bbb@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (04/08/91)
Below is a collections of reponses I recived from a posting about video cards/monitors. At the end is short summary of my thoughts based upon these. It is rather lengthly so skip it if you are not interested! composite listing of reponses to "Video Discisons-" Original posted question: >I've just about made my mind up to get an Orchid >Pro-designer-II w/1 meg, and either the NEC 3D monitor >or the SONY 1304. >Anyone out there have experience with this set up? >Any comments about which monitor to choose? >Is there a better video card to consider? Begin reponses: I've had the 1Mb ProII and 1304 combination for 1 month. It works great for our family. The ProII is fast. Several observations: (1) The ProII and 1304 are capable of 1024x768x256 non-interlaced mode. My *understanding* is that the 3D does interlaced only at that resolution. (2) If you're planning to use Win 3.0 in 1024x768 on a 12" monitor, the icons and print get *annoyingly* hard to read. After switching back and forth several times, our family finally settled on the SVGA 800x600x256 non-interlaced mode for Windows. The PC-world consensus seems to be that a 16" monitor is the minimum desired size for the extended 1024 resolution. Doug Dickerson douglas@gandalf.nosc.mil ------------------------------------------------------------- the orchid board sounds ok. i have a swan board and the thing has an incredibly high data transfer rate, due mainly i think to the tseng et4000 chip. since the orchid is designed around this chip too (i think) it sounds like a good choice. as far as the monitor goes, i have a nec 3d, and it is nice. it remembers how to set the horizontal and vertical size/ centering once you tell it. the picture is also nice and sharp. however, the sony has a better dot pitch and it does 1024x768 noninterlaced (i hope you get a 1024x768 noninterlace capable board) and i think i would prefer it. when i got my setup, there was a significant price difference between the nec and the sony as well as between noninterlaced and interlaced boards. since that gap has closed up quite a bit lately, were i to buy a monitor now, it would be sony, and the video card would be noninterlaced. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I am also trying to make up my mind on what VGA set-up to get. The PD-II is the top card on my list (The next one being ATI Wonder+ (512k)). As far as monitors go I am looking at the NEC 4D,NEC 3D,SEIKO CM1450, NANAO FlexScan 9060s, or SONY CPD 1304. This is what I have found about the monitors: NEC 3D - good picture quality, excellent construction, good color fidelity. Seiko CM1450 - very good picture quality, very good color fidelity, very good construction. Sony CPD 1304 - very good picture quality, good color fidelity, very good construction. NEC 4D - I assume it is similar to the 3D only a bigger tube. Nanao - ??? btw, these observations were from INFOWORLD March 18,1991. Other observations (from PC MAGAZINE May 15,1990): NEC 3D - Excellent controll/construction,performance-adequate, image-sharpness-slightly above average. I haven't gotten anything else concrete on the other monitors (just brief mentions that they liked these monitors). One more thing, The NEC 3D does not have 1024x768 NONINTERLACED. If you get any information on monitors or cards, could you please mail me a copy. I will do the same if I get anything interesting. Thanks, Rob ---------------------------------------------------------------- I have the Orchid Pro II and the Sony 1304 (I bought my system from Ultra-Comp and that's their standard package). I LOVE it!!! Nice, clear, bright screen. Extremely fast video display. And most of all, absolute compatibility. I can easily change my resolution in Windows 3.0 protected mode and it works great in all the resolutions from VGA to 1024x768 noninterlaced--which of course means that the drivers written for the board are EXCELLENT. Spend the extra $30 and get the Sony. It's noninterlaced. The NEC 3D is interlaced and it doesn't have the flat screen like the Sony. Stephen M. Smith \ + / ---------------------------------------------------------------- >Any comments about which monitor to choose? Yes. I have also used it on the Mitsubishi 6615 and the Optiquest 2000. Of these four monitors, the Optiquest 2000 is by far the best combination of clarity, color rendition, quick synching, and non-glariness. The Sony has somewhat better colors but can glare. The Mits is