Best Card for Handling Video Playback & Driving Large Display

"chrisv" wrote in message
...

NTSC can never be that good. 720x480 is best-case for an
anamorphic-widescreen DVD using component-video outputs, which is not
NTSC.

Assuming that we're talking H x V, and by "NTSC" we mean the
525/60Hz 2:1 interlaced scanning format using NTSC color
encoding, the best you get in terms of luminance-channel (Y)
resolution is about 440 x 330; you don't get the full vertical
line count due to the interlaced scanning structure (see "Kell
factor" for more). It is somewhat poorer than that (esp. in
the horizontal) in terms of chroma-channel resolution.

Bob M.

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:15:28 -0600, "Harkhof"
wrote:


Is your point really that all cards are equal, given adequate bandwidth?

It is that almost all cards have plenty of bandwidth and
that while some are better at delivering a crisp picture,
that's the opposite of your issue, it is not the true
accuracy you have issue with, it's noticing the effects of
video scaling.


That has not been my experience at all. I'm not an expert by any means,
but
isn't card quality comprised of more than merely "bandwidth"?

Yes, but it has to be seen in context, what the specific
quality diference is. Further, it is taken in the context
of your post, what your specific desire was. Your need is
not a different video card, it is player software that uses
different scaling.



He could downgrade his 9600-whatever and
expect the same results if the other card has the same
scaling algorythms and he uses the same player-

Again, this has not been my experience with this display. In this machine
alone, I have had an ATI AIW 9000 Pro, a AIW 9600xt, a 9600 pro, a BVG
Geoforce 6600 (both coupled with the TV Wonder Elite) and an AIW x800xt.
By
far, the best performance, color and fluidity I've obtained has been with
the AIW x800xt. And while this card has serious gaming capabilities (in
which I have no interest), it is classified as a multimedia card with many
I/O options.

This is not typical, at the very most when comparing
different cards in 2D use you should see a sharper image due
to higher rate DAC or better output filter quality... but
that doesn't exclude lower-end cards either, only that there
is more variability in the low end.

If you had a high-bandwidth, res. and refresh then digital
can help, but not help get rid of grainy video scaling. If
that analog goes through poor output filters on the card,
getting out the old soldering iron and actually removing
those filters can also help, but seldom does one want to
hear "modify your video card and void the warranty".

You are now talking about completely different properties
than you were previously, though. Which is it you are
trying to achieve, an overall better image or removal of the
graininess? If you have both concerns, you have multiple
changes needed, not just buying (or using) another video
card. I could be wrong though, I haven't tried the latest
Catalyst drivers yet but they are to an extent backwards
compatible too so equal comparison would be among all cards.

Hmmm...I guess I wasn't clear enough, although I took it for granted that it
was clear that quality was a must, given, amongst other "clues", that the
card I showed the most interest in throughout the thread was the high end
AIW x800xt. I believe you commented on that a time or two. That, coupled
with my remarks regarding the overall performance of the x800xt, my stated
"phlosophy" of buying quality and the fact that the display for which I was
seeking a card was the 2405 led me to believe that it was understood.
However, to clarify, overall quality is a must. Why purchase a high end
monitor and scrimp on the graphics card?

What I hope for appears less & less likely. If that's the case, I can live
with it, or more likely, find a workaround. For instance, as I previously
mentioned, I neglected to try the HDTV out to the composite inputs on the
2405, although I've read that the 2405 inputs don't provide great quality.
Still, it would have been beneficial to know firsthand if that would have
provided satisfactory results.

There also is the earlier mentioned possibility of finding some sort of
external upscaler (again, just "foraging" for solutions).

And then, there is the possibility of additionally adding an HDTV tuner so
that at least some of the content would render well fullscreened on this
display.

And I mentioned earlier that I tried different software solutions, such as
BTV4, which didn't fare so well in my case. Part of the problem there may
have been not enough processing power, as it was eating up cpu cycles (this
was with the TV Wonder Elite in the machine) and seemed somewhat "sluggish"
(also a little buggy).

Now that you presumably understand what I'm looking for (which also
necessitates AGP & DVI), perhaps you might have new ideas (video card or
otherwise). And, although I wouldn;t say "money is no object", I do say
"Quality is a must".


