That's your opinion. Most of the HD stuff I view isn't 'stretched and squished' that bad. I've been watching my video content that way since the late 90s and don't even notice it.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Gateway XHD3000 - 30" Widescreen Extreme HD Display
- Thread starter Tim-in-CA
- Start date
It's not. measure the size of the box produced when running composite or s-video through a monitor and setting to 1:1. It's a 3:2 box. the same size as a 480i/p signal.
les_garten
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 500
Hello,
Every NTSC Standard TV on the planet is called a 4:3 set. Google NTSC aspect and find me one that says that it is 3:2, I just haven't seen that. Please post a link to back up your info here. I posted one for you?
Les
Every NTSC Standard TV on the planet is called a 4:3 set. Google NTSC aspect and find me one that says that it is 3:2, I just haven't seen that. Please post a link to back up your info here. I posted one for you?
Les
thefewtheproud
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 935
Alright I need some clarification. I need to be able to run my laptop with vga to the monitor. When doing this with the gateway will I be able to achieve maximum rez or just 1900x1200? Also what is the overall image quality when running 360 through hdmi at 1080p?
thanks
thanks
les_garten
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 500
If your Laptop will drive it's display 1900x1200, it will drive this Monitor at that resolution if you have an output on your Laptop.
Les
Thanks!! November...yea! Hopefully mine wont black out
I didnt say anything about NTSC displays. I was talking about the NTSC signal, which is 3:2. The image content of NTSC is typically 4:3 sure, which is why you need those other scaling options to handle it properly. Cuz 1:1 and aspect mode show a 3:2 aspect image. It's one of the few cases where signal aspect is different from content aspect.
To "back myself up" I took a ruler and measured the size of the output of NTSC and 480i/p signals when set to 1:1 or aspect and verified its a 3:2 aspect. How much simpler and concrete of proof could you get?
Oh, and first attempt to find another source: (wiki entry for NTSC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC) image at the bottom: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ns.svg/700px-Common_Video_Resolutions.svg.png DV NTSC = 480i/p = 720 x 480 = 3:2 aspect
Who says that is happening? Take your 720 x 480 example.
1600/480 is 3.33, so you stretch the vertical from 480 to 1600, then multiply 720 times 3.33 to get 2398 and put black bars on the sides to fill 2560 x 1600
2398 / 1600 is 3 / 2 That is what aspect does. It fills as much of the 2560 x 1600 as it can but keeping the correct 3:2 or 4:3 ratio then putting black bars around it to fill the screen.
It depends on your laptop's video card as to what resolution it can handle. If it has dual-link dvi/vga then it will likely be able to achieve 2560x1600. I have a Macbook Pro and it handles this resolution nicely.
Per the 360, i am running it component into the monitor and it looks fantastic..hdmi should look equally as good, if not better.
BECAUSE YOU DONT WANT TO KEEP THE 3:2 ASPECT OF THE SIGNAL.
YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT TO 4:3 OR 16:9 TO MATCH THE ASPECT OF THE CONTENT
regular old non HDTV, all non-HD game consoles, VHS, non-upscaled DVD, all of those output content in either 4:3 or 16:9, which they tend to call "standard" and "widescreen".
BUT THE SIGNAL, either NTSC, or 480i/p, is in a DIFFERENT ASPECT (3:2) and THUS, needs to be CONVERTED. SO, 1:1 and ASPECT modes which MAINTAIN aspects are NOT the correct way to display these sources!
Man I dont know how to make this any clearer. You've obviously never input NTSC or 480i/p into a modern widescreen monitor (save for a handful of exceptions, like some Samsungs), and realised that 1:1, aspect, and full all stretch the image one way or another, in a way that distorts everything.
Lets say a SNES signal, when input into a 4:3 standard television, will look proper, but that same signal when input into a widescreen monitor, will look too fat and wide when set to 1:1 or aspect mode (cuz the aspect will be a wider 3:2, when the content is designed for 4:3 displays), or VERY fat and wide when set to full mode (cuz the apsect is a MUCH wider 16:10 of the monitor, not the 4:3 aspect the content was designed for)
YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT TO 4:3 OR 16:9 TO MATCH THE ASPECT OF THE CONTENT
regular old non HDTV, all non-HD game consoles, VHS, non-upscaled DVD, all of those output content in either 4:3 or 16:9, which they tend to call "standard" and "widescreen".
BUT THE SIGNAL, either NTSC, or 480i/p, is in a DIFFERENT ASPECT (3:2) and THUS, needs to be CONVERTED. SO, 1:1 and ASPECT modes which MAINTAIN aspects are NOT the correct way to display these sources!
