sorry to burst you bubble benskywalker, but the kds vs19sn is a panasonic short tube shadow mask. I am the one that has it, the kds av195tf is the sony one.
"sorry to burst you bubble benskywalker, but the kds vs19sn is a panasonic short tube shadow mask."
Should read a bit more carefuly. This is the first I have heard of complaints with a monitor besides Sony tubed ones saw KDS and assumed. My mistake.
Which calibration software are you using for your monitor/video card?
Should read a bit more carefuly. This is the first I have heard of complaints with a monitor besides Sony tubed ones saw KDS and assumed. My mistake.Which calibration software are you using for your monitor/video card?
what calibration? I adjusted the moire and all that stuff by hand in the menus. BTW i wasnt trying to be offensive or anything in my other post. There is calibration software?
"There is calibration software?
Yes, many different ones. Without running calibration software you may well be looking at significantly lower then possible image quality. On my monitor, I need to adjust each channel in display properties for RGB for each setting(gamma, brightness, contrast). This makes a big difference for a lot of monitors.
Out of the box for both my monitor and my GF, the colors look very washed out and faded with very poor color saturation. At higher resolutions, this results in image bleeding(not really haloing, but even text becomes a bit fuzzy). After calibration everything looks very nice, at the resolutions I regularly run(10x7 and 12x9) I can't tell the difference between a G400 and my Herc DDR(yes, I have tested).
Edit-
Looked around real quick and found a basic test for some calibration, though it is seriously lacking, it at least covers some of the basics(in terms of pointing out possible problems). Click Here.
Yes, many different ones. Without running calibration software you may well be looking at significantly lower then possible image quality. On my monitor, I need to adjust each channel in display properties for RGB for each setting(gamma, brightness, contrast). This makes a big difference for a lot of monitors.
Out of the box for both my monitor and my GF, the colors look very washed out and faded with very poor color saturation. At higher resolutions, this results in image bleeding(not really haloing, but even text becomes a bit fuzzy). After calibration everything looks very nice, at the resolutions I regularly run(10x7 and 12x9) I can't tell the difference between a G400 and my Herc DDR(yes, I have tested
). Edit-
Looked around real quick and found a basic test for some calibration, though it is seriously lacking, it at least covers some of the basics(in terms of pointing out possible problems). Click Here.
"using games to compare 3D quality is a joke"
Excuse me, but that statement is the joke Ben.
Since GAMES are the main reason most people buy cards like Radeon, GeForce2, and Voodoo5, I would say that GAMES are the best way to judge them for GAMERS. Therefore, it's GAMES that I'm talking about. Just like it's GAMES that most reviews are talking about. And it's GAMES that GAMERS care about because it's GAMES that they play, hence the word GAMERS.
I do admit Nvidia cards are pretty good for those so-called "high end applications" though, and there are some people that buy these cards for those "other" purposes. However, there are far better professional cards that you can buy if you really want to run "High-End Applications".
But the vast majority of people who buy these kinds of cards (Radeon, GeForce2, Voodoo, etc) are using them for gaming. For anyone to suggest otherwise would simply be foolish, and indicate they have no clue what the market is all about. Therefore, games are the best way to judge a gaming card. End of story.
I won't argue with you though Ben, because I have seen your posts before, and you defend Nvidia like it was your sister. No point in arguing with a crazy person.
I'm thru with you now Ben. You may go back to your part time (no pay) job at the basement.
Cheers
Excuse me, but that statement is the joke Ben.
Since GAMES are the main reason most people buy cards like Radeon, GeForce2, and Voodoo5, I would say that GAMES are the best way to judge them for GAMERS. Therefore, it's GAMES that I'm talking about. Just like it's GAMES that most reviews are talking about. And it's GAMES that GAMERS care about because it's GAMES that they play, hence the word GAMERS.
I do admit Nvidia cards are pretty good for those so-called "high end applications" though, and there are some people that buy these cards for those "other" purposes. However, there are far better professional cards that you can buy if you really want to run "High-End Applications".
But the vast majority of people who buy these kinds of cards (Radeon, GeForce2, Voodoo, etc) are using them for gaming. For anyone to suggest otherwise would simply be foolish, and indicate they have no clue what the market is all about. Therefore, games are the best way to judge a gaming card. End of story.
I won't argue with you though Ben, because I have seen your posts before, and you defend Nvidia like it was your sister. No point in arguing with a crazy person.
