GeForce3 : 2D quality is still bad?

[MrCoyote]

On MadOnion.com their are a lot of people complaining about the Visiontek GF3 having bad 2D because of poor quality RMI filters. What about the other brands of GF3? Do they have similar problems? I'm disappointed that no one mentions the 2D quality of these cards in their reviews, just 3D performance. Everyone here on Anandtech is raving about Visiontek, but I'm glad I found this thread. I'm going to hold off until someone does a 2D quality comparison between GF3 cards.

 

[filmore crashcart]

I have seen this article also from a link at 3D Chip. I have a matrox G400 max on my computer at work and a VisionTek Geforce 3 on my computer at home. I have a 19 inch Hitachi SuperScan Supreme 752 on the home system and I have it on 1284x1024 res. This is purely subjective but, I find very little in difference in the 2d quality comparing the 2. I have the same card bios number as the one they were talking about in this thread so I don't know what the problem is. I have been very happy with the 2d quality of this card over the Hercules 3D Prophet2 GTS that it has replaced.

 

[Taz4158]

<< I have seen this article also from a link at 3D Chip. I have a matrox G400 max on my computer at work and a VisionTek Geforce 3 on my computer at home. I have a 19 inch Hitachi SuperScan Supreme 752 on the home system and I have it on 1284x1024 res. This is purely subjective but, I find very little in difference in the 2d quality comparing the 2. I have the same card bios number as the one they were talking about in this thread so I don't know what the problem is. I have been very happy with the 2d quality of this card over the Hercules 3D Prophet2 GTS that it has replaced. >>


The 2D on my Visiontek is excellent.

 

[Bingo13]

The 2d on my Visiontek GF3s are excellent as well!

 

[Eug]

While I'm not discounting your opinions, esp. since I have not tested one myself, I must point out that testing at 1280x1024 isn't always a good indicator of 2D quality, except at 1280x1024. I find a lot of cards get much worse at 1600x1200. Luckily the Matrox and ATI Radeon cards I have tested do very well at 1600x1200x75. The Voodoo 3 does not (at least the one I had).

So, before declaring the 2D good, check at higher resolutions, with a decent refresh rate. (It may very well turn out that it IS good, considering the other brands of G3s do well at those higher resolutions. Or not.)

By the way, 1280x1024 is an &quot;incorrect&quot; resolution. All properly formatted images (eg. out of a digicam or on the web) will be incorrectly displayed, since the 1280x1024 resolution is 5:4, in contrast to the 4:3 aspect ratio of your monitor. Other resolutions like 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, 1400x1050, &amp; 1600x1200 all are 4:3 and thus will display images correctly.

 

[SpeedTrap]

yeah the 2d is awesome, some people sure must not know how to install a video card

 

[Bingo13]

My VisionTek and LeadTek GF3 cards have very good 2D display at 1600x1200x32 (75hz) also, in fact better than my Radeon 64mb ViVo but not as good as the &quot;old&quot; Matrox G400.

note- The majority of websites I visit and the digital imaging I do in Photoshop at 1280x1024 display fine.

 

[pidge]

I have only gone up to 1280x1024 but the 2D there is excellent with my Visiontek.

 

[celeritas]

2D @ 1600x1024@85 looks great on my VT. Bingo13: Any flood damage?

 

[bluemax]

<< yeah the 2d is awesome, some people sure must not know how to install a video card >>


Inaccurate once again. :| nVidia is a well-known offender for having some TERRIBLE 2D quality - depending on the manufacturer. Creative Labs was probably the worst of the worst.

This has nothing to do with installation since the problem is at a hardware level, and no amount of driver changing/tweaking can eliminate the problem. Of course, if you're running 800x600 on a 15&quot; or 17&quot; monitor, you'll never see the problem anyways. The 2D quality problem was only at 1024x768 and above. I had three nVidia cards in the last two years, only one was good and that's because Visiontek/ELSA went out of their way to make a good clean signal. Unlike ASUS and CL that made some real cheapos.

 

[Eug]

<< My VisionTek and LeadTek GF3 cards have very good 2D display at 1600x1200x32 (75hz) also, in fact better than my Radeon 64mb ViVo but not as good as the &quot;old&quot; Matrox G400. >>

Good to hear it. I may buy a G3 in the future (when it drops below $200).


<< The majority of websites I visit and the digital imaging I do in Photoshop at 1280x1024 display fine. >>

Hmmm... I find that it is difficult to do proper work in Photoshop with the 1280x1024 resolution. The pictures are distorted - people look slightly short and fat. If you're used to it you don't notice it, since the vertical height is only altered by 7%. However, one test I tell people to do is to scan in a standard 4x6 print. Then display the print on screen and hold the print next to the screen to compare. The distortion caused by the 1280x1024 resolution is instantly noticeable.

EDIT:

An easier test would be to simply print out a web image which is on screen, and then hold that printed image next to the screen. Then you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[pidge]

Eug,

I actually run my desktop at 1280x960 to keep the aspect ration. This doesn't distort my images in photoshop. If I had a bigger desk, I would get a 21-22&quot; monitor if I could. For now, 1280x960 are good enough.

 

[MrCoyote]

Eug,

Thx for the info. So if 1280x960 would then be the correct display to use, why do all manufacturers advertise 1280x1024 on their monitors as a &quot;standard&quot; res? I have yet to see someone list a resolution of 1280x960.

Also, I always wondered how graphic artists know they have a &quot;correct&quot; screen setting for the aspect ratio? Say, each artist's monitors are set to 1280x960. But one monitor has it's screen stretched to all corners, and the other has the screen compressed a little with a little black border around the screen. How does an artist know how many pixels high/across to draw an object so it looks &quot;correct&quot; on his monitor but also on the other artists? Do artists have a way to calibrate their monitors?

 

[Eug]

<< I actually run my desktop at 1280x960 to keep the aspect ration. This doesn't distort my images in photoshop. If I had a bigger desk, I would get a 21-22&quot; monitor if I could. For now, 1280x960 are good enough. >>

I was using 1280x960 for a while but I didn't like it on my 19&quot;. It's personal preference of course, but I felt that the screen resolution was a bit too low. I'm now using 1600x1200, but I don't really like that either... too high. I still haven't figured out how to get 1400x1050 on my Radeon in Win 2000. :|


<< why do all manufacturers advertise 1280x1024 on their monitors as a &quot;standard&quot; res? >>

Beats me. I do note, however, that the higher end 2D oriented video cards (like Matrox) usually support 1280x960 whereas the gaming cards may or may not.


<< Also, I always wondered how graphic artists know they have a &quot;correct&quot; screen setting for the aspect ratio? Say, each artist's monitors are set to 1280x960. But one monitor has it's screen stretched to all corners, and the other has the screen compressed a little with a little black border around the screen. How does an artist know how many pixels high/across to draw an object so it looks &quot;correct&quot; on his monitor but also on the other artists? Do artists have a way to calibrate their monitors? >>

I dunno either, since I'm not a graphics artist. However, if you have a relatively flat screen an easy way is simply to use a measuring tape. If the width is exactly 1.33 the size of the height, then the aspect ratio is correct if you're using a 4:3 aspect ratio screen resolution. Even if you're off by a couple of percent, you're still doing better than the 7% distortion introduced by the 1280x1024 resolution.

Actually, you CAN use the higher resolution of 1280x1024 and still get a close to proper aspect ratio on the screen. The way to do it to decrease the screen width. Ie. squish the image sideways by the appropriate amount. However, you lose a bit of screen real estate that way obviously.

 

[Bingo13]

celeritas,
No flood damage in our neighborhood, had to leave for a while as the creek behind us reached near flood stage levels but soon went down to safe levels on Sunday, the rest of Houston looks like a mess. I cannot make it to our beach house yet so who knows what I will find there tomorrow.

EUG,

I am using a NEC LCD2010X at it's native resolution of 1280x1024 for my example. Some web pages look wierd but I really have never noticed any graphic issues in Photoshop, might be the scaling I am using though. I printed ATs front page and compared it, looks the same to me. Of course I have old eyes.

 

[Taz4158]

<< While I'm not discounting your opinions, esp. since I have not tested one myself, I must point out that testing at 1280x1024 isn't always a good indicator of 2D quality, except at 1280x1024. I find a lot of cards get much worse at 1600x1200. Luckily the Matrox and ATI Radeon cards I have tested do very well at 1600x1200x75. The Voodoo 3 does not (at least the one I had).

So, before declaring the 2D good, check at higher resolutions, with a decent refresh rate. (It may very well turn out that it IS good, considering the other brands of G3s do well at those higher resolutions. Or not.)

By the way, 1280x1024 is an &quot;incorrect&quot; resolution. All properly formatted images (eg. out of a digicam or on the web) will be incorrectly displayed, since the 1280x1024 resolution is 5:4, in contrast to the 4:3 aspect ratio of your monitor. Other resolutions like 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, 1400x1050, &amp; 1600x1200 all are 4:3 and thus will display images correctly. >>


I happen to run 1600 X 1200 on my 24&quot; monitor.

 

[Eug]

<< I am using a NEC LCD2010X at it's native resolution of 1280x1024 for my example. >>

Interesting. I haven't seen any screens with a native 1280x1024 resolution recently. I was looking for laptops a while back and of the laptops I liked, that resolution just didn't exist. I wonder if it's for this reason.


<< I printed ATs front page and compared it, looks the same to me. Of course I have old eyes. >>

Nah your eyes are probably fine. I wonder if the printer is set up to print the image just like what it looks like on screen. As for Photoshop when you turn on [View] --> [Show Rulers], do the measurements horizontally correspond to the vertical measurements? I suspect they don't. Ie. Take a ruler and measure your on-screen ruler. 10 units vertical should give you the same number as 10 units horizontal.


<< I happen to run 1600 X 1200 on my 24&quot; monitor. >>

Drool...

 

[SpeedTrap]

<<

<< yeah the 2d is awesome, some people sure must not know how to install a video card >>


Inaccurate once again. :| nVidia is a well-known offender for having some TERRIBLE 2D quality - depending on the manufacturer. Creative Labs was probably the worst of the worst.

This has nothing to do with installation since the problem is at a hardware level, and no amount of driver changing/tweaking can eliminate the problem. Of course, if you're running 800x600 on a 15&quot; or 17&quot; monitor, you'll never see the problem anyways. The 2D quality problem was only at 1024x768 and above. I had three nVidia cards in the last two years, only one was good and that's because Visiontek/ELSA went out of their way to make a good clean signal. Unlike ASUS and CL that made some real cheapos. >>



dont compare the crappy GTS2 series with the GF3, it cant compare. the 2d on any Nvidia card other than the GF3 just plain sucks

 

[SpeedTrap]

<<

<< I am using a NEC LCD2010X at it's native resolution of 1280x1024 for my example. >>

Interesting. I haven't seen any screens with a native 1280x1024 resolution recently. I was looking for laptops a while back and of the laptops I liked, that resolution just didn't exist. I wonder if it's for this reason.

>>



1280x1024 native LCD - LCD2010X

lalala such a easy find lalala

 

[Eug]

<< 1280x1024 native LCD - LCD2010X

lalala such a easy find lalala >>

Uh... It's pretty obvious it exists, considering Bingo13 already stated he uses this particular screen.

Bingo13:
Further research of the LCD TFT monitors (non-laptop) reveals that 1280x1024 LCD TFT monitors are actually the correct aspect ratio at 1.25 or 5:4 for 1280x1024. Ie. The NEC one measures 40 by 32 cm. 40/32=1.25. 1280/1024=1.25. That's why everything looks correct for you. However, I wouldn't be using 1280x1024 on CRT monitors, since they generally are 4:3.

Anyways, to think about this from a different point of view, it's easy to use movies vs. TV as an example. The screen shapes are different. To properly view most movies on a TV, you need to have a black bar on the top and the bottom of the TV screen. One way around this is to get a TV that matches the aspect ratio of the movie. The problem with this approach is that it's expensive, and when you watch standard TV signals on an oddly shaped TV like that, you need black (or grey) bars on each side. Because I personally prefer to have my movies matched to my TV moreso than my local television channels, I bought such a wide-screen TV.

 

[Bingo13]

WPSTrooper,

I actually own a couple of these-
Link , almost got it right.

but my favorite one at the house is this one-
Link except it looks funky in white.

Taz4158,
Which 24&quot; do you have? I was looking at the Sony GDM-FW900 yesterday but just could not walk away with it. If you do use this monitor how do you like it?

Eug,
That's why I tried to convince my better half to go 16:9 on our last HDTV purchase. Now that we have local TV broadcasting HD she is wondering why I didn't buy a 16:9......I guess I should have been more clear about using an LCD panel.

Working to have this one installed for the kids before the X-Box launch.
Link

 

[Compellor]

<< dont compare the crappy GTS2 series with the GF3, it cant compare. the 2d on any Nvidia card other than the GF3 just plain sucks >>


I wouldn't compare it since I don't own a GeForce 3, but, the 2D quality on my Visiontek GeForce 2 GTS is excellent at 1280 x 1024. I've set it to 1600 x 1200 and it does start to degrade some. Visiontek just makes great quality video cards.

As far as Photoshop imaging editing and web design goes, I've just started redesigning the main page of a website--working at 1280 x 1024--and don't have any problems with images as described by Eug, though, the site is scaled for 800 x 600.
In fact, at 1280 x 960, images that I edited under 1024 x 768 screen resolution don't look right to me.

 

[ViperZ]

I have been using a Matrox G400 Max for about 1 1/2 years now. I have since switched to the Hercules 3D Prophet III (Geforce 3) card. At first I was dissapointed with the 2D quality of the Prophet until I recalibrated my monitor to the card.

I then recalibrated my color temperatures, then I decreased the moire to zero and decreased the sharpness to zero (basically flat). I'm still astounded at the 2D quality of the Hercules to this date! The 3D image is something else, Zoltar and Chamelon are simply stunning to say the least!

I do a lot of photo editing with my PC and as such have noticed a general sharper image as well as excellent colors from the Herc. I use a Nikon 990 digital camera for all my photos and I have not been dissapointed with the quality of photo image in comparison to the Max.

The biggest change from my G400 Max is the text is even sharper with the Herc, to the point where current sharpness settings with the G400 Max over enhanced the edges with the Herc, thus I had to decrease the sharpness enhancement on my monitor.

My current Desk top setting is 1280 x 1024 on a 19&quot; NEC. At 1600 x 1200, the text and image quality is much better than the G400 Max, which is quite an accomplishment considering the G400 Max is a reference 2D image card.

 

[Eug]

<< That's why I tried to convince my better half to go 16:9 on our last HDTV purchase. Now that we have local TV broadcasting HD she is wondering why I didn't buy a 16:9......I guess I should have been more clear about using an LCD panel. >>

Nah, just a bad assumption on my part. I thought you meant a laptop. But anyways, it sounds like I'm preaching to the converted. 16:9 is good. Here's my Toshiba.


<< My current Desk top setting is 1280 x 1024 on a 19&quot; NEC. >>

Aaaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhhhhh!

 

[Bingo13]

Eug,
I looked at that model, loved it, but in the end I had to stay with the 4:3 ratio because of the family pressure for local TV until now.

We ended up with two of these- Link and this one for media room- Link

This is what I have on order for the media room since everyone in the family now agrees to the 16:9 format- Link ,

p.s. This is the one I really wanted but could not swing the price (plasma is still out of reach for this size also)- Link

ViperZ,

Great results with the fine tuning, some people never think of that or loading the proper monitor *.inf file before complaining about image quality. I have to say I saw some really bad GF2 cards last year, remember the Creative Ultra cards, looked like an ocean screensaver at times.