OT: Digital vs. analog Flat panel displays

[Bob]

OK, slightly OT, but this group knows everything: What are the quality
differences and other considerations in choosing digital vs. analog
flat panel displays?

Thanks,

 

[Roger Hamlett]

OK, slightly OT, but this group knows everything: What are the quality
differences and other considerations in choosing digital vs. analog
flat panel displays?

Thanks,

Hint. All flat panels are digital internally. The analog interface adds
another source of error, and digital therefore 'wins'. However there are
differences in what graphics cards can do. For instance, if you have an
analog panel on quite a few cards, the video card offers adjustable
look-up tables for the D-A converter in the card, allowing adjustable
colour rendition. However the same feature is not available using the
digital interface, requiring instead setting up a proper colour profile
for the monitor, which is not an easy adjustment without a colorimeter.
That having been said, some panels are extremely good out of the box, and
have accurate profiles. On a couple of recent examples, the adjustments
needed using a colorimeter, were tiny. However cheaper screens show poor
colour accuracy, and more faults.
Generally a good quality example of either, will beat a cheaper example of
the other, but a good digital unit will look the best of all. For good
quality, look at units like the LaCie, Apple, Xerox, Sony (though some of
their cheaper units should be avoided), and Benq.

Best Wishes

 

[Stephan Grossklass]

OK, slightly OT, but this group knows everything: What are the quality
differences and other considerations in choosing digital vs. analog
flat panel displays?

There are ones which only have analog inputs (mostly cheaper) and others
which have DVI inputs as well. There is *no* fundamental difference
between these types. DVI connection saves one D/A and A/D conversion and
tends to give a somewhat to noticeably better picture, depending on how
good the analog circuitry of the monitor and the signal quality of the
graphics card are. Better monitors tend to have both kinds of inputs.
Other possibly yet more important issues are the panel type used and the
speed (as a gamer, you're unlikely to be very happy with a PVA/MVA panel
without Overdrive, while graphics folks won't like TN panels very much
and office folks are likely to prefer PVA/MVA/S-IPS as well; currently,
PVA/MVA with Overdrive and S-IPS seem to be the best compromises), the
panel resolution along with the lowest attainable brightness, the
mechanics and whatnot. I'd suggest to check out <http://www.prad.de/>
which is /the/ TFT site here in .de and also available with
English-language content now. With the current (special?) pricing, the
Dell 2405FPW is cheaper than my trusty Samsung 191T was 2.5 years ago,
and that's what I call a nice monitor... (Though it may not even be
extremely suited for me with its high resolution - in case of sucky
eyesight, a 19" with SXGA still is best, and in fact I could hardly be
more satisfied with my recently repaired "oldie".)

Stephan

 

[DaveW]

Analog (VGA) displays require that the original digital signal from the
video card processor be converted to an analog signal (still in the video
card). This analog siganl then travels over the VGA cable to the monitor
where the signal must now be converted from analog back to a digital siganl
that the monitor can use. All of this extra signal processing degrades the
signal and thus the image you see on the screen.
With a digital input monitor, the digital siganl from the video processing
unit in the video card is sent straight out over the digital video cable to
the digital input on the monitor and is directly used. Result: much
sharper, less noisey image.

DaveW

 

[Daniel Mandic]

OK, slightly OT, but this group knows everything: What are the quality
differences and other considerations in choosing digital vs. analog
flat panel displays?

Thanks,

Hi Bob!



First, there are no digital displays available. It´s always a mixture
of D and A. The older computer-picture is also digital (VGA, CGA
etc...) and then converted to analog... the same goes with LCD and
consorts, otherwise you wouldn´t see somewhat.

I cannot see a digital difference between CRT or LCD.


Well, an analog is.
As you know, the sky is getting more blue when you look a further
distance. So the electron beam in a CRT have nice side-effects, making
the picture deeper and more lively, as it is not just a pixel on the
screen. Would you see the difference when looking to a 2m-staff, 100%
directly to the top of it, and the to the same staff but just 1inch
long?

Long writing short meaning, I saw it especially with the game "Icewind
Dale". They made some nice GfX (still-pictures), making similar effects
like analog TV. The digital-3d (real it is 2D, as anybody knows) is
globing out of the screen . I have not seen such things often, but I
dare to say how it would look on a LCD - False colors and dazzling.
Like black-holes in the picture. Not my choice, sorry.