I'm thru with you now Ben. You may go back to your part time (no pay) job at the basement.
Cheers
ChunkyC-
You seem to lack an understanding of the difference between quality and preference.
The GeForce boards are superior in terms of quality under OpenGL and for that matter D3D.
How can one prove this? By using approved by the API creator/standards body software renderers versus hardware implementations and comparing screenshots(in the case of D3D) or by looking at the reports at the end of the test(common for OpenGL).
If you run through a rasterization test of say D3D using the Microsoft API versus the various hardware vendors you may well notice certain details present in some hardware implementations that are not there in the software renderer. The reason for this is improper LOD bias adjustment. In qualitive terms it is inferior, though you may like it better.
I bring up the OpenGL tests as they are by far the most particular, flaws that may not be noticeable will be reported upon completion of the test(unlike D3D). Most of the consumer level boards will be in the area of 1% pixel errors, intollerable for the pro market though acceptable in the consumer realm. This isn't a matter of preference, it is a fact that the nV boards are superior in qualitive terms as a 3D raserizer(they don't call them image quality tests for nothing).
If you are seeing details that are not present in the particular API's software native rasterization then that is a rendering error.
With 2D it is very easy, either it looks like it is supposed to or it doesn't. With 3D you need to have a standard set, and in that respect the GeForce boards are superior.
Edit-
"those so-called "high end applications"
What is "so-called" about them? They are, period. This is not open for discussion, and it is not a matter of different views. They are high end applications, whether you like it or not.
The term "so-called" makes very little sense. Perhaps so-called you should so-called stick to your so-called games instead of so-called visting the so-called forums and so-called typing so-called posts.
Edit2-
Reread this and noticed the fact that I was joking on the first edit might not have come through, had to add a few smileys
You seem to lack an understanding of the difference between quality and preference.
The GeForce boards are superior in terms of quality under OpenGL and for that matter D3D.
How can one prove this? By using approved by the API creator/standards body software renderers versus hardware implementations and comparing screenshots(in the case of D3D) or by looking at the reports at the end of the test(common for OpenGL).
If you run through a rasterization test of say D3D using the Microsoft API versus the various hardware vendors you may well notice certain details present in some hardware implementations that are not there in the software renderer. The reason for this is improper LOD bias adjustment. In qualitive terms it is inferior, though you may like it better.
I bring up the OpenGL tests as they are by far the most particular, flaws that may not be noticeable will be reported upon completion of the test(unlike D3D). Most of the consumer level boards will be in the area of 1% pixel errors, intollerable for the pro market though acceptable in the consumer realm. This isn't a matter of preference, it is a fact that the nV boards are superior in qualitive terms as a 3D raserizer(they don't call them image quality tests for nothing).
If you are seeing details that are not present in the particular API's software native rasterization then that is a rendering error.
With 2D it is very easy, either it looks like it is supposed to or it doesn't. With 3D you need to have a standard set, and in that respect the GeForce boards are superior.
Edit-
"those so-called "high end applications"
What is "so-called" about them? They are, period. This is not open for discussion, and it is not a matter of different views. They are high end applications, whether you like it or not.
The term "so-called" makes very little sense. Perhaps so-called you should so-called stick to your so-called games instead of so-called visting the so-called forums and so-called typing so-called posts.
Edit2-
Reread this and noticed the fact that I was joking on the first edit might not have come through, had to add a few smileys
my monitor seems to be ok with the v4 with that. But the problem with the geforce2s i tested wasn't like that. I'd open up white background with black text, and the text was blurred. It was like having an astigmatism on your monitor.
"But the problem with the geforce2s i tested wasn't like that. I'd open up white background with black text, and the text was blurred. It was like having an astigmatism on your monitor."
This one would be better to try for that.
Unfortunately any site is going to be less then ideal for proper calibration, good software is a much better solution(Here is a list of a few software packages)
This one would be better to try for that.
Unfortunately any site is going to be less then ideal for proper calibration, good software is a much better solution(Here is a list of a few software packages)
Thanks Tim Tim for the lead on the Maximum PC lead.
I found the article on-line and can vouch that the
article stated
[<a target=new href="http://206.57.19.206/FMPro?-db=maxpcrev.fp3&-format=detailformat%5fsoundcard.html&-op=cn&Product=Ati%20Radeon&-op=gt&-recid=33725&-find=
">Radeon's image quality puts the GeForce2 to shame</a>
I found the article on-line and can vouch that the
article stated
[<a target=new href="http://206.57.19.206/FMPro?-db=maxpcrev.fp3&-format=detailformat%5fsoundcard.html&-op=cn&Product=Ati%20Radeon&-op=gt&-recid=33725&-find=
">Radeon's image quality puts the GeForce2 to shame</a>
A good thread about how trustworthy MaximumPC is.