Hark

snip

In my situation I use the vga for output from my computer, The dvi for
external video sources, and the built in tuner for NTSC. the monitor also
has component, S video, RGB and a built in FM tuner.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Harkhof wrote:

I recently acquired a Dell 2405fpw and am now looking for an *AGP* *DVI*
video card to get the most out of this monster display. I very rarely
play
games, but (aside from business apps) watch DVDs & NTSC broadcasts.

While I understand that the scaling issues involved prevent me from
obtaining perfect fullscreen video (although DVD isn't too bad, even
with
the current 9600 pro in the machine...), and even moreso, quality
(fullscreen) NTSC broadcasts, I hope to find a video card that handles
video and the upscaling of video well.

I'm thinking about the AIW x800xt, even though the multimedia software
leaves much to be desired. I suppose I could look for third party
software
solutions for broadcast video. I hear BTV4 is pretty good, if not
somewhat
cpu intensive.

I think that you are going to find that the board, as long as it is not a
real piece of crap, makes little difference in the quality of DVD display
unless you go to a workstation board which has higher grade passive
devices, but even there for DVDs the difference will be small. The ATI x
series doesn't really bring anything new to the DVD party until you get to
the x1300 and higher which have additional hardware, but even there you
only get the benefits with their decoder and it's more in reduced
processing time than in improved output quality.

You'd do better to try a different codec--ATI has been using Cyberlink of
late I believe--at one time Cyberlink was on top for DVD playback quality
but that was some time ago and right now they're trailing their
competition.

You might want to try WinDVD 7 or the Nvidia decoder, which works fine
with
ATI boards. Neither is free but both have trial versions.

As for NTSC, you might want to investigate "dscaler" which is highly
regarded for that purpose. The current release will probably not work
with
a TV Wonder Elite though--you may be stuck with the ATI applications
there,
as that has a proprietary video processing chip--dscaler 5 whenever it's
ready should be able to handle it using the DirectShow drivers if
Microsoft
hasn't changed the driver model by then.

Also, I've been considering picking up the Fusion 3 or 5 Gold HDTV card
as
well (assuming that my area gets a decent amount of QAM channels).

Nice board--note that the nvidia codec can also handle Dvico files--that
was
the most common method of using a Fusion board with MCE before Dvico got
their own MCE-compatible codec out and the nvidia still seems to do a
better job.

http://www.fusionhdtv.co.kr/eng/Products/ATSC5Gold.aspx

http://www.digitalconnection.com/Pro...fusion3qam.asp

At any rate, I appreciate whatever suggestions I can get. I'm hoping for
the best quality available for my purposes, as outlined above.

Again, AGP, DVI.

Thanks,
Hark

Specs:

AMD 64 3500+

MSI MS-7025 (NEO2 Platinum)

1 GB DDR Corsair RAM (2x512)-Dual Channel Mode

Current: ATI 9600 Pro, ATI TV Wonder Elite



Dell 2405fpw

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Bob Myers wrote:

NTSC can never be that good. 720x480 is best-case
for an anamorphic-widescreen DVD using component-
video outputs, which is not NTSC.

The DVD to component analog (YPbPr) case is never afflicted
with composite NTSC limits, other than 525(480v) lines, unless
the source master was composite NTSC.

Assuming that we're talking H x V, and by "NTSC" we mean the
525/60Hz 2:1 interlaced scanning format using NTSC color
encoding, the best you get in terms of luminance-channel (Y)
resolution is about 440 x 330;

DVD is 720x480 4:2:0 as uncompressed, although it appears
that other factors may limit the Hres to around 500 "lines",
but in any case potentially higher than broadcast NTSC.

... you don't get the full vertical line count due to the
interlaced scanning structure (see "Kell factor" for more).

If the player or the display do correct de-interlacing of
adjacent fields into a single progressive frame, I don't
see why you wouldn't, for luma anyway. And YPbPr
supports progressive.

In the context of the basenote, however, the real trick
is finding an AGP, PCI or PCIe video import card that
accepts YPbPr. They seem to be rare and expensive.
Rarer yet, I imagine, would be the same with DRM-compliant
DVI or HDMI in.

--
Regards, Bob Niland
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:34:19 -0600, "harkhof"
wrote:


Hmmm...I guess I wasn't clear enough, although I took it for granted that it
was clear that quality was a must, given, amongst other "clues", that the
card I showed the most interest in throughout the thread was the high end
AIW x800xt. I believe you commented on that a time or two. That, coupled
with my remarks regarding the overall performance of the x800xt, my stated
"phlosophy" of buying quality and the fact that the display for which I was
seeking a card was the 2405 led me to believe that it was understood.
However, to clarify, overall quality is a must. Why purchase a high end
monitor and scrimp on the graphics card?

