client
    > site
    > since the group I'm working for has toasted three laptops in the past
    > month.
    >
    > Swapped in my monitor from home to the client site, and then went out and
    > bought
    > a GateWay 24" (1920x1200) LCD monitor for home use.
    >
    > Seems to work ok, but it lacks the crispness of the Sony 19" (1600x1200)
    > that
    > I'd been using at home.
    >
    > They're both running digitally and I set Windows' smoothing to
    > "ClearType".
    > I also stepped through GateWay's (quite user-friendly) setup/tuning
    > utility a
    > couple of times. Only anomaly is that the instruction manual refers to a
    > "Geometry" setting which is present on the monitor's menu, but not
    > enabled.
    >
    > Am I missing something?
    >
    > The GateWay product seems well thought out and well executed - it's just
    > that
    > fonts are noticeably soft on it. It's about 25% of the softness you seen
    > when
    > running an LCD monitor at some other rez than it's native rez.
    >
    > I'm thinking I'm missing something.
    >
    > But what?
    > --
    > PeteCresswell
     
    peter, Mar 11, 2007
    #6
  7. Turn "cleartype" off. It makes things less clear.

    What do you mean "they are both running digitally"? Do you have a DVI
    or an analog VGA interconnect?

    You MUST run the video card at the native resolution of the display
    (1920x1200, apparently). Anything else will produce an unclear display.



    (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > Fried my trusty 20" CRT sometime last week. Suspect bad AC at the client site
    > since the group I'm working for has toasted three laptops in the past month.
    >
    > Swapped in my monitor from home to the client site, and then went out and bought
    > a GateWay 24" (1920x1200) LCD monitor for home use.
    >
    > Seems to work ok, but it lacks the crispness of the Sony 19" (1600x1200) that
    > I'd been using at home.
    >
    > They're both running digitally and I set Windows' smoothing to "ClearType".
    > I also stepped through GateWay's (quite user-friendly) setup/tuning utility a
    > couple of times. Only anomaly is that the instruction manual refers to a
    > "Geometry" setting which is present on the monitor's menu, but not enabled.
    >
    > Am I missing something?
    >
    > The GateWay product seems well thought out and well executed - it's just that
    > fonts are noticeably soft on it. It's about 25% of the softness you seen when
    > running an LCD monitor at some other rez than it's native rez.
    >
    > I'm thinking I'm missing something.
    >
    > But what?
     
    Barry Watzman, Mar 11, 2007
    #7
  8. Per Barry Watzman:
    > Do you have a DVI
    >or an analog VGA interconnect?


    DVI.


    >You MUST run the video card at the native resolution of the display
    >(1920x1200, apparently). Anything else will produce an unclear display.


    It is running at 1920x1200, but the fonts I'm using in my mailer are still about
    25% as fuzzy/soft as they would be if I were running at some other rez.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Mar 11, 2007
    #8
  9. Per Barry Watzman:
    >Turn "cleartype" off. It makes things less clear.


    Tried turning it off and got noticeable improvement albeit still not anywhere
    near the quality of my Sony.

    Couldn't, however, perceive any diff between
    Display Properties|Appearance|Effects|"Use the following method to smooth edges
    of screen fonts:"=True|Standard and just turning it off altogether by unchecking
    the "Use the following..." box.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Mar 11, 2007
    #9
  10. Re: New LCD Monitor Not That Crisp?

    There are no LCD screen specifications that should cause a display to be
    "not crisp". The resolution and screen size (inches) implicitly contain
    all the relevant panel information that relate to "crispness". There is
    no need to consider "dot pitch" as a separate parameter.