I'm not saying that the Radeon doesn't overall have better 2D(though with proper calibration you can barely tell the difference between any of the boards), but I certainly would not quote MaximumPC as a source for anything.
For that matter, I'm not saying that I don't think the Radeon has an edge for gaming, in fact I consider it to be the best gaming board there is(as I have stated repeatedly). But it isn't a perfect board by any means, none of the current or likely future cards will be.
For a real difference in visuals you can utilize EMBM to give the Radeon a big edge over the GF based boards, or any other board besided the G400(which you could cripply through greater polygonal complexity).
The Radeon does have very good overall image quality, and it offers arguably the best visuals on the market.
I'm not saying that the Radeon doesn't overall have better 2D(though with proper calibration you can barely tell the difference between any of the boards), but I certainly would not quote MaximumPC as a source for anything.
For that matter, I'm not saying that I don't think the Radeon has an edge for gaming, in fact I consider it to be the best gaming board there is(as I have stated repeatedly). But it isn't a perfect board by any means, none of the current or likely future cards will be.
For a real difference in visuals you can utilize EMBM to give the Radeon a big edge over the GF based boards, or any other board besided the G400(which you could cripply through greater polygonal complexity).
The Radeon does have very good overall image quality, and it offers arguably the best visuals on the market.
Checking back through some other threads on this topic I noticed that there was another monitor listed as having problems with the GF, a DiamondtronNF(Mitsubishi 900u). Missed it before(and it was aimed directly at me), though no mention of the calibration software used or if they were setting the BNC to 75ohm as is reccomended when using any GF board with BNC.
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,176
- 1,816
- 126
Compellor
<< I have already stated in this thread that my GeForce 2 GTS looks great at 1280 x 1024. Editing images in Photoshop 5.5 look nice and sharp. >>
If you're editing images in Photoshop at 1280x1024 I wonder if you're paying enough attention to what you're editing. The 1280x1024 aspect ratio is inherently wrong (usually) for editing images, because it distorts the dimensions of scanned-in images, and if for the net the images that appear on your screen will look different on most computers. Most people use a 4:3 aspect ratio, since that's how monitors are built, and the image you scan in from a flat bed scanner or whatever will only be correctly be displayed with the proper screen aspect ratio. 4:3 aspect ratios include 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, 1600x1200, etc. If your screen is 1280x1024, then the height to width ratio of all your images will be incorrect, unless these are only for yourself, and somehow you've got images set up for it specifically.
Everyone else,
As for the calibration software people are talking about, I've given up on it to a certain extent, because the lighting changes drastically in my computer room. In the afternoon on a sunny day the calibration is completely different from at night when I have ambient incandescent lighting. And it also depends on whether I have my desk lamp on or not. The other issue is the fact that settings for the net are completely inappropriate for settings for Photoshop (when you want to print the image). Furthermore, the Colorific driver I have seems only to be 95% happy with all the other TSRs I run, and it definitely seems to conflict a bit with the Voodoo 3 colour settings. So now I just have multiple settings on my monitor, and I use one setting for one application and a different one for others, etc. What other colour calibration software do you guys use?
Also, do you think I'd get much out of going BNC? (Voodoo 3 2000, Samsung 950p shadow mask 19".) People here seem to swear by it, by some of my friends say it usually doesn't make a big difference. Has anyone tested standard cable vs. BNC with this specific combo?
<< I have already stated in this thread that my GeForce 2 GTS looks great at 1280 x 1024. Editing images in Photoshop 5.5 look nice and sharp. >>
If you're editing images in Photoshop at 1280x1024 I wonder if you're paying enough attention to what you're editing.