Man I dont know how to make this any clearer. You've obviously never input NTSC or 480i/p into a modern widescreen monitor (save for a handful of exceptions, like some Samsungs), and realised that 1:1, aspect, and full all stretch the image one way or another, in a way that distorts everything.
Lets say a SNES signal, when input into a 4:3 standard television, will look proper, but that same signal when input into a widescreen monitor, will look too fat and wide when set to 1:1 or aspect mode (cuz the aspect will be a wider 3:2, when the content is designed for 4:3 displays), or VERY fat and wide when set to full mode (cuz the apsect is a MUCH wider 16:10 of the monitor, not the 4:3 aspect the content was designed for)
If the display is a 4:3 or 16:9 display, it can get at least one of them right, as setting the display to "full" will match one of the two possible aspects the content will have.
So... all televisions. (assuming they have scalers that can do the other mode that they are not (ie, widescreens with a 4:3 mode, and standard tvs with a widescreen mode))
Computer monitors are different in that they're 4:3, 5:4, and 16:10.
a 4:3 monitor could handle at least one possibility correct (it would still need a scaler with a 16:9 mode to handle the other possibility)
The other 2 common monitor aspects need a scaler capable of 4:3 and 16:9 modes. Apparently some Samsungs have this - I have never worked with them but you can see the options in their user guide online.
All Dells I've worked with, BenQs, they all lack this thing, and I think its just a really stupid oversight.
Apparrently Gateway joins that list now, but its even more stupid becasue they are all gung-ho about their scaler, and yet it doesnt do a really simple thing.
The closest you can get with widescreen monitors (16:10) is one of 2 scenarios:
Set the source device to standard (4:3), and then use aspect or 1:1 mode on the monitor. This will be 4:3 content stretched horizontally to 3:2... which is one "closer" pairing.
OR
Set the source device to widescreen (16:9) and then use full mode on the monitor. This will be 16:9 content stretched vertically to 16:10.... which is the other "closer" pairing.
I call them "close" pairings because its better than watching 4:3 content on full mode (stretched all the way to 16:9), or 16:9 content on aspect or 1:1 mode (squished all the way down to 3:2)
But close doesnt cut it, all distortion is bad and very noticeable (you never have round circles), and the solution is simple - put in 4:3 and 16:9 scaling modes.
les_garten
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 500
Hi,
Interesting discussion here. A few points. Your Wiki link in the !st Paragraph of History lists NTSC as 4:3 aspect ratio. Your pic at the bottom shows DV NTSC. Standard def TV's do not DISPLAY 720 lines. The have vertical Blanking inserted for closed captioning etc. Did you read the link you posted or just look at the Pictures ;-)
Here's the real question:
Which 30" Computer Monitor out there addresses whatever your issue is better than the Gateway? I'm curious because I'm in the Market for a 30" Monitor.
Les
Did you just read a bunch of stuff on the net or did you actually attempt to do any of this like I did and see the undisputable truth.
Right, Standard TVs dont have 720 lines. Their scalers squish the 3:2 signal down to 4:3 to match the 4:3 content carried by the signal.
The Dell and Samsung doesnt because they dont even have NTSC or 480i/p inputs, the Gateway has those inputs, but doesnt handle them correctly. Some smaller sized Samsungs that do have those inputs apparently handle them correctly.
Right, Standard TVs dont have 720 lines. Their scalers squish the 3:2 signal down to 4:3 to match the 4:3 content carried by the signal.
The Dell and Samsung doesnt because they dont even have NTSC or 480i/p inputs, the Gateway has those inputs, but doesnt handle them correctly. Some smaller sized Samsungs that do have those inputs apparently handle them correctly.
les_garten
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 500
So your answer is:
Nobody does this correctly in a 30" Monitor presently? My observation, Gateway comes the closest. People who own tghis monitor Rave about it with these inputs.
And by your own admission, NTSC distorts the signal also on a standard TV.
My friend it's an imperfect world.
What is your point in this thread?
Les
lol!!!
Gateway only comes the closest cuz it has the inputs??! What's the point of having the inputs if you cant even display them correctly? As soon as Dell or Samsung or anyone else build a 30" simply HAVING those inputs, they are then JUST AS CLOSE as Gateway is, which is to say, not close at all.
People who own this monitor either never tried running NTSC or 480i/p content through it, or are sub-humans who enjoy distorted content.
NO, Standard TVs don't distort the image. I didnt say that so don't put words in my mouth. They show the image exactly as it was intended because they scale the 3:2 aspect to 4:3. Gateway's scaler doesnt, it leaves it at 3:2 or blows it up to 16:10. Yeah, the cheapest televisions in the world display it correctly, and the $1500+ Gateway with HQV does not.