You seem to have a bit of misinformation regarding video
cards. "Scrimp" is simply non-applicable. Todays
higher-end video cards don't have more "quality", they have
more 3D performance. They are optimized for gaming as long
ago all cards had fine 2D performance. Unless I overlooked
it, you express no desire for gaming performance or other
demanding 3D uses, only describing 2D use.

There's no quality gain in 2D from a gaming video card. The
video card function is simple, push the pixels to the
display. With analog, DAC speed and output filter matter
(as I'd mentioned previously), but with DVI, even that is
mostly a non-issue. There is no reasonable purchase of a
more expensive card to get "quality" at 2D.

So contrary to the idea that you'd be scrimping, what you'd
be doing is buying a card with lower power usage, lower heat
generation, and quite often, quieter operation due to no fan
or a lower RPM fan which also reduces one of the earliest
failure points in the typical system. Lower heat also means
lesser exhaust demands- lower chassis fan noise and lower
flow rate also means less dust accumulation and/or longer
intervals between chassis filter changes/cleaning.

In short, if the goa is to game then buying such a card is a
reasonable choice. Otherwise it's unnecessary, and
potentially problematic without benefit.




What I hope for appears less & less likely. If that's the case, I can live
with it, or more likely, find a workaround. For instance, as I previously
mentioned, I neglected to try the HDTV out to the composite inputs on the
2405, although I've read that the 2405 inputs don't provide great quality.

There's little point to trying it, composite input would
only make sense for TV use from a dedicated tuner, otherwise
all it could hope to do is get rid of some pixelation by
degrading the signal a little.

Ultimately though, any way you look at it that's what will
happen, as there's no way to spontaneously generate new
"accurate" pixel information out of nothing. At best it
would do some kind of averaging, maybe even a bicubic
filtering and soften the grains but then it's also a loss of
detail, at least perception-wise it is. On the other hand
if your viewing was at a greater distance it might be
preferrible to not do that at all as the grains begin to
disappear further away. Either way, the input hardware and
player software determine what the video card's output is
and no matter which video card you have, it's just doing to
do what it is designed to, send that grainy image to the
monitor, as it rightly should- a vide card is not supposed
to re-interpret what it's being sent and change it.


Still, it would have been beneficial to know firsthand if that would have
provided satisfactory results.

There also is the earlier mentioned possibility of finding some sort of
external upscaler (again, just "foraging" for solutions).

Yes, external would mean software though, not a hardware
box.



And then, there is the possibility of additionally adding an HDTV tuner so
that at least some of the content would render well fullscreened on this
display.


Agreed, for whatever HD content you can get it is the best
chance for good results.



And I mentioned earlier that I tried different software solutions, such as
BTV4, which didn't fare so well in my case. Part of the problem there may
have been not enough processing power, as it was eating up cpu cycles (this
was with the TV Wonder Elite in the machine) and seemed somewhat "sluggish"
(also a little buggy).

Yes it seems practically all of them have some significant
bugs so ultimately it's trial and error to see if the bugs
effect your particular use. So far as the TV Wonder Elite
goes, it does have more potential that some due to it's
digital tuner (digital as-in, signal processor, not as-in,
digital signal), but it may also be more limiting in what
3rd party software you can use, as ATI has always had a lot
of limitations and driver quirks.



Now that you presumably understand what I'm looking for (which also
necessitates AGP & DVI),

Does it?
I still don't understand, apparently because you made no
mention of gaming. There is no need whatsoever for AGP
without dozen of MB or more worth of textures as when
gaming. While AGP or PCI Express is a slight boost to
everyday uses of the system and thus still desirable in a
general way, what you have described does not rule out PCI
any more than anyone else doing anything else would.

DVI, quality-wise sometimes it's useful but the whole
video-scaling and graininess issue, it wouldn't help at all.

perhaps you might have new ideas (video card or
otherwise). And, although I wouldn;t say "money is no object", I do say
"Quality is a must".

What are you trying to do?
I mean, you're already running a video card, what magical
thing do you expect with a different card? Yes you wrote
"quality", well where is this quality loss, specifically,
that you expect another card to improve?

Right now with any random video card that uses DVI, you
should have the maximum quality your monitor can give you.
If that isn't the case then consider your present card
defective and simply choose any other card.