The 1280x1024 aspect ratio is inherently wrong (usually) for editing images, because it distorts the dimensions of scanned-in images, and if for the net the images that appear on your screen will look different on most computers. Most people use a 4:3 aspect ratio, since that's how monitors are built, and the image you scan in from a flat bed scanner or whatever will only be correctly be displayed with the proper screen aspect ratio. 4:3 aspect ratios include 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, 1600x1200, etc. If your screen is 1280x1024, then the height to width ratio of all your images will be incorrect, unless these are only for yourself, and somehow you've got images set up for it specifically.Everyone else,
As for the calibration software people are talking about, I've given up on it to a certain extent, because the lighting changes drastically in my computer room. In the afternoon on a sunny day the calibration is completely different from at night when I have ambient incandescent lighting. And it also depends on whether I have my desk lamp on or not. The other issue is the fact that settings for the net are completely inappropriate for settings for Photoshop (when you want to print the image). Furthermore, the Colorific driver I have seems only to be 95% happy with all the other TSRs I run, and it definitely seems to conflict a bit with the Voodoo 3 colour settings. So now I just have multiple settings on my monitor, and I use one setting for one application and a different one for others, etc. What other colour calibration software do you guys use?
Also, do you think I'd get much out of going BNC? (Voodoo 3 2000, Samsung 950p shadow mask 19".) People here seem to swear by it, by some of my friends say it usually doesn't make a big difference. Has anyone tested standard cable vs. BNC with this specific combo?
illkid-
"Do you think that the true color matching software that came with my 700NF would work for calibrating it?"
It may help, probably will a decent amount, but I can't say for sure. Does the software come with a few reference images already printed(they need to be pre printed, way too many settings to print one yourself)? It should, anything else can certainly help, but you can't assure that it will be too precise.
Eug-
"I've given up on it to a certain extent, because the lighting changes drastically in my computer room. In the afternoon on a sunny day the calibration is completely different from at night when I have ambient incandescent lighting."
Very good point, do you have any quick tweak settings you can use? I have a batch that I can access with a few quick clicks depending on what I'm doing. Luckily, the lighting setup that I have changes very little(I keep it quite dark at all time), but some of the various applications and games I use I enable and disable certain features on top of having different settings for my RGB. Not ideal, but a few quick clicks certainly beats constantly tweaking things back and forth to get your settings just right for th particular application(in case anyone is wondering, I do do the same thing with every board I have owned).
"Do you think that the true color matching software that came with my 700NF would work for calibrating it?"
It may help, probably will a decent amount, but I can't say for sure. Does the software come with a few reference images already printed(they need to be pre printed, way too many settings to print one yourself)? It should, anything else can certainly help, but you can't assure that it will be too precise.
Eug-
"I've given up on it to a certain extent, because the lighting changes drastically in my computer room. In the afternoon on a sunny day the calibration is completely different from at night when I have ambient incandescent lighting."
Very good point, do you have any quick tweak settings you can use? I have a batch that I can access with a few quick clicks depending on what I'm doing. Luckily, the lighting setup that I have changes very little(I keep it quite dark at all time), but some of the various applications and games I use I enable and disable certain features on top of having different settings for my RGB. Not ideal, but a few quick clicks certainly beats constantly tweaking things back and forth to get your settings just right for th particular application(in case anyone is wondering, I do do the same thing with every board I have owned).
Wait the minute, calibration wouldn't help for wavy lines and crap all over the monitor right ben? I mean Hans said that a few of the GFs he tried, had bands going across or up and down his monitor at a certain res and above. And my friend's CL (TNT2U) had like double images, kind of like shadows when he was on his desktop, and that gets annoying.
The thing is probably that you wouldn't know what you are going to get when you buy a GF, unless someone else tries it first, while most of the other cards on the market all have pretty good 2d quality because they are all manufactured by the company that makes the chip too.
The thing is probably that you wouldn't know what you are going to get when you buy a GF, unless someone else tries it first, while most of the other cards on the market all have pretty good 2d quality because they are all manufactured by the company that makes the chip too.
i still dont get how software will fix sharpness. I understand that it can fix color reproduction, but who can a straight blurred line, get less blurred. On the same monitor it looked good on one card, so the monitor cant be to blame, and at 1024 it doesnt have the blurring problem.
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,176
- 1,816
- 126
Ben,
Yes, I have several setting with the software, but I don't like running it. It conflicts with the Voodoo driver, and I want to run as few TSRs as possible. Fortunately, my monitor has 3 separate settings I can custom set. Enough for me.
As for the ghosting other people are getting, are you sure there isn't something wrong with the connection? I've had that problem before on a different computer and it was related to a faulty cord.
Yes, I have several setting with the software, but I don't like running it. It conflicts with the Voodoo driver, and I want to run as few TSRs as possible. Fortunately, my monitor has 3 separate settings I can custom set. Enough for me.