My point was first to see if the Gateway handled this issue correctly, then to admonish them once I foudn out it DOESNT, then to educate people to know they deserve and should demand better. Watchign every single VHS player, non-upscaled DVD, every non-HD console (even the Wii!), basically every non HD source out there come out DISTORTED is unacceptable.
les_garten
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 500
Here's what you said, "Right, Standard TVs dont have 720 lines. Their scalers squish the 3:2 signal down to 4:3 to match the 4:3 content carried by the signal"
Maybe some of the sub humans on this thread who own this display will pipe in about how stupid they are...
Les
Yeah, exactly, I said nothing of distortion. Thank you for proving me right.
The Gateway does display distortion because it leaves the 3:2 signal as is and doesnt convert to 4:3 or 16:9. (unlike a television, which does)
They're only subhumans if they dont have a problem with distorted images.
I take extreme personal offense at that; there's absolutely no rationale to commence a slew of posts with name calling and throwing insults solely because a fair number of people exist who don't view the world in the same light fanatical purists like you do.
Before this thread ends up becoming a disservice to everyone subscribed, I strongly recommend you tone it down and accept others' opinions however unaligned with your convictions you deem them to be. Like les_garten eloquently stated, it's an imperfect world. Accept it and we can all move on.
Don't take it so seriously.
But really, there is no excuse for distorted images. I really dont know why anyone would accept that.
"It's an imperfect world" ???
Is that supposed to excuse or explain why paying over $1500 for a monitor results in f'ing up all your images displayed by anything non-HD (SOOOO many devices!).
It's the lame attitude of being "well whatever" which is why it continues to be in monitors.
"You guys" fought enough to get 1:1/aspect modes in monitors in the first place, but the job isnt over and there needs to be 4:3 and 16:9 scaling modes as well.
But really, there is no excuse for distorted images. I really dont know why anyone would accept that.
"It's an imperfect world" ???
Is that supposed to excuse or explain why paying over $1500 for a monitor results in f'ing up all your images displayed by anything non-HD (SOOOO many devices!).
It's the lame attitude of being "well whatever" which is why it continues to be in monitors.
"You guys" fought enough to get 1:1/aspect modes in monitors in the first place, but the job isnt over and there needs to be 4:3 and 16:9 scaling modes as well.
Why is 4:3 content sent on a 3:2 signal anyway? If 16:9 content has a 16:9 signal that would show up correctly at 1:1 or aspect on a 16:10 monitor with black borders. Besides I'm sure few people could tell the difference in squishing between 16:9 and 16:10
As for people accepting distorted images, well that has been going on for decades every time people watched movies on TV which were "formatted to fit your screen" Only recently have people accepted seeing black bars on their old TV sets when watching movies.
As for people accepting distorted images, well that has been going on for decades every time people watched movies on TV which were "formatted to fit your screen" Only recently have people accepted seeing black bars on their old TV sets when watching movies.
Why is? I couldnt really tell you, that's some kind of tech history lesson. but the fact is it's there, and admittedly one of hte few scenarios where signal aspect doesnt match content aspect. Some 16:9 content IS sent on a 16:9 signal; pretty much anything HD for example - 720p and up - which is why we can enjoy those under 1:1 and aspect modes and have no problem.
I'll admit when you use the 2 close "pairings" the distortion isnt massive, but it's still there and you do notice it. I had to watch standard def TV in a 3:2 aspect box for a while there and Jon Stewart from the Daily Show just never looked right.
I will say that not everyone watches movies on tv, that not every channel does format to fit the screen, and that more often than not that means pan and scanning, not squishing. In fact I'm hard pressed to remember a time when they did decide to distort instead of cut off the sides.
Well then the problem is not so terrible after all. As for distorting movies, I remember seeing that 'altered to fit your screen' disclaimer a LOT! (unless they say that for pan and scan as well)
PS I can't stand John Stewart in any aspect
Well then the problem is not so terrible after all. As for distorting movies, I remember seeing that 'altered to fit your screen' disclaimer a LOT! (unless they say that for pan and scan as well)
PS I can't stand John Stewart in any aspect
It can and almost always does mean pan and scanned. I think the only time there is squishing (changing the aspect) is when there is a combination of both - but even then, that has to be extremely rare.
The issue is just really easy to fix, which is why its so frustrating. And considering the cost of these monitors, its not acceptable and I don't know why they dont put in the 2 modes to fix it. It's not any more complicated of a scaling operation than anything else they already do. I think the reason if anything is just ignorance of the problem (they dont realise there is one).
