Text not sharp in new LCD monitor

[sinister]

It just arrived a couple days ago:

Samsung SyncMaster 940BX.

Yes, I'm running my video adapter at the LCD's native resolution of
1280x1024.

I've tried playing with all the OSD controls, and can't seem to get it
right.

Is it possible that using DVI instead of VGA would help much?

 

[Michael Hawes]

It just arrived a couple days ago:

Samsung SyncMaster 940BX.

Yes, I'm running my video adapter at the LCD's native resolution of
1280x1024.

I've tried playing with all the OSD controls, and can't seem to get it
right.

Is it possible that using DVI instead of VGA would help much?

YES. Have you checked Display Properties - Appearance Tab - Effects
button, 2 methods of smoothing edges of Fonts.

Mike.

 

[DaveW]

DVI will definitely give a sharper image than VGA. A digital signal will
always be more accurate than an analog signal.

 

[Sleepy]

It just arrived a couple days ago:

Samsung SyncMaster 940BX.

Yes, I'm running my video adapter at the LCD's native resolution of
1280x1024.

I've tried playing with all the OSD controls, and can't seem to get it
right.

Is it possible that using DVI instead of VGA would help much?

if you have DVI output on the graphics card but only VGA input on the
monitor then you'll be using a DVI-to-VGA adapter and thats no better. DVI
straight from card to monitor is tons better. My brothers old Samsung LCD
was VGA only and it looked sharpest on 72hz refresh rate NOT the top 75hz
nor the standard 60hz - try differant refresh rates.

 

[DJT]

It just arrived a couple days ago:

Samsung SyncMaster 940BX.

Yes, I'm running my video adapter at the LCD's native resolution of
1280x1024.

I've tried playing with all the OSD controls, and can't seem to get it
right.

Is it possible that using DVI instead of VGA would help much?

I had the same problem with 19" Wide screen LG monitor.

The 1440x900 resolution was much better using DVI
Using Analoge there were patches that were blurred using an old Video
card.
The analoge display was better using current Video card, but not as
good as DVI

DJT

 

[sinister]

YES. Have you checked Display Properties - Appearance Tab - Effects
button, 2 methods of smoothing edges of Fonts.

Yep, I played with that. I think it look a little better with cleartype
off.

It might also be that the on-board video for my PC sucks (intel 810e). It
looked a little better on the (also old) PC at work, which is a Matrox
Millenium 400 (still VGA).

 

[sinister]

DVI will definitely give a sharper image than VGA. A digital signal will
always be more accurate than an analog signal.

Right, but _how_ much sharper?

Some respondents to my previous post made it seem like the improvement
wouldn't be that much. But there's a bunch of controls on the OSD and some
I think have to do with the fact it's VGA---e.g., the coarse and fine
controls. Changing those really changes the quality, so I figure that going
DVI will improve the quality. Don't know though.

 

[sinister]

if you have DVI output on the graphics card but only VGA input on the
monitor then you'll be using a DVI-to-VGA adapter and thats no better. DVI

Monitor has both DVI input and VGA input.

straight from card to monitor is tons better. My brothers old Samsung LCD
was VGA only and it looked sharpest on 72hz refresh rate NOT the top 75hz
nor the standard 60hz - try differant refresh rates.

Huh. That's weird. I'll try that just to see.

 

[Frank McCoy]

Right, but _how_ much sharper?

Some respondents to my previous post made it seem like the improvement
wouldn't be that much. But there's a bunch of controls on the OSD and some
I think have to do with the fact it's VGA---e.g., the coarse and fine
controls. Changing those really changes the quality, so I figure that going
DVI will improve the quality. Don't know though.

I think it depends a *LOT* on the video-card you use.
Perhaps also on the particular LCD panel, as well.
I'm using an ATI 2006 "All In Wonder" card with VGA only output.
My StarLogic 1680x1050 using VGA is *incredibly* sharp.
Actually, I don't see how it could be sharper using the DVI connector.
There's only so sharp it *can* get for a certain resolution.
I'm not sure if my good results are due to the design of this particular
LCD panel, the video-card output, or both. Knowing what goes into both,
I can see how each can have a HUGE effect on the final result. With a
resolution like mine (not THAT different from what a CRT would get with
VGA on 1600x1200 resolution), the VGA connector *should* do just fine.
If not, I'd suspect somebody on the LCD panel receiving end just didn't
do their job; because the VGA connector works just FINE for CRT displays
with several times that resolution.

I can see possibilities and probabilities for each side making a
tremendous difference. If I had a choice though, I'd go DVI, even
though *for me* I doubt it would make even the tiniest bit of
difference.

 

[JAD]

Monitor has both DVI input and VGA input.


Huh. That's weird. I'll try that just to see.

What grade video cable are you using?

 

[sinister]

What grade video cable are you using?

Didn't know there are different grades.

:-(

 

[SkepticalJazzGeek]

What grade video cable are you using?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just to chime in - I've experimented with VGA extender cables and
discovered that long, low-quality cables DO make a big difference..
for the worse. A short cable to a quality card should produce good
results. DVI is better than VGA but VGA set right can produce a nice
sharp image. In XP Experiment with Display Properties->Settings:
Advanced button; Adapter tab; then List All Modes Button - try out a
variety of 1280 x 1024 settings and see if you find one you like..

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Just to chime in - I've experimented with VGA extender cables and
discovered that long, low-quality cables DO make a big difference..
for the worse.

Same here. The cheaper cables use ordinary wire for each of the RGB
signals instead of 75ohm mini coax. This results in reflections which
show up as horizontal ghosting.

- Franc Zabkar