which monitor has high resolution?

On or about Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:37:38 -0800 (PST) did rjn
<email4rjn.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> dribble thusly:

>Mike Ruskai <BUTthann....RemoveThis@DONTearthlinkLIKE.netSPAM> wrote:
>
>> >See the "what's the deal at 30in 2560" thread here.
>>
>> Just what do you claim is intolerable about the 30" panels that have
>> been on the market for more than a year, some even two?
>
>As I said in the referenced thread, titled:
>" LCD: what's going on at 30in 2560?"
>
>What are the issues?
>1. DVI-D only - no VGA or analog TV
>2. Dual link DVI only
>3. No scaler, even for digital

Dual-link DVI-D is the only interface in wide use on computers that
can drive the native resolution. Complaining about that is rather
like complaining that you can't put a house fire out with a garden
hose hooked up to the big red truck.

Any card with a Dual-link DVI-D connector is going to scale
automatically to the panel's native resolution.

I will admit, however, that having scaling done in the monitor with
aspect ratio preserved would be useful to me, since nVidia's drivers
for the 8800 cards are broken (and have been for a while) with regards
to scaling while keeping the aspect ratio. The scaling done by the
card without driver software is simple stretching.

In another message, you mentioned the inability to simply plug any old
PC into the monitor and see something on the screen. That's as
legitimate a complaint as one about being not able to plug an SATA
drive into any old computer to add storage. Just as you might need to
buy an SATA controller add-on card to use the newer drive type, you
may need to buy a Dual-link DVI-D card to use the newer monitor type.

>4. No HMDI either

You don't have a graphics card with HDMI support unless you know you
need one and take steps to get one. So if you're already doing that,
it's no different than seeking one with Dual-link DVI-D support,
except that all modern ones have that anyway.

>5. No on-board setup controls

Just what OSD functions do you need with a display that's always
digital and always at the same resolution? There may be a couple that
are useful, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

>Obviously, some people are tolerating this.
>And some are not, as the Inq rant mentioned
>in the thread confirms. Personally, I wouldn't
>buy one, and now that Dell's 3rd try has fixed
>these problems, these 30inchers with issues
>are apt to vanish from the market.

I assure you, the word "tolerate" doesn't enter into the experience of
owning and using a 30" panel operating at 2560x1600. Except perhaps
wondering how one managed to tolerate a miniscule fuzzy-by-comparison
22" CRT before.
--
- Mike

Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

Mike Ruskai <BUTthann... RemoveThis @DONTearthlinkLIKE.netSPAM> wrote:

> Dual-link DVI-D is the only interface in wide
> use on computers that can drive the native resolution.

No argument there. If you want 2560 on DVI, you
have to use dual-link. That's been obvious since
DVI 1.0, which originally was limited to 1600 (and
later 1920 with CVT).

I was an early adopter of 23in 1920, and being
aware of the DVI limitations, made some effort to
make sure that my card and monitor would actually
work together. Neither brand bothered to specify
that their product was single link. I also had to
figure out just how 1920 was possible on single (CVT).

> Complaining about that is rather like complaining
> that you can't put a house fire out with a garden
> hose hooked up to the big red truck.

Except that's not the compliant. The complaint was:
"Dual link DVI only"

Ignoring the VGA thing ...

If you happened to buy a gen-1 2560 monitor, planning
to upgrade the graphic card to 2560 later, you might
expect to get SOMETHING on screen with your current,
say, Matrox Parhelia. Nope.

You might even have confused dual-port (which almost
all Matrox cards are) with dual-link (which almost no
Matrox cards are). {And Matrox doesn't go out of their
way to let you know that all except the one DL card
are not DL. I had to ask in their now-gone forum.}

> Any card with a Dual-link DVI-D connector is going
> to scale automatically to the panel's native resolution.

Really, in any OS?

The opportunities for unhappy customers are significant
with the gen-1 2560 LCDs. I'm surprised we haven't seen
more complaints like the Inq rant. I'm guessing that the
reason is that most people getting a 30in LCD are also
buying a whole new PC or Mac, and just happen to be
getting a DL graphics card. I presume that the monitors
include a DL cable.

> I will admit, however, that having scaling done in
> the monitor with aspect ratio preserved would be
> useful to me, ...

I sometimes hook the 1920 23in to a DVD player via
YPbPr, and the analog-in and scaling are essential
there, because I don't yet have a player with DVI
out (but even that would not be 2560 DL - players
with scaling do 1920).