When DVDs first came out I remember a special Ebert and Ropert show explaining why letterbox movies were so much better and they talked about pan and scan. They also showed movies that cropped the edges (rather than squish)
I wonder if it is somthing thast can be fixed in firmware.
Oh hell yes it could! That's why its even more frustrating.
If BenQ could produce a firmware update that gave their 24" the option of 1:1 and aspect in the first place, surely they could put in 4:3 and 16:9 scaling modes as well, as its all the same kind of operation.
If BenQ could produce a firmware update that gave their 24" the option of 1:1 and aspect in the first place, surely they could put in 4:3 and 16:9 scaling modes as well, as its all the same kind of operation.
That's what is best, educating people about the problem and then informing Gateway so they can fix the problem.
I had already started an email with their tech support, but its becoming an issue even getting the tech to understand what I'm talking about (they went off about 1080p and component, neither of which I mentioned whatsoever).
Like, if Gateway fixes this, then their products become more appealing - I know I'd be interested in the XHD3000 if I knew it scaled everything properly (unlike so many other monitors).
I really want to get in touch with Dell so their 3008 handles it properly too, but I don't know how.
Ok im left a little confused by all the conversation...
if you have a 16:9 image you are viewing on 1:1...there would be black bars on top and bottom of the screen right? ...at least on a 16:10 monitor...
Really..whats the difference between 4:3 and 16:9 scaling modes and 1:1. 1:1 will preserve the origional aspect (size and relationship of width to height of the picture) correct? so if 1:1 preserves this..whats the difference between 4:3/16:9 and 1:1
That is exactly what I thought. But according to Deusfax the 4:3 content is sent out in a 3:2 signal. So scaling it up keeps the 3:2 ratio instead of converting it to 4:3 as old TVs do. If the signal is in the correct ratio then everythinhg is fine.
Ok thanks! well ive never heard of NTSC signal being sent in 3:2..but im no professional.
It's only an issue with NTSC (composite/s-video) and 480i/p where the signal is a different aspect (3:2) than the content it carries (either 4:3 or 16:9.)
HD signals like 720p are also 16:9, but the signal is the same aspect as the content, so yes, 1:1 and aspect mode are what you want, and a 16:9 mode there would be redundant and do the same thing as those other 2 modes.
It's really easy to verify too. Plug an SNES or something into the monitor, and you can see the displayed image has a 3:2 aspect on 1:1 and Aspect modes. Yet you know better, that the SNES was designed for use with 4:3 televisions, where everything is not distorted obviously when used with them. So when viewed on a monitor in those modes in a non-4:3 aspect, there IS distortion.
HD signals like 720p are also 16:9, but the signal is the same aspect as the content, so yes, 1:1 and aspect mode are what you want, and a 16:9 mode there would be redundant and do the same thing as those other 2 modes.
It's really easy to verify too. Plug an SNES or something into the monitor, and you can see the displayed image has a 3:2 aspect on 1:1 and Aspect modes. Yet you know better, that the SNES was designed for use with 4:3 televisions, where everything is not distorted obviously when used with them. So when viewed on a monitor in those modes in a non-4:3 aspect, there IS distortion.
Thanks for all the explanation, its beginning to make sense. So if video material is intended to be viewed in 4:3, why would anyone ever transmit it 3:2?
Sounds pretty retarded to me but i guess theres an explanation.
Examples of PAL DVD in the wrong ratio (from a different monitor, not the Gateway)
The resolution for both examples is 720x576. PAL has the same type of problem as NTSC region DVD. The pixels are square, so without aspect ratio compensation by the monitor the image becomes visibly distorted.
Bourne Identity is 16:9 shown at 16:10
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is 4:3 shown at 5:4
NTSC & PAL are analogue formats designed many years ago for CRT television. The horizontal resolution can be variable between different model of CRTs without any problem at all. Provided the electron gun sweeps the horizontal line across the whole screen at the correct speed the ratio is maintained, really simple! With fixed pixel displays it's not so easy, however it's difficult to believe the processing cost of scaling 720x480 with aspect correction is significantly higher than scaling 640x480 to full screen height 4:3. I do find it very suprising that the Realta can't do this, in fact I'll bet it can & Gateway just haven't enabled the functionality (if indeed the XHD3000 really can't display 480p content in the correct ratio)
If you need a monitor that can manage correct aspect ratio scaling then look at EIZO (just sit down before you look at the price compared to the Gateway)
Edit: this article shows the NTSC & PAL variations in the 'Television/movies' section approx half way down the page. You can see that the horizontal res can vary substntially and still be within the format.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions
The resolution for both examples is 720x576. PAL has the same type of problem as NTSC region DVD. The pixels are square, so without aspect ratio compensation by the monitor the image becomes visibly distorted.
