On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:16:13 +0100, Roderick Stewart
 wrote:
> 
> For example, I'm using a 1600x1200 screen, that being the number of physical display 
> pixels, and although it can show other resolutions, they look worse by different amounts 
> that don't seem to reduce progressively as the numbers reduce. Although 800x600 is not 
> too bad, 1024x768 looks slightly worse, even though it has more pixels, and 1600x1200 
> looks not just slightly better but startlingly better than all the others. If you can't 
> see this then I guess your eyes or your monitors must be different from mine.

ViewSonic VG712s, 'native' resolution 1280x1024 non-interlaced  - your
own text at 1024x768 looks just fine to me:
	http://tinyurl.com/6l23zs
... standing in for ...
http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/?action=view¤t=MonitorResolution1024x768.png

Now it's your turn.  Justify what you claim.

> And whatever the theory tells us to expect from shadowmasks on CRTs (and I'd agree we 
> should expect some effects), in reality I've seen nothing worse than the occasional 
> slight Moire patterning, which can usually be rendered unobtrusive by slight adjustment 
> of height and/or width controls. (This by the way is from several decades working with TV 
> and, latterly, computer displays of various types, some of them multistandard, so I'm not 
> just making it up).

But scientifically speaking this is just 'hearsay', and I don't mean
to be rude, but the level of debate around CRT vs LCD has been so
abysmal, with the pro-CRT faction being particularly unwilling to
offer verifiable facts, that 'hearsay' just isn't going to carry any
weight at all.

The above does NOT constitute an explanation as to why CRTs having
different 'native' resolutions, dot and shadow mask pitch, from the TV
resolutions they need to display should be judged any differently from
LCDs having different 'cell' pitches from the TV resolutions they need
to display.

In article , Java Jive wrote:
> ViewSonic VG712s, 'native' resolution 1280x1024 non-interlaced  -
> your
> own text at 1024x768 looks just fine to me:
>  http://tinyurl.com/6l23zs
> .... standing in for ...
> http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/?
action=view¤t=MonitorResolution1024x768.png
> 
> Now it's your turn.  Justify what you claim.

I'm not sure how I could "justify" what I am able to see, except to state 
that I can see it. Your photograph of part of a computer screen, which 
will have a pixel structure of some sort, displaying a signal which will 
have another pixel structure, presumably taken with a camera with yet 
another pixel structure, shown on my web browser on my own screen, which 
also has a pixel structure, doesn't convey very much to me.

[...]
> 
> But scientifically speaking this is just 'hearsay', and I don't mean
> to be rude, but the level of debate around CRT vs LCD has been so
> abysmal, with the pro-CRT faction being particularly unwilling to
> offer verifiable facts, that 'hearsay' just isn't going to carry any
> weight at all.

Yes, in that sense, anybody else's subjective impression is just 
"hearsay", because it comes from another person and cannot be directly 
verified by you, because you only have your own eyes and ears, not theirs.

There is a way of dealing with this, as the broadcasting and recording 
industries must because they are purveyors of subjective material. The 
method is simply to collate the subjective impressions of large numbers of 
people viewing and/or listening under standardised conditions. It's crude 
but it's the best we've got, and nearly all the parameters of broadcast 
signals and equipment have been determined in this way - until somebody 
invented digital broadcasting and home computers. Technical standards that 
are actually enforced seem to have given way to an unsupervised free-for-
all where the general attitude seems to be that if you can flog something 
to somebody, then it's OK. I've no idea whether there is any "official" 
data on the visibility of the various picture impairments that affect 
modern display systems, but I suspect that if there is it will have been 
compiled by the vested interests that paid for the research and therefore 
presented in what might be called a selective manner. In the meantime, I 
know what works for me, and what usually pleases the people I sometimes 
help to set up their computers and TV systems, so I will simply accept 
that your perceptions are different.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> I've no idea whether there is any "official" 
> data on the visibility of the various picture impairments that affect 
> modern display systems, but I suspect that if there is it will have been 
> compiled by the vested interests that paid for the research and therefore 
> presented in what might be called a selective manner. 

AIUI there is now a SMPTE working party looking at the problem.

This article from 2006, gives some background to the 'challenges' involved :-

http://www.rts.org.uk/magazine_det.asp?id=5767&sec_id=876





-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Jeez, what a shambles!

I know hindsight is always 20-20, but having been a member of a
technical department in another industry, who has written quite a
number of technical appraisals of new kit, one of which I have
circumstantial evidence to believe saved the company millions, I
really cannot understand how such a situation was allowed to develop.

Flat panels have been around for over a decade now.  *At least* 10
years ago, preferably 15, before all the plants were built to
manufacture in bulk to laissez faire standards, broadcasting
organisations should have been appraising this new technology and
inputting their requirements.

It seems instead, as I have long suspected, they've been hiding their
heads in the sand, blocking their ears, and crying: "We'll only ever
use CRTs!".  Even now, wholesalers are stockpiling broadcast quality
CRTs because of the industry's failure to get its requirements met by
the manufacturers.  Which means the day they actually have to learn to
use LCDs will be even further delayed.

["Start the car!"]

And in my more mischievous moments, I wonder if someone had pointed
guns at their collective heads and made them use LCDs while building
our wonderful digital TV system here, whether we might just have ended
up with better quality source signals, because all the compression
artifacts and the like would have been so blindingly bloody obvious on
LCDs.

["Run for it!"]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:36:32 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
> AIUI there is now a SMPTE working party looking at the problem.
> 
> This article from 2006, gives some background to the 'challenges' involved :-
> 
> http://www.rts.org.uk/magazine_det.asp?id=5767&sec_id=876

In article , Mark Carver wrote:
> > I've no idea whether there is any "official" 
> > data on the visibility of the various picture impairments that affect 
> > modern display systems, but I suspect that if there is it will have been 
> > compiled by the vested interests that paid for the research and therefore 
> > presented in what might be called a selective manner. 
> 
> AIUI there is now a SMPTE working party looking at the problem.
> 
> This article from 2006, gives some background to the 'challenges' involved :-
> 
> http://www.rts.org.uk/magazine_det.asp?id=5767&sec_id=876

Well, that's good; it looks as if at least somebody cares (though whether 
they'll be able to do anything is another matter).

The point about viewfinders is one that people buying TVs for home use probably 
won't have thought about, as is the problem of image processing delay to anyone 
who has to monitor live pictures in control rooms and has to contend with 
picture and sound being out of sync - a problem that was peculiar to the film 
industry and completely absent from television, even recorded television, until 
we spent vast amounts of money creating it.

At least if smeary viewfinders result in operators not waving their cameras 
about so much, they might be a blessing in disguise after all.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Java Jive wrote:

> It seems instead, as I have long suspected, they've been hiding their
> heads in the sand, blocking their ears, and crying: "We'll only ever
> use CRTs!".  Even now, wholesalers are stockpiling broadcast quality
> CRTs because of the industry's failure to get its requirements met by
> the manufacturers. 

What wholesalers would they be then ?

The broadcast equipment market doesn't work that way. Major items are more or 
less made to order, and the prices involved are highly negotiable. There is 
huge resistance to LCD viewfinders, and quite frankly they don't offer any 
significant advantage on pedestal mounted cameras over CRTs. LCDs have been 
embraced for OB trucks, because they liberate so much space, can be bashed 
around more than CRTs, and don't get as hot. They're not selected for the 
emotional or aesthetic reasons that drive the consumer market, however in the 
vision quality sections of trucks and studios you'll find CRTs. All these 
choices are driven by the customer/end user, not the equipment 
supplier/systems integrator.

> Which means the day they actually have to learn to
> use LCDs will be even further delayed.

You've obviously never tried to focus a broadcast camera using an LCD 
viewfinder. It can be bloody difficult. Not the sort of thing you want to be 
doing in a war zone, or live show. Get yourself a ticket to next month's IBC 
Broadcast Trade Show in Amsterdam. You can put your thoughts to real life 
broadcasters and operational staff from all over the world.

> ["Start the car!"]

> ["Run for it!"]

Yes, you may need to !



-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:02:03 +0100, Roderick Stewart
 wrote:

> In article , Java Jive wrote:
> > ViewSonic VG712s, 'native' resolution 1280x1024 non-interlaced  -
> > your
> > own text at 1024x768 looks just fine to me:
> >  http://tinyurl.com/6l23zs
> > .... standing in for ...
> > http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/?
> action=view¤t=MonitorResolution1024x768.png
> > 
> > Now it's your turn.  Justify what you claim.
> 
> I'm not sure how I could "justify" what I am able to see, except to state 
> that I can see it.

You could photograph it so that others can see it too.

> Your photograph of part of a computer screen, which 
> will have a pixel structure of some sort,

... a pixel structure that is relevant to this discussion ...

> displaying a signal which will 
> have another pixel structure

... also relevant  ...

> presumably taken with a camera with yet 
> another pixel structure

... which is not relevant, and why I was careful to shoot it at
maximum zoom so that H & V every screen pixel is represented by about
4.5 camera pixels, which by the sampling theorem is more than double
the minimum required to convey the original display  -  I can't do
anything about the barrel distortion, but that doesn't stop you taking
a look at the fonts and on any other count is irrelevant to the
discussion ...

> shown on my web browser on my own screen, which 
> also has a pixel structure

... but which you can make totally irrelevant by downloading the image
and zooming in as far as you like ...

> doesn't convey very much to me.

Well it could let you see what I see, if only you'd let it, that's
what photos are for!

> There is a way of dealing with this

Which is apparently always to duck the issue of both evidence and
rational explanation.  I note that you snipped my last paragraph
without replying to it, so I'll do the same to yours, as it's just
more of the same anyway.

Java Jive  wrote:

>ViewSonic VG712s, 'native' resolution 1280x1024 non-interlaced  - your
>own text at 1024x768 looks just fine to me:
>	http://tinyurl.com/6l23zs
>... standing in for ...
>http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/?action=view¤t=MonitorResolution1024x768.png

That looks rank.





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:40:14 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Java Jive wrote:
> 
> > It seems instead, as I have long suspected, they've been hiding their
> > heads in the sand, blocking their ears, and crying: "We'll only ever
> > use CRTs!".  Even now, wholesalers are stockpiling broadcast quality
> > CRTs because of the industry's failure to get its requirements met by
> > the manufacturers. 
> 
> What wholesalers would they be then ?

Sorry, manufacturers ...

"All the CRT plants worldwide, except possibly some in China, are set
to close, warned Salmon. This has created a sense of urgency, even
though the manufacturers of reference-grade CRTs have stockpiled a
large number to service the markets that require them."

> The broadcast equipment market doesn't work that way. Major items are more or 
> less made to order, and the prices involved are highly negotiable.

Which reinforces my original point rather than counters it  -  the
point that if from the start broadcasters had tried to work with the
equipment even for reference applications and thereby had major input
into design, then by now they would almost certainly have got what
they wanted from manufacturers.

> There is 
> huge resistance to LCD viewfinders, and quite frankly they don't offer any 
> significant advantage on pedestal mounted cameras over CRTs.

I can see that the viewfinder is one of the most critical applications
of display technology, but the point still stands, that if such
stringent requirements had been stated over and over from the start
instead of always going back to old technology, then surely by now
these stringent requirements would have been met.

> LCDs have been 
> embraced for OB trucks ... however in the 
> vision quality sections of trucks and studios you'll find CRTs. All these 
> choices are driven by the customer/end user, not the equipment 
> supplier/systems integrator.

Exactly!  And the problem has been that the customer's been relying
too long on technology that was doomed, without trying to input into
the manufacturing of replacement technology to get what they need out
of it, so now they've painted themselves into a corner.

> > Which means the day they actually have to learn to
> > use LCDs will be even further delayed.
> 
> You've obviously never tried to focus a broadcast camera using an LCD 
> viewfinder.

No I haven't, but I do know that with all the time in the world,
relatively speaking, to take the shots for my CRT vs LCD
investigations, focusing was the second most consistently troublesome
aspect after exposure, so much so that for each situation I now take a
range of five shots  -  one I judge from the viewfinder to be in
focus, one at each of one and two nudges forward and backward.  That's
obviously not normally possible in the field.  So actually I do have a
very good idea of what you mean.  But my point above about customer
input still answers that one.

What do you suppose, say, the MOD do?  I have no idea, but I doubt
they ignore new technology and refuse to use it.  In fact, IIRC come
to think of it, weren't the MOD one of the driving forces behind the
development of LCDs?

In an appraisal of the then new wireless technologies that were coming
of age I few years back, I once wrote:

"In the long term the firm should be looking to its wireless
provider(s) to supply an integrated wireless service.  That is:  a
single subscription at a realistic price which enables a member of
staff on the move to remain connected at any given location using the
fastest wireless technology available there,  whether this be WLAN,
GPRS,  or 3G.  The firm has no reason to favour one technology over
another,  or to multiply costs by having its staff subscribe to
multiple competing technologies in order to get adequate coverage.

Although currently this is not technically feasible  -  there are
technical problems of handing over connections from GPRS to WLAN &
vice versa  -  nevertheless we should keep both ourselves and our
suppliers focused on where we need to go."

The next thing I heard was that we'd restated our phone requirements
to the supplier to include the above, and got a much better deal than
if we'd negotiated them all separately, and potentially the integrated
service that I was looking for, though I didn't hang around long
enough to see that actually happen.

That's the sort of thing broadcasters should have been doing with LCDs

> > ["Start the car!"]
> 
> > ["Run for it!"]
> 
> Yes, you may need to !

 :-)

In article , Java Jive 
wrote:
> I note that you snipped my last paragraph
> without replying to it, so I'll do the same to yours, as it's just
> more of the same anyway.

Sorry if I disappointed you but I couldn't think of anything I wanted 
to say about your last paragraph. Would you like me to try and think 
of something?

That paragraph didn't seem to be saying anything except to refute my 
observations by saying that they were not an explanation. I don't 
really know how to answer that because I wasn't offering an 
explanation, just trying to relate the way CRT and LCD displays 
appear to me at various resolutions.

I'm not fighting a cause here, or arguing a case in a court of law, 
just offering some personal observations for those who are 
interested, so I hope you will understand why I don't feel any urge 
to go and dig one of my only remaining CRT computer monitors out of 
the junk room in order to rig up a photographic demonstration that 
probably wouldn't be very helpful anyway. Display screens are 
intended for eyes, not cameras.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/