"rjn" wrote in message
oups.com...
Assuming that we're talking H x V, and by "NTSC" we mean the
525/60Hz 2:1 interlaced scanning format using NTSC color
encoding, the best you get in terms of luminance-channel (Y)
resolution is about 440 x 330;

DVD is 720x480 4:2:0 as uncompressed, although it appears
that other factors may limit the Hres to around 500 "lines",
but in any case potentially higher than broadcast NTSC.

That's the pixel format stored on the disc, yes - however,
the actual resolution delivered to the viewer will never be
quite this good.

... you don't get the full vertical line count due to the
interlaced scanning structure (see "Kell factor" for more).

If the player or the display do correct de-interlacing of
adjacent fields into a single progressive frame, I don't
see why you wouldn't, for luma anyway. And YPbPr
supports progressive.

One big reason is that the two fields of the interlaced
frame represent samples in time separated by one
field period, or 16.67 ms; unless objects in the field
are absolutely stationary (and how often does THAT
happen with TV video?), there is an unavoidable loss
of vertical resolution as a result. The assumed "Kell
factor" mentioned previously represents the expected
loss in effective resolution (i.e., not how many lines
you have, but how much detail you can actually resolve)
that comes from all factors in an interlaced system.
For standard television, it is generally assumed to be
about 0.7, which for a 480i format translates to
about 330-340 lines' worth of effective resolution.

Losses along the horizontal axis result from the
obvious (limited bandwidth in the playback and
display systems) and resolution limits in the display
device (such as dot/pixel pitch or spot size in a CRT).
As you noted, the DVD format gives 720 samples/line
in the luminance (Y) channel, but only 360 in the
chrominance; it's a bit complicated to translate that
into a comparable X x Y pixels of RGB sort of
number. For over-the-air broadcast, though, the
system may be assumed to be "square" (identical
resolution, in resolvable lines/inch or whatever, for
both vertical and horizontal), so something roughly
equivalent to a 450 pixel or so RGB image isn't
unreasonable. DVD and over-the-air digital
will also give up SOMETHING to compression
artifacts, although it's hard to predict just what
that's going to translate to - for one thing, it's
content-dependent.


Bob M.

Bob Myers wrote:

If the player or the display do correct de-interlacing of
adjacent fields into a single progressive frame, I don't
see why you wouldn't, for luma anyway. And YPbPr
supports progressive.

One big reason is that the two fields of the interlaced
frame represent samples in time separated by one
field period, or 16.67 ms; unless objects in the field
are absolutely stationary (and how often does THAT
happen with TV video?), ...

That happens routinely when the source is 24fps
film, and the player is correctly de-interlacing
to a progressive signal.

It also happens when the video-sourced image is
of a still-life, like title card, or embedded data (e.g.
subtitles) that persist for many frames, and it's this
sort of text where the full 480v would matter.

--
Regards, Bob Niland
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:54:22 -0600, "Harkhof" wrote:

If I could clarify...I do understand, given the size and high res of the
2405, that I am hard pressed to get quality full screen TV. My perception
is
not that bigger and better hardware will solve this dilemma, but rather a
hope that there is some video card out there that will handle scaling NTSC
broadcasts in such a way as to provide the highest possible quality. I
know
that this "quality" will not be perfect and without blemish, but I'm
looking
for "the best I can do" at this point in time. Nor do I believe that
dropping a bundle will resolve the issue, although I am a strong believer
in
the philosophy that choosing quality products, even though they may cost
more, pays off in results and longevity.

Yeah its your money and you seem to understand what you are buying so
obviously spend it anyway you want. My neighbor insists on buying ONLY
Sony and Samsung TVs and bought a huge projection screen a while ago
and recently I told him to look at the Olevia and he looked at it and
decide to spend a ton of more money on a Sony and Samsung LCD TV for
his bedroom and his son.

I guess the issue would be ---- most people think most of the new
expensive cards besides some features like DVI , dual DVI or whatever
you might want , are mainly desirable for games. And that 90% of the
power you get from the higher cost is for high powered game playing.
So to most I suppose its kind of an extravagance to buy such a card
for only watching movies and doing spreadsheets and word processing.

Well, I also like room to grow. My interests run the gamut, and, although
I'm not a gamer, I do dabble in all sorts of things, including digital
photography, photoshop, the occasional video editing and I guess whatever
else may capture my interest (yes, I know this is info I failed to
submit...). This will be the last card I buy for this board, as it is AGP,
but with a decent card, & possibly a cpu upgrade later (or sooner), I'll
most likely get another few years out of it.