Bourne Identity is 16:9 shown at 16:10
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is 4:3 shown at 5:4
NTSC & PAL are analogue formats designed many years ago for CRT television. The horizontal resolution can be variable between different model of CRTs without any problem at all. Provided the electron gun sweeps the horizontal line across the whole screen at the correct speed the ratio is maintained, really simple! With fixed pixel displays it's not so easy, however it's difficult to believe the processing cost of scaling 720x480 with aspect correction is significantly higher than scaling 640x480 to full screen height 4:3. I do find it very suprising that the Realta can't do this, in fact I'll bet it can & Gateway just haven't enabled the functionality (if indeed the XHD3000 really can't display 480p content in the correct ratio)
If you need a monitor that can manage correct aspect ratio scaling then look at EIZO (just sit down before you look at the price compared to the Gateway)
Edit: this article shows the NTSC & PAL variations in the 'Television/movies' section approx half way down the page. You can see that the horizontal res can vary substntially and still be within the format.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions
The blackout issue sounds like a DVI signal integrity problem. It's quite tricky to get this right, especially through switches. That's why DVI KVM and HDMI switches tend to cause the same blackout problems. Dual-link DVI as used by 2560x1600 monitors adds further to the difficulty. The price you pay for multiple inputs (as in the XHD3000) is the need to embed an input switch in the monitor, and this can cause trouble. That's why repeaters which re-generate the signal are sometimes used within switches, but those don't always help either. The quality of the switch, DVI transmitter (in the video card), receiver (in the monitor), as well as the cable quality and length all matter. Slight problems anywhere in the chain, and you get problems such as blackouts. A short blackout basically means that the signal has momentarily degraded to the point where the receiver can't process it. It indicates marginal performance somewhere on the signal path. I hope DisplayPort turns out to be less finicky.
les_garten
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 500
Hi,
Interesting observation. I've seen this with KVM switches in the past. Do you think there is any difference from Nvidia or ATI on this?
Les
I don't know how the DVI signal quality compares between Nvidia and ATI these days.
In the old days, both companies had trouble with their embedded DVI transmitters on the GPU. The signal quality at 1600x1200 was quite poor. Video cards which relied on the transmitter within the GPU did poorly, so you needed to get a card with external TMDS chips (such as Silicon Image) if you wanted to run reliably at 1600x1200.
These days, the embedded transmitters are much better than they used to be.
My guess is that the input switch is the most problematic element in the signal path to the XHD3000 panel. There's also the question of the quality of the board design within the monitor. Signal integrity can degrade rapidly on board traces. Another question is what DVI receiver chip they use and how finicky it is. A video card with a particularly good DVI transmitter may be able to compensate for all that in some cases, so the severity of the blackout problem may indeed vary with the video card used.
The current situation in the monitor industry is somewhat bizarre. Most monitors seem to be sold by companies like Dell who don't really design and build their own electronics. The monitors are designed and built by companies in China and Korea who don't necessarily have the highest level of expertise in tricky signal integrity work. It's hard to drive down the cost (as Dell and Gateway are doing) while still providing a stable product with cutting-edge technology, including finicky stuff like pushing DVI/HDMI to the limit.
The manual for the monitor actually states not to use KVM switches with it. Probably just being cautious. I use a KVM switch on the VGA port with no problems.
They're probably refering to DVI KVM switches, not VGA. The monitor already has an embedded switch for digital inputs, and there isn't enough signal integrity margin left to degrade further the signal with an additional switch. In fact, based on the blackout reports, it's not working too well even without the addition of an external switch...
les_garten
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 500
Hello Folks,
So I was looking over NewEgg today and there are now 3 reviews for this monitor. One of them stated that 100% had the Blackout issue. When I posted this, some folks piped in and said, "No I don't have the Blackout issue". At least one guy said he didn't have it.
So here's my question:
If you have this monitor:
1) Tell us if you have blackouts
2) Tell us what Video Card you have
Let's see if there is a difference between ATI and NVIDIA.
Les
So I was looking over NewEgg today and there are now 3 reviews for this monitor. One of them stated that 100% had the Blackout issue. When I posted this, some folks piped in and said, "No I don't have the Blackout issue". At least one guy said he didn't have it.
So here's my question:
If you have this monitor:
1) Tell us if you have blackouts
2) Tell us what Video Card you have
Let's see if there is a difference between ATI and NVIDIA.
Les