| Author |
Message |
Benjamin Gawert
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:42 pm Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Joe Mama schrieb:
| Quote: | Right, DVI is the best connection. But not because any work is done by
the gfx card instead of the monitor but simply because with DVI there
is no need for the gfx card to convert the digital signal to analog,
transmit it in analog over the cable (which is sensible to lots of
distortions) and having the monitor to convert the signal back to
digital again.
Benjamin
That makes sense to me, due to my main frame of referance being
professional audio (excessive D/A-A/D conversion is almost always
audible), but if Wikipedia is to be believed:
"However, the use of a DVI video signal does not automatically guarantee
better image quality: a good video card RAMDAC and properly shielded
analogue VGA cable may produce the same display."
|
Both is correct. As you certainly already know, analog transmitting is
very sensitive to distortion. However, if you have a gfx card which
delivers a good analog signal quality (that automatically doesn't
include most of the generic gamer cards out there), a good video cable,
and a very good monitor with a good analog processing electronics and
also matched inputs, then it's very likely you won't see a difference
between DVI and analog. Another thing is that TFTs don't need (and don't
want) high refresh rates, so the bandwidth you need for the analoge
signal is smaller than you would need for a crt that needs >~75Hz to
deliver a somewhat flicker-free picture.
| Quote: | I'd still probably use DVI over VGA if given the option though.
|
I use DVI too. But I also have some computers connected to the analog
input of my Dell 2005FPW vie a HP/Avocent KVM switch. There barely is a
visual difference between DVI and VGA...
Benjamin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Benjamin Gawert
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:48 pm Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Joe Mama schrieb:
| Quote: | So would the commonly-published 'response time' specs (8ms, 12ms, etc.)
be basically the native refresh expressed in a different way?
|
No. The response time is the time a LCD needs to switch the color of a
pixel. It also varies with the color that the pixel is switched to. The
refresh rate is the (inverted) time a crt needs to draw a complete
frame. Not quite the same...
Benjamin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Mama
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:38 pm Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Benjamin Gawert wrote:
| Quote: | Joe Mama schrieb:
So would the commonly-published 'response time' specs (8ms, 12ms,
etc.) be basically the native refresh expressed in a different way?
No. The response time is the time a LCD needs to switch the color of a
pixel. It also varies with the color that the pixel is switched to. The
refresh rate is the (inverted) time a crt needs to draw a complete
frame. Not quite the same...
Benjamin
|
Ah, but related. Thanks for clarifying.
Cheers,
-joe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lars-Erik Østerud
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:03 pm Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Joe Mama:
| Quote: | So would the commonly-published 'response time' specs (8ms, 12ms, etc.)
be basically the native refresh expressed in a different way? Kinda
|
That's the time for a pixel to turn on/off. Not quite the same (if the
DVI interface only trasfers 60 frames/sec, you can't get faster
framerate than that when VSYNC is on, a part of my point in this
discussion), BUT you need fast "response time" as well, or you will
get afterglow (espicially on red), when something moves, the "image"
stay behind a bit (quite like if you look at a lightsource and then
close your eyes, you still see it for a short while :-)
--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lars-Erik Østerud
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:10 pm Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Dromiz:
| Quote: | BINGO that is your problem using analog input on a LCD. I moved over to
DVI-I and that problem is gone. LCDs work best with Digital since the
faster video card is doing most of the work and not the monitor.
|
BUT again, standing in the middle of a room in a game and the turning,
with DVI (60 hz) lines (like walls etc) don't move as smooth as with
85. Can't get away from that. I'll try som ACSII drawings:
DVI or 60 hz: | | | | |
Analog 85 LCD: | | | | | | | | |
85 hz CRT: ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trying to illustrate the movement of a vertical line when turning
(hope you see the point, it's kind of hard to explain w/o seeing)
--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lars-Erik Østerud
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:13 pm Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Benjamin Gawert:
| Quote: | moving fast (again :-) that will not look as smooth.
It will. Unlike TVs which use interlacing a gfx card outputs
|
No, it don't (see the other mail with the ASCII graphics).
At least not with any LCD screens I have tested.
The image quility is superb, but the movement smoothness sucks.
--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Hancock
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:08 am Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Lars-Erik Østerud wrote:
| Quote: | Phil Weldon:
You bring what is called an anecdote, a story of one experience by one
person with one set of equipment.
Well well, I have several types of LCD at work, same experience.
LCD is great for still images and Office work, terrible for movement
|
Certainly it is for the monitors usually bought for business use.. 25ms
is fine for office apps, but you need something faster for games.
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in