Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!fangchin From: fangchin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: Loop Omnisync non-interlaced monitors (anyone have one?) Message-ID: <1991Apr19.185311.6972@leland.Stanford.EDU> Date: 19 Apr 91 18:53:11 GMT References: <1991Apr16.063825.19501@leland.Stanford.EDU> <1991Apr17.164509.19165@d.cs.okstate.edu> Organization: AIR, Stanford University Lines: 206 In article <1991Apr17.164509.19165@d.cs.okstate.edu> ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) writes: >> >What do you mean? Isn't 3D a 1024x768 interlaced monitor? Hence you have >to run it at interlaced during 1024x768 regardless of what you WISH to do? Doing 1024x728 interlaced with flickering is not decent. Did I use the word decent in any wrong manner? I used to work with a large Distributor a lot in South El Monte in LA area and I guess I have seen quite a lot 3Ds. And that's the reason why I still have chances to play with brand new products (dealer demos) quite often. I won't say things that just guess work. >> The ad is bragging! That's it. 15 ~ 48Khz and they dare to call it wide? >> Shame on them! With 48Khz, you hardly can do a 58Hz refresh rate 1024x728 >> non-interlaced display, and most people can sense flickering even at 60Hz! > >What do you mean most people? My monitor runs at 1024x768 noninterlaced >at 48KHz and all my friends could not find any "flicker" whatsoever. >The pixels are as solidly ANCHORED to the screen as in the standard 640x480x16. Try open a snow white background, and black background, and then turn away your head, now peek your monitor sideways. If you don't sense flicker, then the thing is steady enough. This is a very easy test. If you pardon me, I consider above 65Hz refresh rate is necessary not to show traces of flickering. I seriously doubt that using 48Khz horizontal sync rate one can achieve a high enough refresh rate like 65Hz or above. See below for more precise dis- cussion. I have tested 68Hz, 65Hz, 63Hz, and 60Hz on my monitor. I have to say, the last two always bother me. All these numbers are refresh rates using the highest horz sync of a Multisync II, 35Khz. And the resolutions are the following: 640x480 704x528 752x564 832x600 Note, I use X, so I can design my own res and refresh rate within certain limits. If you use MSDOS, unless you do programming youself, you don't have such freedom I am afraid. I also tried a brand new IDEK 17" monitor recently. But I don't have my numbers handy at this moment. IDEK as you recall, won PC Mag Editor's Choice but I strongly disagree with PC Mag. It's a nice monitor but suffers a narrow horizontal sync range, the highest rate it can do is 50Khz. For a 17" FLAT SCREEN (see?) monitor, it's a shame! IDEK should have made the circuits more capable like doint 70Khz or so. Yes, I know for certain background/foreground constrast, you can get by with even 45Hz refresh rate. In addition, some people have higher tolerance but basically I believe high refresh rate is necessary. This is not for theoretical reasons. It's a practical need. > > >My Swan VGA15 is a TVM SuperSync 5A and it is spectacular!!! I have worked Even compared with Sun's Trinitron tube monitor, you still consider TVM spectacular? I would say you really love TVM. (just joking) I am doing SA at my school's computer center, I am afraid that I am already biased towards Sun. I think SUN's Trinitons are the best implementation. To anti-glare, TVM puts net like thing on montors, (could be a Hitachi tube) and that makes the optical illusion of grainly look. I don't like that. Trinitron tubes do not suffer such (if I may call it shortcoming?) >for months 10 hours a day on Sun Sparc 1+ (17" flatscreen and 19") and >Dec 3100's (19" screens) and SuperSync 5A is just as good as their >displays. And what do you mean by "It' almost flat screen >didn't help much either." Do you mean that its flatness is not as good see below for explaination >as those of the Zenith 1492 (640x480 for $600) and similar monitors or >you personally do not know how to appreciate flatscreen? I find the >flatscreen on the VGA15 (SuperSync 5A) tremendously helpful and make a >great difference. Now that I am "pampered" by its flatscreen, I find >the standard "curve" screen somewhat unacceptable. > Again, try the white/black constrast I suggest above and then we talk. When I said the flat screen didn't help much either, I meant for this particular combination. Heck, I like flat screen monitors as much as you, don't get me wrong. Maybe I should have made my wording clearer. >> Likewise, OptiQuest 2000 has a spec similar to yours and priced not much >> more, but unfortunately I have to tell you if you want to use 800x600 with >> this bunch, fine. 1024x768? .......Hmmmm. > >Please keep to the subject. We are talking about 1024x768 noninterlaced. >If you have something to sell that is less than that, most of us are >not interested! My point is to remind people the importance of non-flicer, which can only be achieve by high screen refresh rate. Just NON-INTERLACENESS WON'T DO! 1024x728, so what if it's flickering? You might as well drop back to 800x600 to save your eyes. Just because a monitor is capable of doing 1024x728 or higher does not mean it can do it right (non-flickering and non interlaced) >> If you really want 1024x728, shop carefully and spend around $850~920, get >> a 16" monitor with horizontal sync frequency upper limit as high as or higer >> than 60Khz, then you will be in good shape. If your software driver is >> written competently so that a proper driving frequency of your vedio board >> is employed, you maybe able to get 70Hz refresh rate for your 1024x728, >> non-interlaced of course. > >Talk is cheap. Talk that is invalid is even cheaper. I shopped around >for two months "quite intensively" and another two prior to that with >16" to 17" in mind and $900 to spare. When it come time to spend, >NOBODY (I called nearly all the shops that supposedly sells them) >has stock of the 17" Samsung 4 1024x768 noninterlaced or the >Goldstar 16". What other 16" monitors are you talking about? >The ones you have to connect your own separate R, G, and B connectors? >I don't think there are too many people who would like to mess with that. >Or are you talking about those "good" ones attached to Sun workstations? >Can we buy them at about $900 (for 16" that is)? I have not seen any ads >and the shop people I talked to does not know much about them. > Check with Softsel! When they had a promotion sale two months ago, NEC 4D was priced at $832. I still have the sheet in my file. And I have seen in some back issues of PC Mag Nano 9070s priced around $950 or so. A pen pal of mine glenn@cs.utexas.edu bought his NEC 4D in 900s too. So am I telling you something achieveable? And my friend bought it several months ago. Have you really shopped? >And what about cards? The most popular Super VGA cards I come across >seems to the those based on the ET4000 chipset with 1024x768 noninterlaced >at 48KHz. Yes, we have that Sigma "thing" that runs at 70 or 72KHz, but >I saw a recent comparison test for more than 10 Super VGA and Sigma ranked >near last! (And it is relatively expansive too) SWAN SVGA costs you $199 + $5 shipping. Even it 80ns DRAM, my pen pal is able to achieve 60Hz refresh rate for his 1024x728 on his 4D. Of course both of us use X and I guess you are using MS/DOS. So such comparision is not fair to you. Remember NEC 4D is a more capable monitor than your TVM. >> 70Hz is nice, as most workstations, like SUN, HP, DEC use for their monitors >> screen update (refresh) rate. At this frequency, you can watch the monitor >> for a long time (several hours) without suffer eye strain. Images are very >> steady at this or higher refresh rate. > >Oh, come on. I had worked on a Sun Sparc 1+ for a few months for >about 8 to 10 hours a day and many times I came home after work and >went straight to bed (as opposed to my usual additional 3 to 4 hours >of TV). That's how tire my eyes were watching those "nice" workstations In day time, I do system adminstration, and I still have to work on my thesis at night. Comon, do some exercise. Don't go to bed right away! (just kidding) >at "70Hz". In fact, I find watching my Swan VGA15 is less tiring than >the Sun workstation. My guess is that screen size has something to do >with it. > I said (a few hours) and now you are talking about 8 to 10 hours. Maybe your definition of few is different from mine. I have to make a correction to myself. DECstation's montior is also refreshed at fairly low rate like 58 Hz or so. Sun's Trinitron tube is still the best implementation that I have seen so far. In a hurry, I elated it's status to where it doesn't deserve >> Except IBM, it's latest RS6000 is another shame of the BIG BLUE. Using a >> blazingly fast TI34010 board but screwed up the very fine Trinitron tube >> with a 54Hz refresh rate (estimated) it's pain to watch the display indeed. >> Even when I do system adminstration, I remote login our RS6000s from >> a Sun Sparc 1+ just to avoid to see that stupid IBM implementation. >> >> Remember, non-interlaceness alone will do you not a trace of good if it's >> updated (or refreshed) at low frequency which to me, is any frequency below >> 65Hz. But on the other hand, if a interlaced display is updated at high >> enough refresh rate, let's say 90Hz, it's FAR FAR FAR better than a non- >> interlaced one updated at say 50Hz. I know so, because my X server allows >> me to configure at all kinds of refresh rate/resolution combos. >> >> Remember also, price is LESS IMPORTANT THAN your invaluable eyssight! > >In general, I agree. Pay a little bit more for a SuperSync 5A (Swan VGA15, >they are both the very same monitor) as opposed to those cheap >$350 1024x768 interlaced. Or get a 17" Samsung noninterlaced 1024x768 >for $900 if you can find a shop with stock. But the last author >would have to tell us where to find a "70KHz noninterlaced 1024x768 16" for >$900" and a 1meg VGA card that supports the same frequency at close >to $200 before we can do anything. His suggestion of shopping around >has not worked for me and you might not want to waste the same amount >of time as I did. You finally agree with my point. But your earlier comments didn't sound too agreeable. Please note my point and see if it is good-intentional. I can give you the entire formula of calculating refresh rate based on your monitor spec and your SVGA board crystal driving frequencies. Most, if not all MSDOS drivers don't take advantage of the full potential of your hardware combos. This is sad but true. Please consider the technical side of this discussion, only if you can mathematically prove to me that you can achieve X refresh rate using Y montiro plus Z SVGA board, then you can flame me. All my numbers are based on my exact calculations. To make my post short, I didn't include them. The entire vedio timing stuff that I wrote for a PD X server amounts eight pages, if you want to read it, I can email to you. But please don't propergate the misconception of non-interlaceness anymore. It is important and necessary, but only coupled with high refresh rate and perhaps fine dot pitch, the entire image quality can become good. Not otherwise. No harsh feeling. Nice discussion anyway. Happy computing. Chin Fang Mechanical Engineering Department Stanford University fangchin@leland.stanford.edu