> In another message, you mentioned the inability to
> simply plug any old PC into the monitor and see
> something on the screen. That's as legitimate a
> complaint as one about being not able to plug an SATA
> drive into any old computer to add storage.

Not really. A more apt analogy would be buying a
printer for an old LPT port PC, and discovering
that it's USB only. THAT bit a lot of people, and
it took years to get the market to the point where
USB-only printers were a safe sell.

The fact that Dell's 3d try at 30in now has analog
inputs suggests that the market is not yet ready for
DVI (and/or HDMI or DisplayPort)-only monitors.
Too many people have other PCs/laptops kicking around
that they might want to hook up, if only temporarily,
to the new LCD, via DVI single or VGA.

> Just what OSD functions do you need with a display
> that's always digital and always at the same resolution?

Black level. White level. Color temp. Gamma.
Backlight level. On an OS where the hosted applet
controls don't run (Unix, Linux).

> I assure you, the word "tolerate" doesn't enter into
> the experience of owning and using a 30" panel
> operating at 2560x1600.

Yeah, true. You are either in bliss or
in rage (because it doesn't work at all).

--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

On or about Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:50:39 -0800 (PST) did rjn
<email4rjn.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> dribble thusly:

>Mike Ruskai <BUTthann....RemoveThis@DONTearthlinkLIKE.netSPAM> wrote:
>

>> Any card with a Dual-link DVI-D connector is going
>> to scale automatically to the panel's native resolution.
>
>Really, in any OS?

Without an OS. My computer's boot screen shows up with no graphics
driver software, scaled to 2560x1600.

I suppose it's conceivable that a card with a DL DVI-D port could lack
that functionality, but it doesn't seem plausible.

>The opportunities for unhappy customers are significant
>with the gen-1 2560 LCDs. I'm surprised we haven't seen
>more complaints like the Inq rant. I'm guessing that the
>reason is that most people getting a 30in LCD are also
>buying a whole new PC or Mac, and just happen to be
>getting a DL graphics card. I presume that the monitors
>include a DL cable.

I suppose I'm of the opinion that if you're buying technological
products on your own, it's your responsibility to make sure they'll
work. I don't drop $1800 on a monitor without making sure I have the
equipment necessary to use it, and I doubt you would either.

>> In another message, you mentioned the inability to
>> simply plug any old PC into the monitor and see
>> something on the screen. That's as legitimate a
>> complaint as one about being not able to plug an SATA
>> drive into any old computer to add storage.
>
>Not really. A more apt analogy would be buying a
>printer for an old LPT port PC, and discovering
>that it's USB only. THAT bit a lot of people, and
>it took years to get the market to the point where
>USB-only printers were a safe sell.

That is a better analogy. For a while, printers were made with both
parallel ports and USB ports, and scanners were made with both SCSI
and USB interfaces.

But now imagine that the printer (or scanner) has a data rate which
precludes operating over the old interface, and it must have USB 2.0,
or perhaps FireWire (which is actually faster in practice).

Such a printer or scanner would certainly be expensive, and not
something bought casually. Should they build in a crippled mode and
add older interfaces, just in case someone with an old PC worth less
than $100 drops, say $1500 on this new device, and expects it to work?

>The fact that Dell's 3d try at 30in now has analog
>inputs suggests that the market is not yet ready for
>DVI (and/or HDMI or DisplayPort)-only monitors.
>Too many people have other PCs/laptops kicking around
>that they might want to hook up, if only temporarily,
>to the new LCD, via DVI single or VGA.

Sure, someone will spend that amount of money after knowing the PC
supports it, then be disappointed when the laptop doesn't. And that
person would certainly be happier with a model that supports many
different resolutions, so older machines could drive it at some level.

But I don't think such people are numerous. Honestly, how many
complaints about 30" monitors do you see, compared to the incidents of
bragging?

>> I assure you, the word "tolerate" doesn't enter into
>> the experience of owning and using a 30" panel
>> operating at 2560x1600.
>
>Yeah, true. You are either in bliss or
>in rage (because it doesn't work at all).

I guess I just can't build up any sympathy for people who spend $1300+
for a piece of technology without checking prerequisites. Let them
rage against their own shortsightedness.
--
- Mike

Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

"rjn" <email4rjn.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9bef10e4-f331-4738-9ad3-5d2ae3ab79b2@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> "Bob Myers" <nospample....DeleteThis@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Well, actually going much below 60 doesn't really
>> work all that well on most LCDs.
>
> The popular [mis]conception among those who have
> thought about it, but not read your book , is that LCD
> panels are a form of write-only frame buffer. You send
> a data set to a pixel triad, and it stays at that value
> until you send another data set, whenever.

You're right, it IS more complicated than that. The
LCD is only a sort-of "frame buffer"; it's closer to being a
very large (physically, at least) and oddly analog form of
dynamic write-only memory. As such, it DOES need to
be refreshed periodically, and there are other limitations
regarding how fast (and how slow, oddly enough) the
panel electronics (the timing controller, or "TCON," and
drivers) can be run. There have been LCDs made which
operate more slowly than 50 or 60 Hz, and there are certainly
those which operate much more rapidly - but typically in
a monitor, the panel itself is running very close to 60 Hz,
just as a sort of de-facto standard.


> Is there usually/sometimes/never a real frame buffer
> in that path? If present, it "should" completely decouple
> what the panel needs from what the host wants to send.

There is very often - I won't say "always," because there
are always exception - a real frame buffer, and even
sometimes a double buffer, because of the need for the
monitor "front end" to be able to support frame-rate
conversiion in order to handle input rates other than
60 Hz. So most often the actual displayed frame rate IS
decoupled from the input rate, unless the input rate is
within the panel's native timing range. Which is another
reason to be running an LCD monitor at its native or
"preferred" timing, always.


> Which makes it less likely than ever that avoiding dual-link
> will be accomplished by using low host frame rates.

No, avoiding dual-link DVI for such things as the 30"
2560 x 1600 monitors is going to be achieved only by
switching to one of the newer, faster digital interfaces, such
as HDMI 1.3 or (more likely in the PC workd)
DisplayPort.

> The other work-around gimmick that is even less likely is
> data reduction (e.g. sending only changed pixels).

Yes, but that trick (generically referred to as "conditional
updating" won't work with any interface that doesn't support
the passing of address information, etc., within the image.
That requires a packetized communications protocol, most
likely, and that means the only real hope we have for getting
to the "conditional update" mode will be DisplayPort. Both
of the other common digital interfaces (DVI, HDMI) are
basically just delivering a normal raster-scan video stream in
digital form instead of analog. The initial release of DisplayPort
doesn't fully take advantage of the packetized protocol either,
and so far doesn't support that mode, but it is expected to be
added in a future upgrade of the standard.

Bob M.
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

"Not Gimpy Anymore" <nogimpREMOV RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote in message
news:3KZ3j.21725$4V6.16797@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>> Is there usually/sometimes/never a real frame buffer
>> in that path? If present, it "should" completely decouple
>> what the panel needs from what the host wants to send.
>
> Short answer is "hardly ever"... Only added if it is considered
> necessary to the business to support different frame rates
> (like content intended for film, at 24 Hz multiples). Us
> "integrators" tend to follow instructions given by our (direct)
> customers (solutions providers), and allow the solutions providers
> to deal with the end user issues.... Not very pretty, but not much
> choice either.

I'm going to clarify my last response, because "NGA"
and I aren't really disagreeing. He's right in that there is
hardly ever a separate frame buffer block in the monitor
"front end" - however, the scaler/controller IC very commonly
does implement sufficient internal memory so as to enable
frame-rate conversion. A full frame's worth of, say, 1600
x 1200 video is only a little more than 5 MB, and you
can pretty easily tuck enough memory into such ICs to
handle the FRC chore. If an LCD advertises coverage of,
say, the usual 75 Hz or 85 Hz CRT-style video timings, then
it is almost certainly performing frame-rate conversion in order
to drive the LCD within its native timing range. If it's just
a 60 Hz sort of device - and there certainly are a lot of LCD
prducts out there that DO only work over a very limited timing
range - then no, it's got no need for the extra cost burden of
supporting frame-rate conversion.

> Absolutely they do skimp - if you think PC margins are slim,
> the margins on peripherals are smaller ... pennies make a
> difference.

And those of us in the systems business most certainly are
always putting the thumbscrews on you guys in the peripherals
business when it comes to cost...

> I often say that the panel makers are the only ones making
> any profit at all, and even that is largely supposition, since they
> do so well at keeping their financials disguised. The only concrete
> clue is that they are still in business.......

Yeah, and SOMEONE is willing to keep plowing billions of
dollars (well, these days, mostly won and NT$ ) into those
nice big new fabs...