Not to mention the slowness of the CRT (afterglow), making fast
pictures and helping the digital to make smoother animation. Well, less
is often more ;-.) --- Ask Playstation Gamer!!!! Often taken away
Grandma´s old TV-Set ;-)
As in High End. Intensifying the strong parts is better than
intensifying the weak. But that´s totally OT and really analog. With
Digital knowledge alone, you cannot understand, as you have only two
sides. With analog you have to think, even you can´t , with three.

The only good thing, going with LCD, is the crispy resolution. If you
wish to preferably surf the internet and read much of (non sizeable
grmbflx...) text, then a LCD is the first choice.
Power saving is no argument for me. I drive no car... 50KM of car
driving is like 200 Splendid Hours of 130W Sony Monitor driving...
That´s 8 days!!! calc: 5L Gasoline = 5H (1l per hour) of making
5KW with an 4Cyl/2litres/150HP Engine = 25KW/H = 25000/130 = 192
Well, no car and LCD, can save even more.

Also if using WindowsXP, and turning on this all font smoothers etc...
is not acceptable for me. I would need 1GHz moire of CPU power to
compensate the features which I have, so and so. Good CRT´s are
smoothing fonts on a mechanical basis. I like Sony... they are very
sharp, but soft (Aperture Grill) too. But other producers are making
other, you have to see yourself which is most likely for your eyes and
senses.




Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic

P.S.: More deep CRT´s making more deep pictures. Flat is flat.

 

[daytripper]

Hi Bob!



First, there are no digital displays available.

[nonsense truncated]

Severe credibility deficit detected, aborting read.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

First, there are no digital displays available.

[nonsense truncated]

Severe credibility deficit detected, aborting read.

<snip>

not very helpful.

At least you understand till there, where you have truncated.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Wayne]

First, there are no digital displays available.

[nonsense truncated]

Severe credibility deficit detected, aborting read.

No, he's exactly right, which makes you wrong.

CRT is analog at the phosphorus, and digital at the computer interface.

LCD is analog at the TFT crystal, and digital at the computer interface.

Both the phosphorus and the TFT crystal react to 256 levels of analog
voltage (thare are no 1's and 0's there). Both cases use D/A to create that
analog voltage. That distinction is where you draw the interface line
between those points. That line is on the video card for CRT, and in the
monitor for DVI, but it must become analog either way. Our eyes see analog.
I guess you need to know how things work to understand that "there are no
digital displays available".

I didnt follow the automobile analogy, but I liked Daniel's story.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Wayne wrote:

Hi Wayne

No, he's exactly right, which makes you wrong.

The opposite is not wrong. It´s left. Right Left, what is so difficult
with that?
Even if you could cut yourself in two pieces, and you keep the right
one. You could not go on, bez you have the wrong part of the Brain left.
So, please don´t tell me about Right and Wrong. Maybe we can discuss
this in alt.religion

CRT is analog at the phosphorus, and digital at the computer
interface.

What about a RGB Connection?

LCD is analog at the TFT crystal, and digital at the computer
interface.

That I say (meant).

Both the phosphorus and the TFT crystal react to 256 levels of analog
voltage (thare are no 1's and 0's there). Both cases use D/A to
create that analog voltage. That distinction is where you draw the
interface line between those points. That line is on the video card
for CRT, and in the monitor for DVI, but it must become analog either
way. Our eyes see analog. I guess you need to know how things work
to understand that "there are no digital displays available".

Thanks. Even more uninterested, now. That means: D-D-A-A way with LCD .
Crt D-A-A
That´s one digital more and means to me, that the connection is not
better.
Similar like, watching an analog TV-Station with a digital receiver. I
am sure many people think the picture is geting better then. No, it
can´t.
Well, TV.-Station analog equipment is much better. Higher Res than
analog TV-Sets. So it could be technically possible to use the higher
res with a digital-receiver (800x600). But it could not benefit any
more of the other side-effects, going with analog sources.

O,K, the Computer is always digital, in meaning of source (with some
exceptions). But even that, I prefer the analog equipment at the end of
the monitor-cable. I always thought the computer-developers are trying
to simulate real world with it. Why going back to the primitive source?
Let´s see the Impact!

Otherwise, if you are a software-developer, then I beg your pardon. I
can assure to have honour about them. Making this possible, I am
talking about, at all.