In fact I hardly see any reviews talk about that indepth. Its almost
completely about performance measures in terms of graphics for gaming
- one chart after another.

The area where they talk about movies and pictures in reviews
generally tends to be with LCD screens because of their flaws.

With tuner cards they do of course.


And, incidentally, and even though the fullscreen TV quality is not
significantly better than even the AIW 9000 Pro (but it *is* better), the
AIW x800xt really makes this monitor snap in all other areas. This card
obviously shines as a gaming card (I even dug up "Far Cry" and played a
few
levels, and in the process understood that my "gaming days" were over...I
was light headed for 2 hours after...), but it is also an excellent
overall
card and does quite well on this display. In fact, ATI touts this card as
a
"multimedia card", mostly, I think, due to all the I/O possibilities (and
the TV & video capabilities as well).

If you have the money go for it. I think we are biased more towards
the value side as money has a much greater impact on us so the price
performance ratio is weighted more on how much you get for each buck.
It may not weigh anywhere near as much to you as it does for many here
and the card you mention isnt ridiculously expensive. In fact theres a
good deal on it right now. Since the next gen ATI cards have come out
- the 300 to 800 cards have fallen to decent levels. I was just
reading the hype on the ATI 1900 which they rushed out right after the
1800 in a bid to beat Nvidias top card , its awesome but the price was
$600.

See at the moment Im not sure there would be much of a difference
watching movies with a 600 or 800 or even a 300 and a 800 so the extra
money seems like an extravagance that could be spent elsewhere like
the HDTV card which is around 100-150 I think.

Actually, my plan is to buy both: probably an AIW, and a Fusion Gold. I
guess the question there is which Fusion, 3 or 5. I haven't researched that
one yet. And, as you say, the X800XT *is* pretty reasonable for a card of
that calibur. And I'm fortunate in that I can legitimately offset at least
some of the costs.

Or a better system since I think the the Fusion HDTV card depends alot
on the software and PC CPU so it puts a fair load on your system from
the posts I keep reading about it. Since you are moving to an 800
which is PCI express only last time I checked you either have a new
system or are thinking of buying a new system. Actually if you get
some special DELL deal etc sometimes an extra performance card can be
fairly cheap as an addon so thats a factor too I suppose. I recall
many were getting 6800s fairly cheap relatively speaking as an addon
last year.

Nope, not a new system, and the card is AGP. I built the system a year or
two ago when xp64 was being tested. The cpu is a 3500+.

I think the 800 AIW was $300 though retal by itself. I guess the most
common response youll probably get unless there are some features we
dont know about , since you arent into gaming you could get the 600
or 700 and save money. The only thing is I dont think there is a AIW
version of the lesser cards so if you wanted an all in one solution
you might have to get that in that generation of ATI cards. You could
buy a separate sapphire 550 theatrix card but they were $75 when they
were first introed but I think increased in price since then.

The Hauppauge is said to be the rival of the 550 cards.
You can get the Hauppauge 150 if you get the barebones version
no software around $60-70 on Amazon and other places online.

Ive never seen the 250/350 but heres what ive read when I was
feverishly reading several sites I came across when I was all hot and
bothered about the "revolutionary" ATI 550 tuner card chip. At these
sites and several people were on all of them and went out and bought
both cards and uploaded clips and still images , lots of them so
people could compare them. There were lots of posts commenting on the
clips and the cards too as more and more people were buying them then
on those sites. Several had the older 250/350. The 150 used a new chip
that drastically reduced the cost of the Hauppauge hardware
compression cards but had the exact same functionality and supposedly
the same quality. Actually the people who owned both claimed the 150
actually looked a bit better, not a big difference. But with the
strangely high cost of the 250/350 everyone was buying the 150 then.
There was also the 500 dual tuner cards which I think used the 150
card chip too.

It should be good enough if you want to use it with a cheaper card
such as the 800 non-AIW which can be as low as 200 and the 700 which
can be as low as $130 or the 600.

It was generally a toss up in quality between the 550 vs Hauppauge 150
from the clips and some said they liked one card or another because of
slight differences. The 550 at the time though cost more and had less
compatibility with software you generally had to use ATI software what
came with the card. Im sure its better now.