As for the ghosting other people are getting, are you sure there isn't something wrong with the connection? I've had that problem before on a different computer and it was related to a faulty cord.
It looks like some reviewers do look at 2D quality. I was
emailed the link below after asking people to send me
reviews and sites which do use 2D as part of their standard
testing. I'll post the site and excerpts as I get them.
Savagenews Radeon Review...excerpt below
-------------------Excerpt from Radeon Review---------------------
Image Quality
2D Quality
The Radeon's image quality is also well above average. The standard 2D windows
quality & performance rivals that of the Matrox G400 which was the current leader, and
leaves Nvidia well behind in terms of quality. DVD playback/quality is as good, if not
better than that of a home dvd player.
3D Quality
The Radeon's 3D Image quality is also top notch. 16 Bit image quality in Direct 3D did
exhibit some glitches, although 32 Bit is well above the quality of the Nvidia Geforce2
GTS.
---------------------------end of excerpt---------------------------
The following thread on this forum called <a target=new href="http://
">which?which?which?</a> (a thread of 37 entries about which Video graphics card to upgrade to) finally took the better of my curiosity and I visited
a shop that carried both cards. The store owner was only too happy
to show me the better/more $$$ Radeon
<a target=new href="http://
http://www.canada.cnet.com/hardware/0-1045-407-1433241.html?tag=st.co.1045-404-1433241.dir.1045-407-1433241">2D quality on a Sony 500 monitor</a>.
I was not prepared for the difference.
Radeon was sharp and vibrant while the GeForce2 based
cards had dull and fuzzy text with low contrast.
My problem now is how to come up with the $1,800 for the Sony monitor. The smaller 17"/19" Samsungs running at
lower refresh were (surprisingly) pretty good but just
a bit less snappy and vibrant with slightly different warmth
to the colours. It was a long afternoon but well worth it.
Anyone else have experience with Samsung monitors in terms
of reliability and service ? The 753DF model seems
like a good choice for my son and the 19" for my failing eyesight.
emailed the link below after asking people to send me
reviews and sites which do use 2D as part of their standard
testing. I'll post the site and excerpts as I get them.
Savagenews Radeon Review...excerpt below
-------------------Excerpt from Radeon Review---------------------
Image Quality
2D Quality
The Radeon's image quality is also well above average. The standard 2D windows
quality & performance rivals that of the Matrox G400 which was the current leader, and
leaves Nvidia well behind in terms of quality. DVD playback/quality is as good, if not
better than that of a home dvd player.
3D Quality
The Radeon's 3D Image quality is also top notch. 16 Bit image quality in Direct 3D did
exhibit some glitches, although 32 Bit is well above the quality of the Nvidia Geforce2
GTS.
---------------------------end of excerpt---------------------------
The following thread on this forum called <a target=new href="http://
">which?which?which?</a> (a thread of 37 entries about which Video graphics card to upgrade to) finally took the better of my curiosity and I visited
a shop that carried both cards. The store owner was only too happy
to show me the better/more $$$ Radeon
<a target=new href="http://
http://www.canada.cnet.com/hardware/0-1045-407-1433241.html?tag=st.co.1045-404-1433241.dir.1045-407-1433241">2D quality on a Sony 500 monitor</a>.
I was not prepared for the difference.
Radeon was sharp and vibrant while the GeForce2 based
cards had dull and fuzzy text with low contrast.
My problem now is how to come up with the $1,800 for the Sony monitor. The smaller 17"/19" Samsungs running at
lower refresh were (surprisingly) pretty good but just
a bit less snappy and vibrant with slightly different warmth
to the colours. It was a long afternoon but well worth it.
Anyone else have experience with Samsung monitors in terms
of reliability and service ? The 753DF model seems
like a good choice for my son and the 19" for my failing eyesight.
"i still dont get how software will fix sharpness. I understand that it can fix color reproduction, but who can a straight blurred line, get less blurred."
Try this, go into your display properties to your color correction tab and drop your contrast half way between default and all the way to the left. Then bump your gamma up about a quarter or an eighth of the way to the right. Blurry image at any res(may require a bit more adjustment one way or the other) because of calibration.
Try this, go into your display properties to your color correction tab and drop your contrast half way between default and all the way to the left. Then bump your gamma up about a quarter or an eighth of the way to the right. Blurry image at any res(may require a bit more adjustment one way or the other) because of calibration.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter