Observations on a UPS - follow up to a previous post

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:40:09 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


Well I'm sorry too, but it is you who is wrong. You would be right if we
were talking a signal that was being converted back and forth between
types
or standards, but in the case of a computer generated picture, we are not.
We are talking a digitally created image of something that needs to be an
analogue one for our eyes to see. Whether the conversion from digital to
analogue takes place at the video card, or at the face of the monitor, it
is
still a necessity that it takes place. The ultimate goal is to make it
look
as lifelike as possible. If you think that by making it look sharper or in
some way different (or in your opinion, better) than real life, then you
have a very odd understanding of what the word 'accuracy' means in this
context.

Bacon grease ?? What a silly thing to throw into a discussion.


It is your goal to blur the information, which is what the
grease would do.

Pixel data is output by a computer to a video card. Since
human vision has far higher granularity, it is not expected
to look like reality except to the depth of granularity
possible by that pixel data, resolution. If the pixel data
is not preserved but rather smoothed to reduce your
perception of the pixels, it is also removing "data" from
the image, it is less accurate than the output was intended
to be. Monitor manufacturers strive to accurately reproduce
the image, not make it asthetically pleasing.

The goal is accuracy, not "lifelike". Lifelike and accuracy
can coexist but it will come from higher resolution, not
degradation of the signal upon output as you propose.

Yeah,OK. I give in. You are right. I couldn't be more wrong if I tried. 35
years down the pan. Just as an experiment, I wiped goose grease all over my
LCD monitor and guess what? YOU ARE RIGHT !!!! ( that's for excited
emphasis, I'm not shouting at you ). My picture is now so blurred that it
looks just like the real world when I don't have my specs on. Accuracy or
what ?!!! Have you thought of marketing this idea ? You could put it in tubs
and sell it on the net as "Kony's patent image enhancing compound (blended
with REAL snake oil )"

My next plan is to see if I can drop a couple of bits on the input to the
video card's DAC. That should increase the 'granularity' no end. This is
another idea that could be put forward to monitor manufacturers to help them
in their goal of making the reproduced image anything but lifelike, and
better yet - *less* aesthetically pleasing !!

Boy, you're a lad ! All these wickedly good ideas ! If you don't market them
yourself, *I'm* gonna, and get really rich. Then you'll be sorry ! ;-)

Arfa

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:58:50 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


Yeah,OK. I give in. You are right. I couldn't be more wrong if I tried. 35
years down the pan. Just as an experiment, I wiped goose grease all over my
LCD monitor and guess what? YOU ARE RIGHT !!!!

The problem with goose grease is the high number of geese it
would take to treat all monitors. :-)


( that's for excited
emphasis, I'm not shouting at you ).

Ok, I never did think capitalizing as shouting worked very
well anyway, since the person has to read the text either
way for it to matter.

My picture is now so blurred that it
looks just like the real world when I don't have my specs on. Accuracy or
what ?!!! Have you thought of marketing this idea ? You could put it in tubs
and sell it on the net as "Kony's patent image enhancing compound (blended
with REAL snake oil )"

I'm not the one who wants to end up with less than the
computer was designed to output. Yes the grease idea is
crazy and has no merit but it is the type of degradation
(albeit to a greater extent) causing your more lifelike
image. CRT manufacturers didn't aim for that, it was just
the result of the coating and thick glass. If LCD
manufacturers wanted this, they could put a thick diffuser
sheet on the front.



My next plan is to see if I can drop a couple of bits on the input to the
video card's DAC. That should increase the 'granularity' no end. This is
another idea that could be put forward to monitor manufacturers to help them
in their goal of making the reproduced image anything but lifelike, and
better yet - *less* aesthetically pleasing !!

Boy, you're a lad ! All these wickedly good ideas ! If you don't market them
yourself, *I'm* gonna, and get really rich. Then you'll be sorry ! ;-)

Ok!

On 8/16/2007, James Sweet posted this:

I was a little startled - you answered my post, clipped my (admittedly
silly) remark, and went on to actually answer the previous post.

I've never made a mistake like that (you can be forgiven for not believing
that!).


I clipped the bottom, answered the part I was interested in, then simply
forgot to clip the top as well. So what?

So you answered the wrong post.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

On 8/17/2007, Smitty Two posted this:
In article ,
kony wrote:


Capitalization is also used in text for emphasis, not just
shouting.

More commonly, on usenet, leading and trailing asterisks indicate what
would be italicized for emphasis.

Although my newsreader displays *word* in bold and /word/ in italics
(if I let it).


Hmmm - I've never tried both, like this:
/*word*/ (looks like a comment to me!)
*/word/*

I'll look at them when the message up shows in the NG...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

On 8/17/2007, Gene E. Bloch posted this:
On 8/17/2007, Smitty Two posted this:
In article ,
kony wrote:


Capitalization is also used in text for emphasis, not just
shouting.

More commonly, on usenet, leading and trailing asterisks indicate what
would be italicized for emphasis.

Although my newsreader displays *word* in bold and /word/ in italics (if I
let it).


Hmmm - I've never tried both, like this:
/*word*/ (looks like a comment to me!)
*/word/*

I'll look at them when the message up shows in the NG...

Both are in bold + italic here.

Well, to be 100% accurate, the first is in italic + bold :-)

BTW, the reason I had to wait until I could read it in the NG is that
this reader (MesNews) displays bold, italic, and smileys as straight
text in the composition window.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:58:50 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


Yeah,OK. I give in. You are right. I couldn't be more wrong if I tried. 35
years down the pan. Just as an experiment, I wiped goose grease all over
my
LCD monitor and guess what? YOU ARE RIGHT !!!!