And an HD card may well be my next step, although that would mean I had 2
tuners in one machine (not necessarily a bad thing, right?), as HD is so
young and thus limited in its viewing choices. I hear the fusion card is
great, but I still have to check with my cable provider to see what is
available in this area.

Dont know much about the Fusion as I never owned one.
Heres a thread on it where they say they had to buy an analog card to
make MCE recognize the fusion card. Another poster says the HDTV
output looks great with a 9800 card.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archi.../t-457434.html


I'm not denying that software is a vital part of the equation here (and
again, it is TV that is my biggest problem. I find *most* DVD video quite
acceptable at a res of 1920x1080, although one alwasy hopes for better
:-})
However, after removing the AIW x800xt and putting the 9600 pro in, there
is
a fairly noticable difference in display qualities.

Hmmm. Well you are the ultimate judge on that. If you notice a
difference and have the money its your call. Im going to test that Ha.
Just curious. I bought all this junk over Xmas and now had the HDTV
LCD on my desk, 19" LCD and the 3 cards and both AMD 64 sytems at my
desk. Im getting my dual core hopefully this month already ordered
it. Im going to compare my 9600 vs my 800XL and see if I can tell the
difference with movies on my LCD and HDTV LCD not exactly a definitive
test but Im just curious now whether Ill see anything.

Im actually stuck with a Best Buy 120 GiftCard so who knows I may end
up buying a HDTV card but then I get HDTV digital cable and can just
feed it into my LCD HDTV so its not that crucial anymore.

Youll laugh but Compusa had this insane deal where you sign up for 180
annual cost AOL signups and they gave you a $250 GC , so tons of
people rushed out and signed up multiple times. I did 3 times and now
have to pay for 3 AOL accounts I dont use but I did get to use 3 x 250
GC.

The colors aren't as
crisp, motion not as smooth. The AIW 800xt card truly is quality (too bad
about the accompanying software...) and does very well with this monitor
(other than, of course, with NTSC). And, as I previously stated, the I/O
capabilities are very extensive, which is very attractive, and while the
x800xl is touted as a gaming card, the AIW x800xt is described as a
"multimedia" card, and rightly so.

I also have been making forays into some kind of external "upscaling"
device. I hope to find at least an acceptable solution to this issue
without
dropping a bundle, but, for my purposes, it *is* worth spending the time
and
a reasonable sum to acheive acceptable results.

I want to get an upconverting DVD player to hook up to my LCD HDTV.
My first choice is the incredibly hyped OPPO for $200.

This has been getting so much raves. Not perfect some have bashed it
for this and that but there are tons of people who claim you can tell
the difference in the quality of the movie output. Look that up on
Amazon and read the reviews.

My second cheaper choice is the Philips upconverting DVD player which
is less than half the cost and many say its fine too though probably
not as good I assume as the OPPO but its getting good consumer
reviews.

The upscaling DVD player is not a bad idea at all, although, as I've said,
the DVD video on this set up is not too bad. As for the video card, I'm not
itching to buy something ridiculously beyond my needs (especially after
reading theresponses to this thread), but the truth is (as you've stated),
ATI doesn't make the AIW in the lower priced AGP/DVI cards. I suppose I
could go with the 9800 pro AIW, but for $70 more, the AIW x800xt is a better
buy. Also, a seperate tuner is not especially viable (although I *did* try
the Wonder Elite) due to the fact that most of the slots in this machine are
taken, and I would like to save a slot for the HD tuner. However, before I
commit myself, I still have to research some issues, such as how fast a cpu
my NEO2 Plat will support (MSI is somewhat vague on this issue, and fails to
answer emails...).

Thanks you for your detailed and informative response. Please excuse my
delay in responding.


Hark

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:34:19 -0600, "harkhof"
wrote:


Hmmm...I guess I wasn't clear enough, although I took it for granted that
it
was clear that quality was a must, given, amongst other "clues", that the
card I showed the most interest in throughout the thread was the high end
AIW x800xt. I believe you commented on that a time or two. That, coupled
with my remarks regarding the overall performance of the x800xt, my stated
"phlosophy" of buying quality and the fact that the display for which I
was
seeking a card was the 2405 led me to believe that it was understood.
However, to clarify, overall quality is a must. Why purchase a high end
monitor and scrimp on the graphics card?

You seem to have a bit of misinformation regarding video
cards. "Scrimp" is simply non-applicable. Todays
higher-end video cards don't have more "quality", they have
more 3D performance. They are optimized for gaming as long
ago all cards had fine 2D performance. Unless I overlooked
it, you express no desire for gaming performance or other
demanding 3D uses, only describing 2D use.

There's no quality gain in 2D from a gaming video card. The
video card function is simple, push the pixels to the
display. With analog, DAC speed and output filter matter
(as I'd mentioned previously), but with DVI, even that is
mostly a non-issue. There is no reasonable purchase of a
more expensive card to get "quality" at 2D.

So contrary to the idea that you'd be scrimping, what you'd
be doing is buying a card with lower power usage, lower heat
generation, and quite often, quieter operation due to no fan
or a lower RPM fan which also reduces one of the earliest
failure points in the typical system. Lower heat also means
lesser exhaust demands- lower chassis fan noise and lower
flow rate also means less dust accumulation and/or longer
intervals between chassis filter changes/cleaning.

In short, if the goa is to game then buying such a card is a
reasonable choice. Otherwise it's unnecessary, and
potentially problematic without benefit.


No, gaming is definitely not the goal. And, having heard what you and others
have had to say on the matter, I'm much better informed and understand that
the high end cards may be overkill. So your remarks have not fallen by the
wayside, but there are other points to consider, which are mentioned below.




What I hope for appears less & less likely. If that's the case, I can live
with it, or more likely, find a workaround. For instance, as I previously
mentioned, I neglected to try the HDTV out to the composite inputs on the
2405, although I've read that the 2405 inputs don't provide great quality.

There's little point to trying it, composite input would
only make sense for TV use from a dedicated tuner, otherwise
all it could hope to do is get rid of some pixelation by
degrading the signal a little.

I did try it with a digital cable box without any significantly different
results.

Ultimately though, any way you look at it that's what will
happen, as there's no way to spontaneously generate new
"accurate" pixel information out of nothing. At best it
would do some kind of averaging, maybe even a bicubic
filtering and soften the grains but then it's also a loss of
detail, at least perception-wise it is. On the other hand
if your viewing was at a greater distance it might be
preferrible to not do that at all as the grains begin to
disappear further away. Either way, the input hardware and
player software determine what the video card's output is
and no matter which video card you have, it's just doing to
do what it is designed to, send that grainy image to the
monitor, as it rightly should- a vide card is not supposed
to re-interpret what it's being sent and change it.


Still, it would have been beneficial to know firsthand if that would have
provided satisfactory results.

There also is the earlier mentioned possibility of finding some sort of
external upscaler (again, just "foraging" for solutions).

Yes, external would mean software though, not a hardware
box.



And then, there is the possibility of additionally adding an HDTV tuner so
that at least some of the content would render well fullscreened on this
display.


Agreed, for whatever HD content you can get it is the best
chance for good results.



And I mentioned earlier that I tried different software solutions, such as
BTV4, which didn't fare so well in my case. Part of the problem there may
have been not enough processing power, as it was eating up cpu cycles
(this
was with the TV Wonder Elite in the machine) and seemed somewhat
"sluggish"
(also a little buggy).

Yes it seems practically all of them have some significant
bugs so ultimately it's trial and error to see if the bugs
effect your particular use. So far as the TV Wonder Elite
goes, it does have more potential that some due to it's
digital tuner (digital as-in, signal processor, not as-in,
digital signal), but it may also be more limiting in what
3rd party software you can use, as ATI has always had a lot
of limitations and driver quirks.



Now that you presumably understand what I'm looking for (which also
necessitates AGP & DVI),

Does it?
I still don't understand, apparently because you made no
mention of gaming. There is no need whatsoever for AGP
without dozen of MB or more worth of textures as when
gaming. While AGP or PCI Express is a slight boost to
everyday uses of the system and thus still desirable in a
general way, what you have described does not rule out PCI
any more than anyone else doing anything else would.

DVI, quality-wise sometimes it's useful but the whole
video-scaling and graininess issue, it wouldn't help at all.

Yes, thanks to you and others in this group (and other sources), I
understand that now. However, it would be silly for me to occupy one of the
few PCI slots I have left when I have an AGP slot sitting there (also, I
plan to use a slot for the HD tuner card). And indeed, I'm hardly one to
take a technological step backward, especially knowing that I will wish to
have the ability to try out new things.

As far as DVI, there truly is a noticable difference (and I *have* tried
this monitor out with several cards, DVI, VGA, the gamut), but that aside, I
am using this monitor on two machines via a KVM for the mouse & keyboard and
the VGA connection for one machine, the DVI for the machine in question.


perhaps you might have new ideas (video card or
otherwise). And, although I wouldn;t say "money is no object", I do say
"Quality is a must".

