andrewsr@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Andrews) (03/14/91)
Ok, I know this has been batted around a bit, but I really didn't follow the discussion. I am considering either the C= 1950 monitor or the Nec multisync 3D. The 1950 will cost ~$530 educational discount, and the best price I have seen for the 3D is ~$570. Does the 3D plug directly into the A3000? (We use them at work and they come with a VGA plug--is this true of all 3Ds, or did my work order that specifically)? Can I display all the modes on the 3D that I can on the A1950? (NTSC, or whatever). Will there be ANY loss of functionality? (Or is the NEC actually better than the 3D)? (If I were to start to get into video work, would the 1950 be a better choice than the 3D)? I know that several users have had the rumored "first line flicker" on their 1950, and that is the primary reason I will consider the 3D. However, some users have reported no problems whatsoever. Did C= fix the problem, or is it just luck? Much thanks in advance. -Rich -- // Rich | "Truth is disputable; not taste." - Hume \X/ Andrews | "180 degrees from sick is still sick" - J. Bradshaw
blgardne@javelin.es.com (Blaine Gardner) (03/16/91)
andrewsr@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Andrews) writes: >I am considering either the C= 1950 monitor or the Nec multisync 3D. >The 1950 will cost ~$530 educational discount, and the best price I >have seen for the 3D is ~$570. Get the NEC, it's well worth the extra $40 for the quality. If the many tales of failed A1950's aren't enough to persuade you, the NEC has better specs, and to my eye looks much better. I'd also suggest looking at the Sony CPD-1302, the colors are brighter than either the NEC 3D or the A1950. >Does the 3D plug directly into the A3000? (We use them at work and >they come with a VGA plug--is this true of all 3Ds, or did my work >order that specifically)? If you've got a VGA cable, it will plug right in. I don't know what NEC supplies with the 3D, I had to buy a VGA cable for my Sony. >Can I display all the modes on the 3D that I can on the A1950? (NTSC, >or whatever). Will there be ANY loss of functionality? (Or is the >NEC actually better than the 3D)? (If I were to start to get into >video work, would the 1950 be a better choice than the 3D)? Both the NEC and the Sony work perfectly with all video modes. The only advantage that the A1950 has is more range on the height and width controls, so you can hide some of the active video area behind the bezel. My Sony is adjusted so there's a small (1/8 to 1/4 inch) black border, that way I can use a 740x480 overscanned Workbench screen. Nearly anything would be a better choice than the A1950 in my opinion. CBM makes some great computers, but they always go for the bottom of the barrel when shopping for display vendors. The A1950 is made by AOC, a middle-to-low quality for middle-to-low price vendor. If you're serious about video work, take a look at the Mistubishi Diamond Scan. It's the only 15KHz-30KHz multisync I've seen with a composite video input. >I know that several users have had the rumored "first line flicker" on >their 1950, and that is the primary reason I will consider the 3D. >However, some users have reported no problems whatsoever. Did C= fix >the problem, or is it just luck? The flickering first 1/2 line of video is the fault of the CBM de-interlacer, ALL A3000's and A1950's have this "feature". The only way around it is to lower the contrast of the image (I dropped the Workbench background gray a couple of notches), or adjust the image so the first line of video is behind the bezel. -- Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108 blgardne@javelin.sim.es.com or ...dsd.es.com!javelin!blgardne DoD #0046 My other motorcycle is a Quadracer. BIX: blaine_g Anticipation, anticipation, is making me late, is keeping me waiting.
jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour) (03/17/91)
In article <1991Mar15.163126.22400@javelin.es.com> blgardne@javelin.sim.es.com writes: >andrewsr@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Andrews) writes: >>I am considering either the C= 1950 monitor or the Nec multisync 3D. >>... > >Get the NEC, it's well worth the extra $40 for the quality. If the many >tales of failed A1950's aren't enough to persuade you, the NEC has >better specs, and to my eye looks much better. I'd also suggest looking >at the Sony CPD-1302, the colors are brighter than either the NEC 3D or >the A1950. > >... > >Nearly anything would be a better choice than the A1950 in my opinion. >CBM makes some great computers, but they always go for the bottom of the >barrel when shopping for display vendors. The A1950 is made by AOC, a >middle-to-low quality for middle-to-low price vendor. > >... I have to disagree with Blain on his evaluation of the 1950 vs. the NEC 3D. Keep in mind that I am a *very* new Amiga owner, and my personal experience with graphics and graphics/high-resolution monitors is about nil. While it's true that there seem to be some problems with the 1950 at the moment, from what I've heard they're no worse than some of the problems I've seen reported with the 3D on the A3000 or the new video board. I've a friend who bought the new Amiga video board (sorry, I can never remember the number of that thing) for his 2000 and he went with the 3D. He regrets his decision. The two 3D's he's had have both had more severe problems than those described for the 1950. Added to that - no overscan (I've heard the arguments about overscan vs. not, so skip the flames please - you can always turn it off on the 1950 if you don't want it, I happen to like it.) I've also seen complaints of a similar nature elsewhere (here, on CI$, or GEnie, don't remember where). The 3D may be fine for your average PeeCee, but I think I'd avoid it for the new Amiga video. I'm not promoting the 1950 (mine still has some of the reported problems, still trying to get them resolved), I just question whether the 3D is a better choice (or even as good). DISCLAIMER: None of the above has any connection with my employment. Any opinions are strictly my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. We don't even use Amiga's here (yet :-)). -- Jim Seymour | Medar, Inc. ...!uunet!medar!jseymour | 38700 Grand River Ave. jseymour@medar.com | Farmington Hills, MI. 48331 CIS: 72730,1166 GEnie: jseymour | FAX: (313)477-8897
blgardne@javelin.es.com (Blaine Gardner) (03/18/91)
jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour) writes: >In article <1991Mar15.163126.22400@javelin.es.com> blgardne@javelin.sim.es.com writes: >>andrewsr@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Andrews) writes: >>>I am considering either the C= 1950 monitor or the Nec multisync 3D. >>Nearly anything would be a better choice than the A1950 in my opinion. >>CBM makes some great computers, but they always go for the bottom of the >>barrel when shopping for display vendors. The A1950 is made by AOC, a >>middle-to-low quality for middle-to-low price vendor. >I have to disagree with Blain on his evaluation of the 1950 vs. the NEC >3D. Keep in mind that I am a *very* new Amiga owner, and my personal >experience with graphics and graphics/high-resolution monitors is about >nil. Monitors are of course a very personal decision, what one person likes, another may despise. However on the issue of quality, the record of the A1950 and A1080x/A1084/A2002 speaks for itself. I'd buy anything from Sony, NEC, Mitsubishi, or any other established display vendor before I'd buy a CBM monitor. Any extra cost is money well spent. Other than reliability, things to consider are video bandwidth, phosphor dot pitch (both will greatly affect image quality), color convergence (is a white line white, or does it have color fringes?), pincushion (geometric distortion: are straight lines straight, or bowed), high voltage regulation (does the image size "bloom" when the image switches from dark to light?) and phosphor type (persistance, color intensity). Of course the only valid way to judge these for yourself is to look at the displays first hand, prefferably side-by-side. Unfortunatly this is not always an option. Personally I own or have owned the following: NEC Multisync II (JC-1401P3A), Amiga A1080 (1986 era), A1080 (1989 era), Sony CPD-9001, Sony CPD-1302 and a Mitsubishi C-3919. I've had first-hand experience with a number of others, ranging from the A1084 and A1950, to 19" displays by Fimi, Ikegami and Mitsubishi. That's hardly of comprehensive list of all the displays available on the market, but it's been enough to open my eyes, and spoil me for high quality displays. Of the 13" multisync displays, I'd pick the Sony CPD-1302 (brilliant colors, nothing else comes close, plus good performance in the other areas), then the NEC 3D (overall good, but I like the Sony's color), Mitsubishi Diamond Scan (good, but colors seem a bit flat, the only one I've seen with both composite and RGB inputs), NEC Multisync II (not bad, but lousy H.V. regulation), and dead last, the A1950 (worst dot pitch and bandwidth of the bunch, poor H.V. regulation, poor convergence, lousy quality). If you've never seen anything better, the CBM monitors look nice, but you owe it to youself to look at what else is out there before you spend several hundred bucks. -- Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108 blgardne@javelin.sim.es.com or ...dsd.es.com!javelin!blgardne DoD #0046 My other motorcycle is a Quadracer. BIX: blaine_g Anticipation, anticipation, is making me late, is keeping me waiting.