least glaring, biggest image, and best synching, but is not quite sharp throughout. The 3D is non- competitive all around: old technology/reliable is the best you can say for it. >Is there a better video card to consider? Not right now, but soon somebody will have something just as good that also includes the Edsun or another equivalent chip that should be better. >E-Mail welcome. Thanks in advance. Please summarize and post replies. (WILL DO STEVE!) Hope this helps. -Steve ---------------------------------------------------------- I recently acquired a Orchid ProDesigner II for my system, which is currently connected to a NEC 3D display. Other than flipping one switch on the Orchid card to prevent its ROM from conflicting with my disk controller card and checking to make sure the 1024x768x256 switch was in the 'interlace always' position, I just dropped in the card and ran with it. Depending on what you display in 1024x768x256 on the NEC 3D, you may or may not notice flicker. One place where it will be _very_ apparent (and totally eye-searing) is if you run Windows and select the file 'WEAVE.BMP' as your screen background -- it's perfectly set up to maximize the flicker, and it looks like your entire screen is vibrating. I would recommend that you examine the prices for the ProDesigner II for both the 512K and 1M memory configuration; if the price for the 1M card is more than about $30 more than the 512K card, buy the 512K card, go to a chip dealer and purchase four 414256-100 (or faster) 256Kx4 chips and plug them into the empty sockets. I bought a 512K card for $95 less than the 1M card, and paid $22 for four 414256-80 chips. Given that I paid retail for the chips, Orchid must be _really_ gouging on the extra memory. Sean Malloy | This message is programming you ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Mitsubishi is a nominal 16" (good size for Windows and other 1024x768 applications) and the Optiquest is a nominal 15". Both are noninterlaced at 1024x768. The Mitsubishi actually can go to 1280x860 (or something like that) although no cards now go this high. -Steve > E-Mail welcome. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I use a Diamond SpeedSTAR and a Sony 1304 monitor. 640x480 @ 72Hz, 800x600 @ 72 Hz, 1024x768 @ 60 Hz, all non-interlaced. I looked long and hard for an SVGA system without flicker - most people don't know what I'm talking about, as they don't see flicker @ 60 Hz vertical sync. I'm happy with the Sony 1304. Tom Roberts --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****After an e-mail conversation during wichic reported that the best price i had seen for the Sony&orchid was $930 I received..**** BB: Good grief! $930????? Obviously you don't read Computer Shopper magazine! You can get the Orchid Pro II with the Sony 1304 for $799 from Argo Computers (1-800-456-3837). It may cost an extra $50 to have them ship the Orchid with 1 MEG--I don't know if it has 512k or not. Call them. This pair looks GREAT at 1024x768x256. But of course there are VERY FEW times you're going to be able to use it at that resolution and color because there's so little software that uses that resolution. Even Windows 3.0 only uses 256 colors on its opening screen in 1024x768; after that it's only 16 colors (that's what I've been told, I can't tell). I have two .gif pictures that I ftp'd that are 1024x768x256. I use fractint to view them. They are VERY impressive--you can't really get more photograph-like than that! Even when I examine the pictures up close (12" away) I can make out fine details just like on a regular photograph. Stephen M. Smith \ + / -------------------------------------------------------- The Seiko 1450 is supposed to be just about as good as the Sony 1304. The reason for this is that they both use the same tube--the Sony Flat Black Trinitron tube. The only difference then would be in the ciruitry which drives the tube. Check the horizontal and vertical scan capabilities of the Seiko 1450 to see if it will be able to do a high enough refresh rate that you'll be comfortable with. Stephen M. Smith \ + / ---------------------------------------------------------- The Sony 1304: Dot-pitch 0.25 mm. Horiz freq: 28-48 kHz auto-sync Vert freq: 60-90 Hz auto-sync Video bandwidth: >50 MHz It will do (using a Diamond SpeedSTAR card): 640x480 @ 72Hz 800x600 @ 72Hz 1024x768 @ 60 Hz ALL NON-INTERLACED. I believe that it can do interlaced displays, but I have never used them. It has the following controls: Brightness and contrast on the front (also on/off button). Horiz pos, Horiz size, Vert pos, Vert size, on the Left side. NOTE: you REALLY want those size controls, or 800x600 will be wide and short, and 1024x768 will be wide and tall, both compared to 640x480. If your monitor has the correct 1.33 aspect ratio (H/V) for 640x480, it will not have the proper aspect ratio for the other modes, unless you readjust the size controls. I do not understand why readjustment is necessary, but I believe it is due to the frequency standards (promulgated by IBM ??), and is not a (mis-)feature of the particular monitor. Tom Roberts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Side by side I like the SONY. It's brighter and sharper. I really don't like in line gun on a large monitor though. The stripes annoy me :-) ---------------------------------------------------------- ***Next I inquired***** >Video decisions-part II >Thanks for the many reponses to my question on the >Pro-II and the NEC-vs-Sony question. (I'll be summarizing >and posting in a few days.) >Let me add a wrinkle to it. >What is the consenses on Seiko Instruments CM-1450? >If Info-World is to be beleived it out does the Sony 1304. >(although most of its higher rating seems to come from 'soft' >issues such as documentation, support policies etc.) >Any 1450 users out there care to share their experiences? >Does anyone have handy the 'specs' for this and/or the Sony? >(horz freq range, vert freq range, dot pitch etc.) >As always E-Mail welcomed. --- A freind of mine has a Sony 1304, and both of us have had the use of the Seiko 1430 (which is a `tweeked' 1440). Both use the trinatron tube. Anyways, the 1304 is a very nice monitor. All controls are front mounted, except for the autosizing/locking controls (on the righ hand side) which can be reached from the front. The brightness and contrast controls go from full black to full brightness/contrast. The contrast itself is very high, ie black is VERY black. If autolock is used, however, lower res screens are smaller than optimal (if autolock was set first at higher res modes). This is a very minor thing. Anyways, I myself would like to know the difference between the Seiko 1450 and the 1304, as both usually appear for the same price ($620 to $700). Here are the specs for the 1304: Super fine pitch Sony Trinitron tube, 13" diagonal, 90 degree deflection, antiglare. Useful area = 274 mm X 207 mm P 22 Phospor, .26mm dot pitch, 1024 X 768 viewable vert. scanning freq. 50 to 87 Hz Horiz. scanning freq. 28 to 50 Khz RGB 9 pin input (cable is supposed to be optional, but it is usually thrown in. It goes from 15 pin to 9 pin.) video input .714 v PP, 75 ohms. Dimensions: 355 high X 348 wide X 411 deep (mm) 14 X 13.75 X 16 (") Weight: 13.1 Kgs (29.1 Lbs) Video bandwidth is not listed. Hope this info is useful. Waiting for summary... -------------------------------------------------------------- Which one would I buy? Well, remember, my Seiko experience was with the 4130. Actually, Sun used the 1430 (dressed in their name, of course) for their 386i machine. Exactly the same one. The 1430 didn't have a contrast control, and the tilt/swivel was not as good as the Sony's, which is perfectly balanced and well built. If the 1450 doesn't have a contrast control, and/or they haven't improved on the tilt/swivel base, then I would give the edge to Sony. If those improvements have been made, then I would choose the one which gave the least RFI (radio interference), if such a determination could be made, or the one which was lighter in weight! ------------------------------------------------------- Summary: The prodesigner-II seems to be a 'non-question' If you want a great(maybe not the ultimate) video card get the pro-II. As for monitors-- The Nec Multisync-III is by todays standards a second rate player because of its non-interlaced display. This is esp true when comparing it to monitors almost identically priced with as-good or better specs for display. (ie. dot pitch) Also it should be noted that for this size-class (13-14") monitor the question of resolutions above 800x600 maybe somewhat moot since as one person ponited out for practial apps anything at that high a resolution is so small at be of limited value. Although in my case I enjoy viewing still images and *think* I will like that add pixel width. Thanks for the input people. Hope I can return the favor some time (Oh and I hope this is the way to summarize since I have never done it before!) BB