Bob M.
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:36:36 -0800 (PST), rjn <email4rjn.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

> J David Ellis <nos....RemoveThis@home.org> wrote:
>
> > Currently using a Dell Inspiron E1705 that has a 1920x1200
> > 19" (diagonal) display. I'd like to buy a 22" or 23"
> > flat-panel computer monitor that has no less pixel density
> > than the E1705. Does any manufacturer offer one?
>
> 1920 on a 19in is 119 dpi, which is well beyond the 100 dpi
> threshold of "unusable" for Windows users, due to assumptions
> made by Mr.Bill long ago, and hard-coded into too many
> legacy apps, icons, bit-mapped system fonts, etc.
>
> 1920 is also as high as single-link DVI can go without
> tricks that no one wants to use so far. Tolerable LCDs
> with dual-link just only hit the market two weeks ago.
> See the "what's the deal at 30in 2560" thread here.
>
> Consequently, the market for large >100 dpi tends to be fairly
> specialized, is way above 100 dpi, and is always at least dual-link.

Many a 17-inch laptop can be configured with 1920x1200 on its built-in
screen. Try configuring one at dell.com for example.

If my calculations are correct, that's 133 dpi. Same as the LCD I am staring
at now, which is a 15-inch Thinkpad at 1600x1200.
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

In article <YKKdnfW4WekT7tbanZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d.DeleteThis@sti.net>,
J David Ellis <nospam.DeleteThis@home.org> wrote:
>Currently using a Dell Inspiron E1705 that has a 1920x1200
>19" (diagonal) display. I'd like to buy a 22" or 23"
>flat-panel computer monitor that has no less pixel density

Q: have you actually tried out a 22" or 23" display at 1920x1200,
and found it inadequate?

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease.RemoveThis@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:fjacfi$rca$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> "Not Gimpy Anymore" <nogimpREMOV.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:3KZ3j.21725$4V6.16797@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...

(ship)
>
> I'm going to clarify my last response, because "NGA"
> and I aren't really disagreeing. He's right in that there is
> hardly ever a separate frame buffer block in the monitor
> "front end" - however, the scaler/controller IC very commonly
> does implement sufficient internal memory so as to enable
> frame-rate conversion. A full frame's worth of, say, 1600
> x 1200 video is only a little more than 5 MB, and you
> can pretty easily tuck enough memory into such ICs to
> handle the FRC chore. If an LCD advertises coverage of,
> say, the usual 75 Hz or 85 Hz CRT-style video timings, then
> it is almost certainly performing frame-rate conversion in order
> to drive the LCD within its native timing range. If it's just
> a 60 Hz sort of device - and there certainly are a lot of LCD
> prducts out there that DO only work over a very limited timing
> range - then no, it's got no need for the extra cost burden of
> supporting frame-rate conversion.

Hey - Glad we can not disagree so much!!! Just wanted to
try & give input from the "penny ante" side of the business... Heh
Don't get to check in here very often - dang customers seem so
demanding these days....

>> Absolutely they do skimp - if you think PC margins are slim,
>> the margins on peripherals are smaller ... pennies make a
>> difference.
>
> And those of us in the systems business most certainly are
> always putting the thumbscrews on you guys in the peripherals
> business when it comes to cost...

Yup - 'n we feel the pain.... Maybe we're just masochistic???

>> I often say that the panel makers are the only ones making
>> any profit at all, and even that is largely supposition, since they
>> do so well at keeping their financials disguised. The only concrete
>> clue is that they are still in business.......
>
> Yeah, and SOMEONE is willing to keep plowing billions of
> dollars (well, these days, mostly won and NT$ ) into those
> nice big new fabs...

Make that won & NT$ & Yuan...... but that's our little secret.....

> Bob M.
Always good to hear from you Bob!

NGA
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

"Not Gimpy Anymore" <nogimpREMOV DeleteThis @msn.com> wrote in message
news:yGFaj.31113$lD6.18090@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> Yeah, and SOMEONE is willing to keep plowing billions of
>> dollars (well, these days, mostly won and NT$ ) into those
>> nice big new fabs...
>
> Make that won & NT$ & Yuan...... but that's our little secret.....

Well, I was talking about the module fabs, but yeah, more and
more of those are planned for the...ummm....BIGGER China,
aren't they?

That's OK...I kinda like Shanghai....

Bob M.
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution?