Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
would that be true for having the ports face left?
So I've decided that the 1070 Ti card isn't for me. I've been having too many little problems with it coupled with the Sunix adapter so I'd rather go back to using a 980 Ti or a Titan X.
EVGA won't refund my money, so I'll have to find a buyer. I don't have the posting privileges to advertise it in the "for sale" section of this forum, so I wanted to offer it here.
It's an EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti SC GAMING card.
Part number: 08G-P4-5671-KR
It was lightly used for a couple of weeks, then packaged and stored.
It's basically brand new, never overclocked. I'd ship it in the same packaging and box that EVGA used to ship it to me.
I'm asking $450.
If anyone is interested, just reply to this thread or PM me.
The original seems much better at keeping blacks.Some news regarding AR film. There's probably no way to have a film manufactured with the correct specifications unless someone personally knows the right people in the right company. All the companies I contacted obviously don't bother thinking about something that isn't expected to bring them much profit. I give up.
I've received 2 samples of standard film to consider as a stopgap though. One AR film and another one which is both antireflective and antiglare.
The AR/AG film is really good regarding reflections, they are low and you can't guess what that reflected shadow is. But as the specifications let foresee (haze <= 5%), that film is pure crap on a display despite being advertised for that use. The picture becomes quite blurry.
The AR film seems on par with the one on FW900s regarding reflections, maybe a bit better. It has purple reflections when the original has rather blue ones. It seems to bring a slight increase in contrast which is consistent with the specs (transmittance of about 92%), no significant static electricity on the surface with a conductive tape simply stuck on the external surface of the film. If necessary I may try to improve the electric contact between the tape and film by fastening a staple in the film. The picture is as sharp as without a film. Pretty much a winner I think.
AR film vs no film:
View attachment 75860
View attachment 75837
AR/AG film vs no film:
View attachment 75859
View attachment 75858
AR/AG (left top) vs AR (left bottom) vs bare glass vs original coating (right):
View attachment 75881
Well, the screen looks much darker when off because the original film has a lower transmittance than the replacement. But regarding the black depth of the picture I'm not sure if there will be much of an impact as long as a WPB is performed to match the new film transmittance.The original seems much better at keeping blacks.
Light already passed the glass when it gets to the filter, what would it be reflecting from?maybe these AR filters prevent light reflecting back on phosphor (and instead direct it to front of monitor increasing whites) and that's why they make whites brighter?
if that is the case then this is a great effect
Phosphor spot produce light in all directions and some gets reflected internally in glass back to phosphor. This is what produces halo ring effect when you display small bright object on black background.Light already passed the glass when it gets to the filter, what would it be reflecting from?
I get that, but how would an AR filter outside the glass make a difference?Phosphor spot produce light in all directions and some gets reflected internally in glass back to phosphor. This is what produces halo ring effect when you display small bright object on black background.
View attachment 82035
lol, by mistake I posted something I was writing to someonekrótkie wyjaśnienie wystarczy
Do these improve blacks during daylight?A little update regarding films. After a few tests on small pieces I finally applied another sheet with a wet method this time. I still need to let it dry before checking if everything is alright. Answer probably in the end of the week.
I wonder why you ask that question. The very purpose of an AR film is to cut reflections, i.e. interferences of external light sources with the screen. If the daylight interferes with the picture (not just black, the entire picture), then an AR film will improve it of course.Do these improve blacks during daylight?
I wonder if this VM2322 firmware update would work on the Sunix devices: https://download.lenovo.com/pccbbs/mobiles/fwdphb07.exe
(Make sure a monitor's plugged into the Sunix device before running that.)
Also, if you do try it, might be a good idea to run it in a command prompt with the -v flag (so fwdphb07 -v), and then look at the contents of update.log, that'll say what version's on the device, before you reflash it.
Because it doesn't seem to do much from your pictures here.I wonder why you ask that question. The very purpose of an AR film is to cut reflections, i.e. interferences of external light sources with the screen. If the daylight interferes with the picture (not just black, the entire picture), then an AR film will improve it of course.
Picture one -> the effect of the piece of the AR film on reflections is pretty obviousBecause it doesn't seem to do much from your pictures here.
The screen doesn't become darker when the display is on. There is a stark difference in black level with ambient light as seen in you picture. So much so that I don't see much benefit from the films you're testing. They don't seem to be an adequate replacement for the original AG.Picture five -> there's a clear difference of appearance between the original film and the replacement when the screen is off. But you're just seeing the phosphors through a dark film on one side, and a less dark film on another side. This has nothing to do with the performances when the screen is on.
