terence@ttidca.TTI.COM (Terence Davis) (08/21/90)
This morning I read some articles about the Sony CDP 1304 1024x768
non-interlaced 14" monitor. I have decided to go the route of 1024x768
and need to choose a monitor. My video board, a NEC Graphics Engine, will
do 1024x768 NI so I want a non-interlaced monitor. That eliminated the
NEC 3D (which I don't like anyway). But then there's the NEC 4D 16" and Sony
1304 14". The NEC is ~$1150 mail order (~$1400 non-mail order) while the
Sony is ~$698 from stores around me. If the resolution is the same, but
the area is different, shouldn't the same amount of information be displayable
on each screen (albeit the Sony would be in a smaller area)? I'm young, so
my eyes can still read the smaller print. In a recent review (April 10, 1990)
PC Magazine LOVED the colors/resolution/spherical shape of the Sony but loved
the 4D for it's digital memory. My use will be purely on the higher resolution
so it will never need to remember anything. Any comments/help would be
appreciated. I don't really want to spend twice as much money on a monitor
who's only benefit is a "memory" which I won't use.
Send responses to terence@ttidca.tti.com or the net.
P.S. If anyone's used the NEC Graphic Engine (any monitor) with OS/2 PM I'd
love to hear your comments.
Thanks,
Terrynbladt@aut.UUCP (Norbert Bladt) (08/24/90)
terence@ttidca.TTI.COM (Terence Davis) writes: >This morning I read some articles about the Sony CDP 1304 1024x768 >non-interlaced 14" monitor. I have decided to go the route of 1024x768 >and need to choose a monitor. My video board, a NEC Graphics Engine, will >do 1024x768 NI so I want a non-interlaced monitor. That eliminated the >NEC 3D (which I don't like anyway). But then there's the NEC 4D 16" and Sony >1304 14". The NEC is ~$1150 mail order (~$1400 non-mail order) while the >Sony is ~$698 from stores around me. I would look for the EIZO 9070 S (in Europe) or Nanao 9070 (in USA) It does 1024x768 NI, is 16" and should be cheap,t, too. It doesn't have memory either. And IMHO it looks good. Just a hint :-) >Send responses to terence@ttidca.tti.com or the net. Norbert Bladt. -- Please use this path as return address. DON'T USE THE RETURN PATH IN THE HEADER Norbert Bladt, Ascom Autelca AG, Worbstr. 201, CH-3073 Guemligen, Switzerland Phone: +41 31 52 92 14 EMail: ..!uunet!mcsun!chx400!hslrswi!bladt
rajs@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Rajeev Seth) (09/01/90)
I bought the Mitsubishi DIamondscan 16L instead of NEC 4D because for the same price and 16" size you get a better-contrast display and 1280x1024 resolution in the monitor for free. So if later 1280 res board prices come down to earth, you dont need to buy a new monitor, just replace your Prodesigner with that card and you'll have higher res. Youre right that the larger size of 16" will give you larger sized characters and that is the reason you will want to pay 500 dollars more. Because your eyes will complain after a few months of use on the 14" in 1024 res. mode. It;s not worth the aggravation inspite of you thinking you are young. --Rajeev
rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (09/02/90)
Most 14" displays simply cannot show 1024 pixels satisfying. The minimum pixel size on current displays is 0.25mm. Now calculate this by 1024 and compare this to the width of the picture on your display. You will find that the picture on the 14" is not wide enough to hold 250mm (10"). That means several dots in 1024x768 mode overlap with the same holes in the RGB mask of the display and the picture looses much of its quality. Only a few color display (perhaps SONY ones with Trinitron tubes) can show 1024x768 on a 14" tube really good. This does not apply to gray-scale display which do not have a RGB mask and therefore to not have this dot size limit (you should never see something about "0.28mm per dot" on data sheets for gray-scale displays). On a 14" gray-scale display you *can* show 1024x768 in good quality if the display can synchronize to this mode (not all can do this for non-interlaced 1024x768 and some are even fixed-freq. only). Kai Uwe Rommel -- /* Kai Uwe Rommel * Munich * rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */
medici@dorm.rutgers.edu (Mark Medici) (09/02/90)
rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes: >Most 14" displays simply cannot show 1024 pixels satisfying. The minimum >pixel size on current displays is 0.25mm. Now calculate this by 1024 and >compare this to the width of the picture on your display. You will find >that the picture on the 14" is not wide enough to hold 250mm (10"). That >means several dots in 1024x768 mode overlap with the same holes in the >RGB mask of the display and the picture looses much of its quality. >Only a few color display (perhaps SONY ones with Trinitron tubes) can >show 1024x768 on a 14" tube really good. This does not apply to >gray-scale display which do not have a RGB mask and therefore to not >have this dot size limit (you should never see something about "0.28mm >per dot" on data sheets for gray-scale displays). Your explaination for color monitors is correct, however, the information you give for monochrome monitors is not entirely true. While monochrome monitors do not use a shadow mask (aka, RGB mask), they do face a similar limitation in the form of dot size. Dot size is the smallest area that can be illuminated on the screen, and is affected by the qualitiy of the display's focus circuitry, and adversely affected by the brightness of the display. While an overly large dot does not prevent information from being displayed, it does often cause fine detail and patterns to be lost since areas that should be dark between lit areas might be filled by the large dot fringe. Unfortuntely, I no longer have access to information of this type for various monitors. >On a 14" gray-scale display you *can* show 1024x768 in good quality if >the display can synchronize to this mode (not all can do this for >non-interlaced 1024x768 and some are even fixed-freq. only). -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Medici/SysProg3 * Rutgers University/CCIS * medici@elbereth.rutgers.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------------