If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Note the low refresh frequency when driving two digital and one CRT on the
Parhelia...but only noticeable on the CRT. It's better to have matching monitor type when driving three monitors. http://www.killamanjaro.linux-dude.c...09%20small.jpg Sony since sold - yippeee!!! "KJ" wrote in message om... The last monitor I had was a Sony 21" Artisan....AVOID THEM LIKE THE PLAGUE!!! For the cash, you'd think they'd be good, but mine was horribly mis-converged, and I couldn't adjust out the convergence across the screen. I could get the center tack-sharp, then the quality was crap 6" from center and was progressively worse out to the edges. It did, however, have some of the best color rendition of any monitor, at any price, I've ever seen; and the color adjustments were good. Unfortunately the color adjustments can't make up for the horrible focus anywhere out from center. That experience with the Sony CRT made me run for a pair of Samsung SyncMaster 191T LCD's. My eyes are thanking me now, even though I cannot have the same POTENTIAL level of CRT output, the great and CONSISTENT output is better than the single Sony 21" by a large margin -not to mention saved desktop space and greater display area. The digital connectors are great. Color profiling is MUCH EASIER!!! =) "HMSDOC" wrote in message ... I am not sure that my printer Epson 2200 can produce that many colors and what I care about most is the final output, so while I want the best image I am not sure that the Gigacolor is really all that helpful to me. Based on what I have read almost everyone says Matrox is best at 2D but by how much. Seems like almost everywhere I read I am told that the difference is minimal unless, perhaps, one is using a 21 inch monitor at high res. So the question is at my monitor size will I see a meaningful difference, if not then by getting ATI I get the gaming option for free. Also, from what I have read the drivers are a bit quirky with Matrox and modern boards and have also heard of image banding problems with the Parhelia in specific. So I am vasilating (?sp) and while I was previously strongly in favor of the Matrox now I am not so sure. Howard If you have a good CRT, and want to use the program for (among other things) Photoshop, like the original poster, the Parhelia lets you see pictures in 10 bits per colour. That can be a very significant difference, especially for nuances of green and grey. Also, all ATI cards I've tried don't have a rock steady picture in high resolutions (1920x1440 and up) -- the image seems to vibrate or swim. I even blamed the monitor for a while, until I got a Parhelia. Regards, -- *Art |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What do you think of the Samsung NF series CRT monitors, if you have seen them.
Howard |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
HMSDOC wrote:
What makes you say this...most of what I have read syas that perhaps a touch worse but very subjectively and minimally so! If you've got a really clear monitor, you can notice the difference from going from a Matrox card to something else. The text doesn't look as fine. I'm not sure if it's worth paying huge money for unless you're a professional, but there is an appreciable difference in some contexts. As for nVidia cards, those benchmark-tuned pixel chewers are so bad at colours that even my onboard S3 Savage looks good in comparison :| |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:31:51 GMT
"KJ" wrote: Note the low refresh frequency when driving two digital and one CRT on the Parhelia...but only noticeable on the CRT. It's better to have matching monitor type when driving three monitors. http://www.killamanjaro.linux-dude.c...09%20small.jpg Sony since sold - yippeee!!! If you're talking about the darker area at the top of the screen in the jpg you linked, that is perfectly normal for a photo of a CRT--you can even see it in movies and broadcast TV shows sometimes. Unless the camera is timed to exactly capture one scan you'll see that. LCDs work on a different principle and don't have a scan per se, so no darker area. "KJ" wrote in message om... The last monitor I had was a Sony 21" Artisan....AVOID THEM LIKE THE PLAGUE!!! For the cash, you'd think they'd be good, but mine was horribly mis-converged, and I couldn't adjust out the convergence across the screen. I could get the center tack-sharp, then the quality was crap 6" from center and was progressively worse out to the edges. It did, however, have some of the best color rendition of any monitor, at any price, I've ever seen; and the color adjustments were good. Unfortunately the color adjustments can't make up for the horrible focus anywhere out from center. That experience with the Sony CRT made me run for a pair of Samsung SyncMaster 191T LCD's. My eyes are thanking me now, even though I cannot have the same POTENTIAL level of CRT output, the great and CONSISTENT output is better than the single Sony 21" by a large margin -not to mention saved desktop space and greater display area. The digital connectors are great. Color profiling is MUCH EASIER!!! =) "HMSDOC" wrote in message ... I am not sure that my printer Epson 2200 can produce that many colors and what I care about most is the final output, so while I want the best image I am not sure that the Gigacolor is really all that helpful to me. Based on what I have read almost everyone says Matrox is best at 2D but by how much. Seems like almost everywhere I read I am told that the difference is minimal unless, perhaps, one is using a 21 inch monitor at high res. So the question is at my monitor size will I see a meaningful difference, if not then by getting ATI I get the gaming option for free. Also, from what I have read the drivers are a bit quirky with Matrox and modern boards and have also heard of image banding problems with the Parhelia in specific. So I am vasilating (?sp) and while I was previously strongly in favor of the Matrox now I am not so sure. Howard If you have a good CRT, and want to use the program for (among other things) Photoshop, like the original poster, the Parhelia lets you see pictures in 10 bits per colour. That can be a very significant difference, especially for nuances of green and grey. Also, all ATI cards I've tried don't have a rock steady picture in high resolutions (1920x1440 and up) -- the image seems to vibrate or swim. I even blamed the monitor for a while, until I got a Parhelia. Regards, -- *Art -- -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Hi,