Then you should know the source, otherwise it´s plain boring. Also the
GfX.

I didnt follow the automobile analogy, but I liked Daniel's story.

Well, this story came from my work as a seller. One time a customer
shouted with me: Why do this Ghettoblasters have Cassette Recorder
built in.... Who needs this... this is old and blocking any new
innovation..
etc. etc...
I explained that it is an innovation of 1964, presented at the Berlin
Fair blah, blah... blah

Conclusion: He came with somethin over 100 Years old, to shout with me
about something 40 Years old.
He likes Car, I like CC-RW. Is this O.K.?


I remember Times, people paying up to 1500bucks for a 15" TFT. That´s
abnormal <:-;
This thing cannot make correct VGA, just predefined hardware-res´s.
It´s making the dazzling computer digital-picture even more digital....
but as I said, some apps may benefit with a TFT or LCD. Plasma is even
better. The best!
But even that, it´s not making deeper pictures than a fine cathode ray
TV-Set. It can do like a CRT, but not better. Sharper, as a LCD. But
not so clunky.





Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Wayne]

The opposite is not wrong. It´s left. Right Left, what is so difficult
with that?

Daniel, you are doing it all wrong. Instead of laughing and having a
good time, you are supposed to start shouting IDIOT like some immature
juvenile (my apology to juveniles, who mostly behave much better than the
usenet crowd). But that is simply how we do things on Usenet Daniel, so
you are not following the flow.

Thanks. Even more uninterested, now. That means: D-D-A-A way with LCD .
Crt D-A-A
That´s one digital more and means to me, that the connection is not
better.

Well, both CRT and DVI are just one D/A, done at one end of the cable or
the other, but yes, LCD on a VGA cable does add another D/A and A/D for
the available connector. Which sounds poor technically, but in practice,
assuming a decent video card that can do analog well enough, there is no
perceivable difference in results. These are easy operations today, not
rocket science. Buying a DVI cable for my 19" LCD was one of the poorest
investments I ever made... there was no perceptible difference. Very good
both ways.

But even that, it´s not making deeper pictures than a fine cathode ray
TV-Set. It can do like a CRT, but not better. Sharper, as a LCD. But
not so clunky.

A LCD monitor is nice and sharp for text, especially if compared to an
old or low-end CRT. CRT can be fine for text too, but buying more than
lowest price is advised (monitor and video card both). If we avoid that
lowest price, the CRT is nearly as good for text, and very noticeably
better than LCD for viewing or editing photos. A LCD works, but
definitely is not the best, so if photos are an important goal, then
maybe we should reconsider LCD for now. But I'd guess another year or
two will bring even more advances in LCD, to even things out. The LCD
does win easily now in the non-viewing properties, small table space and
low power and heat.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Daniel, you are doing it all wrong. Instead of laughing and having a
good time, you are supposed to start shouting IDIOT like some
immature juvenile (my apology to juveniles, who mostly behave much
better than the usenet crowd). But that is simply how we do things
on Usenet Daniel, so you are not following the flow.

Don´t worry, your style of writing will never be a reference to me. You
should stay more to the case, and not determine the person behind the
post.

Well, both CRT and DVI are just one D/A, done at one end of the cable
or the other, but yes, LCD on a VGA cable does add another D/A and
A/D for the available connector. Which sounds poor technically, but
in practice, assuming a decent video card that can do analog well
enough, there is no perceivable difference in results. These are easy
operations today, not rocket science. Buying a DVI cable for my 19"
LCD was one of the poorest investments I ever made... there was no
perceptible difference. Very good both ways.



A LCD monitor is nice and sharp for text, especially if compared to
an old or low-end CRT. CRT can be fine for text too, but buying more
than lowest price is advised (monitor and video card both). If we
avoid that lowest price, the CRT is nearly as good for text, and very
noticeably better than LCD for viewing or editing photos. A LCD
works, but definitely is not the best, so if photos are an important
goal, then maybe we should reconsider LCD for now. But I'd guess

We... are you a kind of Chief?

another year or two will bring even more advances in LCD, to even
things out. The LCD does win easily now in the non-viewing
properties, small table space and low power and heat.

Yeah, like a small car.


Thanks for the Technical Info. I agree totally with you.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

P.S.: More deep CRT´s making more deep pictures. Flat is flat.

http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/televisions/tv1a.htm