What are you trying to do?
I mean, you're already running a video card, what magical
thing do you expect with a different card? Yes you wrote
"quality", well where is this quality loss, specifically,
that you expect another card to improve?

Right now with any random video card that uses DVI, you
should have the maximum quality your monitor can give you.
If that isn't the case then consider your present card
defective and simply choose any other card.

Even though what you say regarding gaming vs. video and NTSC demands on a
card seems accurate, I still need to install a card that will provide
windowed TV, and the AIWs seem to be the best game in town for that (AFAIK).
That being the case, the "lowest grade" DVI AIW is the 9800 pro, and for an
extra $70, I might as well go with the newer generation. Also, I do tend to
dabble in many things, and I have failed to mention a few other functions
this card may perform as well (for which you may berate me if you wish...).
I have been known to do photo editing (via Photoshop) and the occasional
video editing & importing (although I haven't done that for awhile). The
reality is that I often foray into new areas of technology and like to have
the "headroom" to do whatever I wish with a card.

The result of all my questioning, prodding and poking is this: I still
haven't made a decision on which card to go with, although the x800xt still
looks pretty good for the reasons mentioned, but I do definitely plan on
buying a new video card, an HD tuner and possibly a cpu (these cards (such
as HD tuners) with the onboard decoders/encoders [for those that have both]
really seem to eat cpu cycles...go figure. You'd think that they would take
a load *off* the cpu). I also plan on subscribing to cable HD service to see
how that fares.

Or, on the other hand, depending on how fast a cpu my NEO2 Platinum (MSI
MS-7025) will take, I may wind up buying another board, dual Athlon cpu, and
yes, another card (in addition to the HD card). So, I have other issues to
look into as well. Will it ever end?

Thanks again for your time,
Hark

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:42:19 -0600, "harkhof"
wrote:

There is no need whatsoever for AGP
without dozen of MB or more worth of textures as when
gaming. While AGP or PCI Express is a slight boost to
everyday uses of the system and thus still desirable in a
general way, what you have described does not rule out PCI
any more than anyone else doing anything else would.

DVI, quality-wise sometimes it's useful but the whole
video-scaling and graininess issue, it wouldn't help at all.

Yes, thanks to you and others in this group (and other sources), I
understand that now. However, it would be silly for me to occupy one of the
few PCI slots I have left when I have an AGP slot sitting there (also, I
plan to use a slot for the HD tuner card). And indeed, I'm hardly one to
take a technological step backward, especially knowing that I will wish to
have the ability to try out new things.


While your needs didn't require AGP or PCI Express, I didn't
mean to suggest you should aim for PCI, only that that bus
in itself is not a problem that would interfere with your
goal.




As far as DVI, there truly is a noticable difference (and I *have* tried
this monitor out with several cards, DVI, VGA, the gamut), but that aside, I
am using this monitor on two machines via a KVM for the mouse & keyboard and
the VGA connection for one machine, the DVI for the machine in question.


It does help with high bandwidth (hi res and refresh...
depends on what monitor supports), but I'm beginnning to
suspect your panel type has the most to do with the
graininess seen in video. Is it a TN 6-bit panel? That
alone will cause grains regardless of the video card, a
theoretically "perfect" setup will still be grainy on such
an LCD.



Even though what you say regarding gaming vs. video and NTSC demands on a
card seems accurate, I still need to install a card that will provide
windowed TV, and the AIWs seem to be the best game in town for that (AFAIK).

Most any card with a tuner on it will provide that, it need
not be integrated into an AIW or other video card. I was
under the impression that you already had a PCI ATI tuner
card, which should suffice, no?


That being the case, the "lowest grade" DVI AIW is the 9800 pro, and for an
extra $70, I might as well go with the newer generation. Also, I do tend to
dabble in many things, and I have failed to mention a few other functions
this card may perform as well (for which you may berate me if you wish...).
I have been known to do photo editing (via Photoshop) and the occasional
video editing & importing (although I haven't done that for awhile). The
reality is that I often foray into new areas of technology and like to have
the "headroom" to do whatever I wish with a card.


IMO, you should buy whatever you decide on from a seller
with good return policy. It can be well worth the ~$8
return shipping and a restocking cost to get whatever suits
your tastes.



Will it ever end?



End? No it never does.