In message , KJ writes Note the low refresh frequency when driving two digital and one CRT on the Parhelia...but only noticeable on the CRT. It's better to have matching monitor type when driving three monitors. http://www.killamanjaro.linux-dude.c...09%20small.jpg I don't think I understand this. The Parhelia cannot drive two digital (DVI) outputs plus a CRT. It can drive three analogue outputs, or one digital plus two analogue, so at least one of the flat panels in the picture linked above is being driven with an analogue signal. Since flat panel monitors are physically incapable of "flickering" in the same manner as a CRT (whether they are driven with an analogue or a digital signal) the picture is exactly what I would expect. Did I miss something? A good many flat panels can accept an analogue signal at up to 85Hz, so even if you have to run all three displays at the same vertical refresh, you should be able to achieve sensible settings given good displays. -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I stand corrected. You are correct. I should have written two LCD's and
one CRT, rather than refer to the LCD's as digitals. No perceptable flicker on the LCD's. "Glenn Booth" wrote in message ... Hi, In message , KJ writes Note the low refresh frequency when driving two digital and one CRT on the Parhelia...but only noticeable on the CRT. It's better to have matching monitor type when driving three monitors. http://www.killamanjaro.linux-dude.c...09%20small.jpg I don't think I understand this. The Parhelia cannot drive two digital (DVI) outputs plus a CRT. It can drive three analogue outputs, or one digital plus two analogue, so at least one of the flat panels in the picture linked above is being driven with an analogue signal. Since flat panel monitors are physically incapable of "flickering" in the same manner as a CRT (whether they are driven with an analogue or a digital signal) the picture is exactly what I would expect. Did I miss something? A good many flat panels can accept an analogue signal at up to 85Hz, so even if you have to run all three displays at the same vertical refresh, you should be able to achieve sensible settings given good displays. -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I am very familiar with the persistence of vision, and CRT scanning
frequencies. However, the CRT monitor does flicker enough to give me headache after much shorter extended periods than the LCD's do. The degree of flicker will vary for some individuals, but 70Hz on a CRT is too slow a refresh for me - at least with the persistence duration of the phosphors on the Artisan. "J.Clarke" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:31:51 GMT "KJ" wrote: Note the low refresh frequency when driving two digital and one CRT on the Parhelia...but only noticeable on the CRT. It's better to have matching monitor type when driving three monitors. http://www.killamanjaro.linux-dude.c...09%20small.jpg Sony since sold - yippeee!!! If you're talking about the darker area at the top of the screen in the jpg you linked, that is perfectly normal for a photo of a CRT--you can even see it in movies and broadcast TV shows sometimes. Unless the camera is timed to exactly capture one scan you'll see that. LCDs work on a different principle and don't have a scan per se, so no darker area. "KJ" wrote in message om... The last monitor I had was a Sony 21" Artisan....AVOID THEM LIKE THE PLAGUE!!! For the cash, you'd think they'd be good, but mine was horribly mis-converged, and I couldn't adjust out the convergence across the screen. I could get the center tack-sharp, then the quality was crap 6" from center and was progressively worse out to the edges. It did, however, have some of the best color rendition of any monitor, at any price, I've ever seen; and the color adjustments were good. Unfortunately the color adjustments can't make up for the horrible focus anywhere out from center. That experience with the Sony CRT made me run for a pair of Samsung SyncMaster 191T LCD's. My eyes are thanking me now, even though I cannot have the same POTENTIAL level of CRT output, the great and CONSISTENT output is better than the single Sony 21" by a large margin -not to mention saved desktop space and greater display area. The digital connectors are great. Color profiling is MUCH EASIER!!! =) "HMSDOC" wrote in message ... I am not sure that my printer Epson 2200 can produce that many colors and what I care about most is the final output, so while I want the best image I am not sure that the Gigacolor is really all that helpful to me. Based on what I have read almost everyone says Matrox is best at 2D but by how much. Seems like almost everywhere I read I am told that the difference is minimal unless, perhaps, one is using a 21 inch monitor at high res. So the question is at my monitor size will I see a meaningful difference, if not then by getting ATI I get the gaming option for free. Also, from what I have read the drivers are a bit quirky with Matrox and modern boards and have also heard of image banding problems with the Parhelia in specific. So I am vasilating (?sp) and while I was previously strongly in favor of the Matrox now I am not so sure. Howard If you have a good CRT, and want to use the program for (among other things) Photoshop, like the original poster, the Parhelia lets you see pictures in 10 bits per colour. That can be a very significant difference, especially for nuances of green and grey. Also, all ATI cards I've tried don't have a rock steady picture in high resolutions (1920x1440 and up) -- the image seems to vibrate or swim. I even blamed the monitor for a while, until I got a Parhelia. Regards, -- *Art -- -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
comparison between geforce 6600 and matrox parhelia | vectorsigma | General | 6 | December 30th 04 02:04 AM |
P4C800 DELUXE AND MATROX PARHELIA | Elliot Taynor | Asus Motherboards | 3 | December 30th 03 09:41 AM |
Matrox Parhelia | Blankman | Matrox Videocards | 4 | September 11th 03 03:12 AM |
Matrox Parhelia 128MB & Gigabyte GA-8knxp | unbekannt | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | August 31st 03 04:29 PM |
A7N8X-Deluxe and Matrox Parhelia Video Card | Greg | Asus Motherboards | 0 | July 18th 03 04:55 AM |