The problem with goose grease is the high number of geese it
would take to treat all monitors. :-)


( that's for excited
emphasis, I'm not shouting at you ).

Ok, I never did think capitalizing as shouting worked very
well anyway, since the person has to read the text either
way for it to matter.

My picture is now so blurred that it
looks just like the real world when I don't have my specs on. Accuracy or
what ?!!! Have you thought of marketing this idea ? You could put it in
tubs
and sell it on the net as "Kony's patent image enhancing compound (blended
with REAL snake oil )"

I'm not the one who wants to end up with less than the
computer was designed to output. Yes the grease idea is
crazy and has no merit but it is the type of degradation
(albeit to a greater extent) causing your more lifelike
image. CRT manufacturers didn't aim for that, it was just
the result of the coating and thick glass. If LCD
manufacturers wanted this, they could put a thick diffuser
sheet on the front.



My next plan is to see if I can drop a couple of bits on the input to the
video card's DAC. That should increase the 'granularity' no end. This is
another idea that could be put forward to monitor manufacturers to help
them
in their goal of making the reproduced image anything but lifelike, and
better yet - *less* aesthetically pleasing !!

Boy, you're a lad ! All these wickedly good ideas ! If you don't market
them
yourself, *I'm* gonna, and get really rich. Then you'll be sorry ! ;-)

Ok!

Yeah, OK! Just messin' with ya! Really, I don't have a problem with my LCD
monitors. Both of them look just fine. But subjectively, a CRT picture just
has something that makes it a little more 'human' to my perception. I would
guess that it's the same as CD versus vinyl, where the vinyl has a 'warmer'
sound (oddly, Steve Wright was discussing exactly this on his BBC radio
programme today, and it was his opinion that CD sounded 'cold' compared to
vinyl). Another example might be programme material shot on video tape,
versus that shot on film stock. Outdoor scenes in particular always have a
flat, cold, unrealistic look to them, when shot on video, but I'm sure that
you would probably be able to apply your 'more accurate not lifelike'
analysis to these examples as well. Anyway, all of this is causing me to
lose the will to live now, and I'm done with it. I think we better just
settle on agreeing to differ ... Later

Arfa

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/2007, Gene E. Bloch posted this:
On 8/17/2007, Smitty Two posted this:
In article ,
kony wrote:


Capitalization is also used in text for emphasis, not just
shouting.

More commonly, on usenet, leading and trailing asterisks indicate what
would be italicized for emphasis.

Although my newsreader displays *word* in bold and /word/ in italics (if
I let it).


Hmmm - I've never tried both, like this:
/*word*/ (looks like a comment to me!)
*/word/*

I'll look at them when the message up shows in the NG...

Both are in bold + italic here.

Well, to be 100% accurate, the first is in italic + bold :-)

BTW, the reason I had to wait until I could read it in the NG is that this
reader (MesNews) displays bold, italic, and smileys as straight text in
the composition window.


So I guess that's why the common convention is to use slashes and asterisks.
I never knew that some newsreaders actually interpreted these as such. Learn
something new every day ! So that does leave capitalization free for
'shouting' ... d;~}

Arfa

Doc writes:

I don't like the way LCD/flat panel monitors look. The image isn't as
sharp

That's hard to believe. A problem common with CRTs is trying to achieve
convergence of all three colors everywhere on the screen. Lack of
convergence leads to loss of sharpness. Convergence is not an issue on
flat panels.

wrote in message
...
Doc writes:

I don't like the way LCD/flat panel monitors look. The image isn't as
sharp

That's hard to believe. A problem common with CRTs is trying to achieve
convergence of all three colors everywhere on the screen. Lack of
convergence leads to loss of sharpness. Convergence is not an issue on
flat panels.


I don't really think that cvonvergence has been much of an issue since
slotmasks became the norm many years ago, as these are inherently self
converging. Whilst very cheap-end CRT monitors and TV sets might still have
some slight convergence issues at the screen extremities, I can't honestly
say that I have seen anything in this respect worth commenting on, for some
years now. Perhaps I'm just lucky, or just selectively seeing what I want
( or don't ! ) want to ... d;~}

Arfa

Arfa Daily writes:

Doc wrote:

I don't like the way LCD/flat panel monitors look. The image isn't as
sharp

That's hard to believe. A problem common with CRTs is trying to achieve
convergence of all three colors everywhere on the screen. Lack of
convergence leads to loss of sharpness. Convergence is not an issue on
flat panels.

I don't really think that cvonvergence has been much of an issue since
slotmasks became the norm many years ago, as these are inherently self
converging.

How so?

Whilst very cheap-end CRT monitors and TV sets might still have
some slight convergence issues at the screen extremities, I can't honestly
say that I have seen anything in this respect worth commenting on, for some
years now.

I have.

Perhaps I'm just lucky, or just selectively seeing what I want
( or don't ! ) want to ... d;~}

There's also the issue of focus. I've seen CRTs go "soft" as they age.
Focus is not an issue on flat panels.

Then there's magnetic effects. Aside from degaussing, which modern CRTs
are designed to do automatically, you have to worry about external fields,
such as from nearby loudspeakers. I had a modern CRT image start to
"shimmy" when an outdoor security light came on every evening. Flat
panels are immune to external magnetic fields and don't need degaussing.