jbltecnicspro
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 9,537
aye, I was agreeing with you
Aye, and I'll drink a pint to that.
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.
aye, I was agreeing with you
please provide measurements to back your claimNot sure what you mean by "better colors". I can say without any doubt that the picture quality on an FW900 is far superior to an IBM P275 (I own both), or any other G520 (I've worked with quite a few).
please provide measurements to back your claim
please provide measurements to back your claim
There were a few, actually. The last Samsung monitors had it, and there was a Viewsonic monitor that also had a .20mm dot pitch shadow mask. That's all I can come up with off the top of my head.
There were a few, actually. The last Samsung monitors had it, and there was a Viewsonic monitor that also had a .20mm dot pitch shadow mask. That's all I can come up with off the top of my head.
Congrats on the FW900s. I'd run 1920x1200 at 96 or 2048x1280 at 90 for quality. 2560x1600@72 for high-res, 1152x720@160 for high-FPS.
On another note, I found someone to repair my Gateway VX1120 (Mits 2060U rebrand). Blown flyback and HOT. Replacement parts are ordered.
do you ask because you do not know or do you ask me knowing it and want to see if I know?jbltecnicspro said:I would say the same to you. You were the first one to mention better colors due to coating. What are you basing this on?
so sharpness for is only parameter that matters for you in a monitor?I could take images of the phosphor coating to show the differences in dot pitch, or you could just look it up in the specs.
do you ask because you do not know or do you ask me knowing it and want to see if I know?
spacediver wanted me to do tests and insulted me by saying my opinion about image quality is worthless without measurements so he should provide measurements himself. He is in much better situation than I was. I would need to destroy my coating to do test, buy equipement. He have to monitors, can just put them next to each other and measure all he want. Without such measurements his opinion on FW900 being better is worthless, right?
ps. when saying "color" I do not mean gamut. I say this just in case you are confused about it.
so sharpness for is only parameter that matters for you in a monitor?
I wrote about colors (by which I mean general image presentation and not gamut, though gamut is included in 'colors') and not that P275 have better doth pitch or sharpness. I never said P275 is sharper just that it have better colors due better darker coating.
Thank your for sharing that info... I wasn't aware of it before. Let me see if I can grab one of these units in the trade and fully test it and evaluate in the lab.
Thanks again!
UV!
I knew of a 19.8" Sony prototype tube that had a .19 aperture grille that was never put into production. In fact, once I saw a demo of this tube. If you liked the .22 AG, this one blew it out of the water in terns of sharpness, brightness, contrast and color depth.
UV!
spacediver wanted me to do tests and insulted me by saying my opinion about image quality is worthless without measurements
Not sure what you mean by "better colors". I can say without any doubt that the picture quality on an FW900 is far superior to an IBM P275 (I own both), or any other G520 (I've worked with quite a few).
Can you get 1152x720@160 with the nvidia custom resolution, or does it require CRU? Seems like a interesting resolution to try out.
Why was it so good compared to bunch of Trinitrons and even Diamondtrons? Because it had darker AG coating than rest of these monitors. There is nothing else about this monitor that contribute to it. When doing meausrement my then AG-less FW900 measured better under calibration probe but failed miserably to compete in actually having better contrast ratio. It took polarizer to bring competition on the same contrast ratio level.translated with google translate said:I would like to note the quality of the black color, which here was better than the other monitors tested.
The HD Fury guys are taking feature requests for their next DAC, the HD Fury 5. The creator has said he would like to support higher pixel clocks in this model. Hopefully the HDFury 5 will be able to fully replace all the features of RAMDAC's in video cards that are currently being phased out.
Leave your ideas here:
http://dme.ghost2.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26629
Good luck finding the Viewsonic. The folks at Displaymate rate it as the best shadow mask monitors they've ever tested. The model is the G225f. The best monitor for Aperture Grille that they've rated is the Artisan. Their reference monitor is the GDM-F520.
The Samsungs should be easier to find.
That's a shame. Too bad they never made it to production. Do you sell any GDM-F500R's?
actually, this is what I said.
I don't see any insults there, or anything about measurements.
First off, the dot pitch of a shadow mask is not measured the same way as it is in an aperture grille, as I explained earlier.
Second, it's a shadow mask, so image quality is not going to be as good as an aperture grille.
In terms of image quality, the GDM F520 and Artisan are probably the best, but they are smaller than the FW900.
Diamondtrons are neat, but they do not have the same dot pitch as the high end GDMs.
Not sure what you mean by "better colors". I can say without any doubt that the picture quality on an FW900 is far superior to an IBM P275 (I own both), or any other G520 (I've worked with quite a few).
Vito, can you take a photo of your 24 inch Artisan? Would love to see it!
24" Artisan? Is it 4:3 or 16:10?
@jbltecnicspro
Having ambient lights help LCD with making blacks to appear inky black. In simplest terms FW900 with polarizer have black enough screen to show the same benefit. Rising black level due to displaying stuff on screen is offseted by it looking black in spite of ambient light level rising in room.
Given that I know in real life that the rulings consist of 10 cycles per mm, this allows me to convert pixels to microns.
big sheet with adhesive will be hell to put right, at least without some contraption, roller of sorts with something to remove protective layer just before polarizer is pushed to screen with roller.
Without AG you use special glue which you then harden using UV light. That way putting AG would be quite easy, any air bubbles easy to remove. Even without UV it would probably harden by itself over time and wouldn't fall off. Even water with sugar would do the trick to put adhesive-less sheet on.
BTW. if you order polarizer that is like 150cm x 50cm without adhesive would you be willing to sell about 1/3 of it?
BTW2. I still haven't removed that badly put AG. It have some flaws but I do not notice them in games, kinda like I do not see damping wires. In desktop it is another story though...
not sure how to explain this simply, but the thickness of the glass will screw things up a little bit. this method would work perfectly if the ronchi ruling were behind the same layer of glass that the phosphors are behind.
probably at the center of the images there's no distortion due to this, but as you go away from the center things could get a bit different. for instance if an image of the ronchi ruling appears perfectly evenly spaced like |...|...|...|...|...|, an image of the phosphors might be distorted like |.|..|...|..|.|. obviously that's exaggerating but you get the point .
Okay another question, is there some way to correct landing of my FW900 in windas? I have some spots here and there and would like to correct it as much as possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pVLizAHby4
Is degaussing coil what I am looking for or all I would get would be the same as pressing "degauss" in OSD?