    peter wrote:
    > Even LCD monitors have specifications similar to CRT monitors other than
    > resolution and refresh rate.
    > As I look at a page of listings for LCD monitors I see .250 to .298 DPI..and
    > under contrast I see 300:1 all the way up to 1000:1
    > The way I understand it the more DPI ...the finer the picture.So check your
    > monitor for its DPI...and compare that to your old CRT
    >
    > In an LCD the thing to look at is Dot pitch which is the granularity of LCD
    > Pixels....the smaller the better...the higher the number.
    > CRT have a theoratical infinite contrast ration....LCD do not and as such
    > the higher the contrast ration the better the image.Poor contrast ration
    > manifests itself in the lack of true black...making type look less
    > sharp...soft.
    >
    > peter
    >
    >
    > "(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Fried my trusty 20" CRT sometime last week. Suspect bad AC at the client
    >> site
    >> since the group I'm working for has toasted three laptops in the past
    >> month.
    >>
    >> Swapped in my monitor from home to the client site, and then went out and
    >> bought
    >> a GateWay 24" (1920x1200) LCD monitor for home use.
    >>
    >> Seems to work ok, but it lacks the crispness of the Sony 19" (1600x1200)
    >> that
    >> I'd been using at home.
    >>
    >> They're both running digitally and I set Windows' smoothing to
    >> "ClearType".
    >> I also stepped through GateWay's (quite user-friendly) setup/tuning
    >> utility a
    >> couple of times. Only anomaly is that the instruction manual refers to a
    >> "Geometry" setting which is present on the monitor's menu, but not
    >> enabled.
    >>
    >> Am I missing something?
    >>
    >> The GateWay product seems well thought out and well executed - it's just
    >> that
    >> fonts are noticeably soft on it. It's about 25% of the softness you seen
    >> when
    >> running an LCD monitor at some other rez than it's native rez.
    >>
    >> I'm thinking I'm missing something.
    >>
    >> But what?
    >> --
    >> PeteCresswell

    >
    >
     
    Barry Watzman, Mar 11, 2007
    #10
  11. Turning it off all together is usually best. I have never figured out
    why they (anyone, really) thinks that Cleartype or any "font smoothing"
    improves things.

    I'm not sure what your problem is. Try using just Arial or Times Roman
    font. You may have a bitmapped font installed on your PC that you are
    using, but that cannot be scaled well. You need to use a scalable font
    type, normally that means TrueType (or sometimes Adobe Type 1
    (PostScript)) fonts. Bitmapped fonts exist and you could be using one,
    but they don't scale well.


    (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > Per Barry Watzman:
    >> Turn "cleartype" off. It makes things less clear.

    >
    > Tried turning it off and got noticeable improvement albeit still not anywhere
    > near the quality of my Sony.
    >
    > Couldn't, however, perceive any diff between
    > Display Properties|Appearance|Effects|"Use the following method to smooth edges
    > of screen fonts:"=True|Standard and just turning it off altogether by unchecking
    > the "Use the following..." box.
     
    Barry Watzman, Mar 12, 2007
    #11
  12. (PeteCresswell)

    BC Guest

    Re: New LCD Monitor Not That Crisp?

    Barry Watzman wrote:

    > There are no LCD screen specifications that should cause a display to be
    > "not crisp". The resolution and screen size (inches) implicitly contain
    > all the relevant panel information that relate to "crispness". There is
    > no need to consider "dot pitch" as a separate parameter.


    Hi Pete,

    there is a review of the LCD you are using on Anandtech (or one very
    similar):

    http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2935&p=6

    The brightness, contrast, pixels per square inch, etc can all make a
    very big difference in both objective and subjective findings.

    Some people like a larger monitor with fewer pixels in the native
    resolution. (I use a 19" Samsung at with a "lower" native resolution, I
    like it better, fonts bigger....)

    The surface of the screen itself: "glossy" or "matte" makes a
    difference: Apple just switched to a glossy finish on their laptop screens.

    Contrast, brightness, viewing angle (apparently not so good on your
    Gateway--but I am sure you have it tilted appropriately), backlight
    bleedthrough, etc, can all be factors.

    Good user reviews here:

    http://www.amazon.com/Gateway-FPD2485W-24-inch-Widescreen-Flat-Panel/dp/B000K71SHW

    From Extremetech:

    http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2078862,00.asp

    ***
    Now we see the reason behind some of the results: The FPD2185W pushes
    blue pretty hard.

    What this all means is that the Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP is better
    behaved out of the box. If you value accuracy in your image, then the
    Dell makes that relatively easy to achieve. You can get there with the
    Gateway, but it will require a combination of display control adjusting
    and fiddling with your video card control-panel settings.
    ***

    That could account for some of the perceived fuzziness or unclearness on
    your part.

    Overall gets a 7 our of 10:

    http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2078863,00.asp

    Manufacture date on your screen? Anandtech mentions that some changes
    have been made:

    http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2935&p=8

    Here are two monitors compared, a Samsung and an Acer:

    http://www.pcworld.com/product/comp..._title=All Monitors&prodid=29189&prodid=26730

    Your Sony may have had some antiglare features that the Gateway does not:

    http://www.screentekinc.com/pixelbright-lcds.shtml

    The Advantages of High-Gloss Anti-Reflective LCD Screens

    Anti-reflective LCD screens have many advantages over traditional
    anti-glare LCD screens which have historically been used in laptop
    computers. Advantages of anti-reflective LCD screens include:

    * Sharper contrast
    * Crisper images
    * Colors that are richer
    * Wider viewing angles
    * No reflected hazy image

    The advantages of anti-reflective LCD screens over anti-glare LCD
    screens are simply the result of using a smooth high-gloss surface. A
    high-gloss surface allows the light from an image to be directly
    transmitted to the viewer’s eye without being diffused. Diffused light
    blurs the crispness of an image, blurs the richness of colors and
    reduces the darkness of the darkest of black pixels thereby decreasing
    contrast. Contrast ratio (CR) is the measurement of the difference in
    light intensity between the brightest white pixel and the darkest black
    pixel.

    If you do not want to deal with the hassle of a return unless you have
    to, would recommend:

    Make sure videocard can handle driving that resolution--not sure if you
    mentioned what it was.

    Driver for card good.

    Driver for monitor needed? Might be....

    Videocard resolution/settings OK?

    Cable is good quality? Cable construction can make a difference,
    compare these two sets of reviews on Newegg:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...mpareItemList=N82E16812189047,N82E16812123143

    They specifically mention that the less effective cable had problems
    with wide screen monitors.

    Good connections on both ends?

    Good power to monitor? (i.e. not a maxed out wall plug).

    Some people can see CRT monitors flicker at 60Hz, some can't--the most
    important link, your eyes (and maybe glasses) to optic nerves to brain
    not matching this monitor so well apparently....you don't want to be
    squinting/annoyed by fuzzy text for the next few years...if you cannot
    get it tweaked satisfactorily, recommend return and replace.

    Good luck,

    BC
     
    BC, Mar 12, 2007
    #12
  13. Re: New LCD Monitor Not That Crisp?

    Re: "Cable is good quality? Cable construction can make a difference"

    This only applies to analog interfaces, not to digital (DVI) interfaces.
    With a DVI interface, the monitor either works, or it doesn't. As
    long as the cable is good enough for the monitor to work at all, the
    cable quality will not impact the picture quality.


    BC wrote:
    > Barry Watzman wrote:
    >
    >> There are no LCD screen specifications that should cause a display to
    >> be "not crisp". The resolution and screen size (inches) implicitly
    >> contain all the relevant panel information that relate to
    >> "crispness". There is no need to consider "dot pitch" as a separate
    >> parameter.

    >
    > Hi Pete,
    >
    > there is a review of the LCD you are using on Anandtech (or one very
    > similar):
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2935&p=6
    >
    > The brightness, contrast, pixels per square inch, etc can all make a
    > very big difference in both objective and subjective findings.
    >
    > Some people like a larger monitor with fewer pixels in the native
    > resolution. (I use a 19" Samsung at with a "lower" native resolution, I
    > like it better, fonts bigger....)
    >
    > The surface of the screen itself: "glossy" or "matte" makes a
    > difference: Apple just switched to a glossy finish on their laptop
    > screens.
    >
    > Contrast, brightness, viewing angle (apparently not so good on your
    > Gateway--but I am sure you have it tilted appropriately), backlight
    > bleedthrough, etc, can all be factors.
    >
    > Good user reviews here:
    >
    > http://www.amazon.com/Gateway-FPD2485W-24-inch-Widescreen-Flat-Panel/dp/B000K71SHW
    >
    >
    > From Extremetech:
    >
    > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2078862,00.asp
    >
    > ***
    > Now we see the reason behind some of the results: The FPD2185W pushes
    > blue pretty hard.
    >
    > What this all means is that the Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP is better
    > behaved out of the box. If you value accuracy in your image, then the
    > Dell makes that relatively easy to achieve. You can get there with the
    > Gateway, but it will require a combination of display control adjusting
    > and fiddling with your video card control-panel settings.
    > ***
    >
    > That could account for some of the perceived fuzziness or unclearness on
    > your part.
    >
    > Overall gets a 7 our of 10:
    >
    > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2078863,00.asp
    >
    > Manufacture date on your screen? Anandtech mentions that some changes
    > have been made:
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2935&p=8
    >
    > Here are two monitors compared, a Samsung and an Acer:
    >
    > http://www.pcworld.com/product/comp..._title=All Monitors&prodid=29189&prodid=26730
    >
    >
    > Your Sony may have had some antiglare features that the Gateway does not:
    >
    > http://www.screentekinc.com/pixelbright-lcds.shtml
    >
    > The Advantages of High-Gloss Anti-Reflective LCD Screens
    >
    > Anti-reflective LCD screens have many advantages over traditional
    > anti-glare LCD screens which have historically been used in laptop
    > computers. Advantages of anti-reflective LCD screens include:
    >
    > * Sharper contrast
    > * Crisper images
    > * Colors that are richer
    > * Wider viewing angles
    > * No reflected hazy image
    >
    > The advantages of anti-reflective LCD screens over anti-glare LCD
    > screens are simply the result of using a smooth high-gloss surface. A
    > high-gloss surface allows the light from an image to be directly
    > transmitted to the viewer’s eye without being diffused. Diffused light
    > blurs the crispness of an image, blurs the richness of colors and
    > reduces the darkness of the darkest of black pixels thereby decreasing
    > contrast. Contrast ratio (CR) is the measurement of the difference in
    > light intensity between the brightest white pixel and the darkest black
    > pixel.
    >
    > If you do not want to deal with the hassle of a return unless you have
    > to, would recommend:
    >
    > Make sure videocard can handle driving that resolution--not sure if you
    > mentioned what it was.
    >
    > Driver for card good.
    >
    > Driver for monitor needed? Might be....
    >
    > Videocard resolution/settings OK?
    >
    > Cable is good quality? Cable construction can make a difference,
    > compare these two sets of reviews on Newegg:
    >
    > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...mpareItemList=N82E16812189047,N82E16812123143
    >
    >
    > They specifically mention that the less effective cable had problems
    > with wide screen monitors.
    >
    > Good connections on both ends?
    >
    > Good power to monitor? (i.e. not a maxed out wall plug).
    >
    > Some people can see CRT monitors flicker at 60Hz, some can't--the most
    > important link, your eyes (and maybe glasses) to optic nerves to brain
    > not matching this monitor so well apparently....you don't want to be
    > squinting/annoyed by fuzzy text for the next few years...if you cannot
    > get it tweaked satisfactorily, recommend return and replace.
    >
    > Good luck,
    >
    > BC
     
    Barry Watzman, Mar 12, 2007
    #13
  14. (PeteCresswell)

    BC Guest

    Re: New LCD Monitor Not That Crisp?

    Barry Watzman wrote:
    > Re: "Cable is good quality? Cable construction can make a difference"
    >
    > This only applies to analog interfaces, not to digital (DVI) interfaces.
    > With a DVI interface, the monitor either works, or it doesn't. As long
    > as the cable is good enough for the monitor to work at all, the cable
    > quality will not impact the picture quality.


    Dear Barry,

    yes, in theory, except Pete is saying that it is not working, at least
    to his satisfaction.

    From:

    http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/dvi-cables.html

    ***
    Each link in the DVI standard is made up of 3 data channels for RGB
    information and has a maximum bandwidth of 165 Mhz; this equates to 165
    million pixels per second. Color support is up to 24-bit depth. Each
    incoming 8-bit color data is encoded by the DVI standard into a 10-bit
    transition minimized DC-balanced character.

    This means that effective data throughput over a single link DVI cable
    is 4.95Gbps while in the case of dual link DVI, max. data throughput is
    9.9Gbps.

    WHAT ARE SINGLE AND DUAL LINKS ?

    The Digital formats are available in DVI-D Single-Link and Dual-Link as
    well as DVI-I Single-Link and Dual-Link format connectors. These DVI
    cables send information using a digital information format called TMDS
    (transition minimized differential signaling).

    Single link cables use one TMDS 165Mhz transmitter, while dual links use
    two.

    The dual link DVI pins effectively double the power of transmission and
    provide an increase of speed and signal quality; i.e. a DVI single link
    60-Hz LCD can display a resolution of *1920 x 1080*, while a DVI dual
    link can display a resolution of *2048 x 1536*.
    ***

    The 1900 x 1200 monitor makes it under the single link DVI limit,
    assuming the refresh rate is 60hz: (And Pete, I do not have a large
    monitor to try it on, but, does changing refresh rate change anything?)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVI

    ***
    Specifications

    Digital

    * Minimum clock frequency: 21.76 MHz
    * Maximum clock frequency in single link mode: Capped at 165
    MHz (3.7 Gbit/s)

    * Maximum clock frequency in dual link mode: Limited only by
    cable quality (more than 7.4 Gbit/s)

    * Pixels per clock cycle: 1 (single link) or 2 (dual link)

    * Bits per pixel: 24

    * Example display modes (single link):
    o HDTV (1920 × 1080) @ 60 Hz with 5% LCD blanking (131 MHz)
    o UXGA (1600 × 1200) @ 60 Hz with GTF blanking (161 MHz)
    *o WUXGA (1920 × 1200) @ 60 Hz (154 MHz)*
    o SXGA (1280 × 1024) @ 85 Hz with GTF blanking (159 MHz)
    o WXGA+ (1440 x 900) @ 60 Hz (107 MHz)

    Here they say the maximum resolution of a DVI-D single link cable is
    1600 x 1200:

    http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/digital_connection.htm

    That being said, I do not know how a digital cable with maxed out
    bandwidth would manifest that--and, since unless Pete plugs the cable
    into his neck like Neo in The Matrix, there's a digital >> analog
    transition going on somewhere....

    I completely agree that "premier" or "luxury" digital cables are
    bogus....but, with all these cable types:

    - DVI-I Single Link is 12 pins plus 2 analog pins above and below the
    flat blade. This connector can double as an analog RGB input or a
    digital input and has a maximum digital resolution of 1600x1200 at 60Hz.

    - DVI-I Dual Link is 3 rows of 8 pins plus 2 analog pins above and below
    the flat blade. This connector can double as an analog RGB input or a
    digital input and has maximum digital resolution of 2048x1536.

    - DVI-D Single Link is 12 pins and contains digital image information
    only. The maximum digital resolution is 1600x1200 at 60Hz.

    - DVI-D Dual Link is 3 rows of 8 pins and contains digital image
    information only. The maximum digital resolution is 2048x1536.

    - M1-DA (EVC or P&D) is 3 rows of 10 pins and looks a lot like the DVI-I
    except for 6 more pins. Analog video, digital video, USB, and
    FireWire(IEEE1394) can all be plugged into this connector. The maximum
    video resolution supported is 1280x1024. This connector is mainly used
    by projector manufacturer InFocus and its OEMs.

    and with his monitor right at the bandwidth boundary between single link
    and dual link, might be worth checking....

    HTH,

    BC
     
    BC, Mar 12, 2007
    #14
  15. Re: New LCD Monitor Not That Crisp?

    He's not saying that he's not getting ANY image, however.


    BC wrote:
    > Barry Watzman wrote:
    >> Re: "Cable is good quality? Cable construction can make a difference"
    >>
    >> This only applies to analog interfaces, not to digital (DVI)
    >> interfaces. With a DVI interface, the monitor either works, or it
    >> doesn't. As long as the cable is good enough for the monitor to work
    >> at all, the cable quality will not impact the picture quality.

    >
    > Dear Barry,
    >
    > yes, in theory, except Pete is saying that it is not working, at least
    > to his satisfaction.
    >
     
    Barry Watzman, Mar 12, 2007
    #15
  16. (PeteCresswell)

    Bill Smith Guest

    What is the video card and what is the refresh rate...and what is the
    monitor spec for speed ?


    On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:50:30 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <>
    wrote:

    >Fried my trusty 20" CRT sometime last week. Suspect bad AC at the client site
    >since the group I'm working for has toasted three laptops in the past month.
    >
    >Swapped in my monitor from home to the client site, and then went out and bought
    >a GateWay 24" (1920x1200) LCD monitor for home use.
    >
    >Seems to work ok, but it lacks the crispness of the Sony 19" (1600x1200) that
    >I'd been using at home.
    >
    >They're both running digitally and I set Windows' smoothing to "ClearType".
    >I also stepped through GateWay's (quite user-friendly) setup/tuning utility a
    >couple of times. Only anomaly is that the instruction manual refers to a
    >"Geometry" setting which is present on the monitor's menu, but not enabled.
    >
    >Am I missing something?
    >
    >The GateWay product seems well thought out and well executed - it's just that
    >fonts are noticeably soft on it. It's about 25% of the softness you seen when
    >running an LCD monitor at some other rez than it's native rez.
    >
    >I'm thinking I'm missing something.
    >
    >But what?
     
    Bill Smith, Mar 14, 2007
    #16
  17. Per Bill Smith:
    >What is the video card and what is the refresh rate...and what is the
    >monitor spec for speed ?


    Radeon 7000.

    60 The specs in the manual talk "Frequency" and have
    Horizontal: 74 KHz,
    Vertical: 60 Hz.

    Monitor spec says "Response Time: 8 ms (typical)"
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Mar 14, 2007
    #17
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Michael F. S. Christensen
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    615
    Michael F.S. Christensen
    Oct 17, 2003
  2. twobirds
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    292
    J. Clarke
    Jun 2, 2005
  3. Barry Watzman
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    563
    Michel R. Carleer
    Aug 1, 2007
  4. KlausK
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    307
    Dr Richard Cranium
    Nov 17, 2007
  5. mammothta
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    216
    mammothta
    Apr 18, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page