Anyone Looking for a New D-Board with Flyback PM me. I sold both my FW900 monitors and I am looking to sell this part. Brand new in box.
N;B: There's no special danger as long as the monitor is unplugged and you have waited for capacitors to discharge (a few hours should be enough, but you can wait a few days if you want to play that safe)
Well, what did you hear ? It's electronics, not magic. Electricity is the risk and it has to come from somewhere. Once it is discharged there is no risk at all. Of course it's a completely different story if someone messes inside while the monitor is plugged and/or powered,How sure are you about this? I've heard quite the opposite.
Well, what did you hear ? It's electronics, not magic
I read that here and there too. Apparently relatively new CRTs like those Trinitron *would be* fast discharging and much safer than older ones. But what is an "older one", I don't know for sure. At least I've manipulated the boards a lot during my investigations, and the worst I have seen is a little spark when shorting a 200V + section and not having waited long enough. Impressive when you don't expect it but not really harmful.I remember hearing the larger capacitors and even the tube itself can hold a charge for months. Don't remember where I heard it but I've been super cautious ever since
I wonder if this VM2322 firmware update would work on the Sunix devices: https://download.lenovo.com/pccbbs/mobiles/fwdphb07.exe
(Make sure a monitor's plugged into the Sunix device before running that.)
Also, if you do try it, might be a good idea to run it in a command prompt with the -v flag (so fwdphb07 -v), and then look at the contents of update.log, that'll say what version's on the device, before you reflash it.
I tried that with my Sunix DPU3000-D3.
It gives the following error:
Version: 2.33.000
Update result: 243
Error description: Product ID does not match, the firmware is for different board
When I use the -v flag:
2.15.002
Firmware name:
Original version: 2.15.002
Payload version: 2.33.000
Are there any other firmwares to download and test?
I don't use it so I'm willing to test any firmware on it. If you know of other firmwares let me know.Thanks for testing! I was hesitant in trying myself.
Ok I finally got my hands on the Sunix adapter. For the Delock one, they took almost 3 weeks to refund me after telling me my address was not valid. I'll order again next month, and provide a friend's address.
Anyway, I spent the past few hours testing the Sunix adapter on my GTX1080. So far this is what I can say.
Of course all the stock resolutions of the FW900 are working perfectly fine. I tried to push things further and I managed to get all the following resolutions to work fine.
- 2304x1440@80Hz (120.80kHz / 382.6944MHz)
- 2560x1600@72Hz (120.24kHz / 423.2448MHz)
- 3000x1920@61Hz (121.39kHz / 502.0691MHz)
- 3232x2020@58Hz (121.22kHz / 539.1866MHz)
This last one is touching the limits of horizontal scan and pixel clock of the monitor. I applied these resolutions using the Nvidia Control Panel, with CVT timings.
I remember reading about someone who tried some odd resolutions which made the adapter crash, black screen. Well, I don't get a black screen, but the monitor is just not stable at all with certain resolutions. I don't remember exactly what these were. Not much of a problem though, at least not for me so far. But that's still something to investigate further.
Now I was hoping to try some interlaced resolutions, including 4K (3840x2400) interlaced. But I spent the last few hours trying everything I could (except reinstalling Windows 10 or trying Linux), I just can't apply one single interlaced resolution on this computer.
The Nvidia Control Panel just says my monitor won't support it, BS. With CRU, I was able to see the progressive resolutions I added when opening "List all modes" in the Windows Control Panel, but no interlaced resolutions ever showed up... Now CRU is not working anymore. It doesn't do a thing anymore. Any ideas?
I tried with the VGA cable, and the monitor EDID recognized, and with the 5 BNC cable, with a VGA adapter and no EDID, it's recognized as Synaptics VMM2300 DEMO, but the issue is the same.
I tried 3 different Nvidia drivers, the stock one I had on the computer 391.01, then I upgraded to 391.35, and then downgraded to 388.13. Nothing helped.
I should mention sometimes the adapter starts behaving weirdly. I don't know if that's due to a bad contact with the DisplayPort connector or the actual chip itself, but sometimes the image gets - how can I describe this - cut in 3 parts, and reassembled out of order. The right side of the screen is in the middle, etc... But everything is still perfectly sharp and stable. I have to move the cables a bit, and it gets back to normal.