Adjusting display on Dell 8100?
in [Laptops]
|
From: Barry Watzman on 20 Jan 2010 23:43 No bill; a phosphor dot triad is not the same thing as a pixel. A pixel is larger and for proper operation will cover multiple phosphor dot triads. BillW50 wrote: > In news:hj0j33$sd$1(a)reader1.panix.com, > the wharf rat typed on Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:04:03 +0000 (UTC): >> In article <histgd$79e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >> BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >>> And if you think LCD panels are that different than color CRTs, think >>> again. >> Well, they're different on Earth. What planet are you from? > > Too lazy to take a magnifying glass to a color CRT screen, eh? I used to > manufacture them for Philips. > > http://express.howstuffworks.com/exp-tv1.htm >
From: BillW50 on 21 Jan 2010 11:07 Barry Watzman wrote on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:43:55 -0500: > No bill; a phosphor dot triad is not the same thing as a pixel. A pixel > is larger and for proper operation will cover multiple phosphor dot triads. Really? Then how do you explain every tech journal, every textbook, every instructor, every TV tech, and any engineer I ever met calls them pixels? And did you ever bother to visit this site I posted earlier? It was in the very same post you replied to. With pictures no less. They call them pixels too. So what you are saying is the whole world is wrong, right? > BillW50 wrote: >> http://express.howstuffworks.com/exp-tv1.htm -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)
From: the wharf rat on 21 Jan 2010 11:54 In article <hj9u2k$j0a$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >Really? Then how do you explain every tech journal, every textbook, >every instructor, every TV tech, and any engineer I ever met calls them >pixels? Everyone calls 'em dykes but they don't even like Melissa Etheridge... Oooooo, was that a cutting remark? (I'm refering to the pliers of course :-)
From: Barry Watzman on 21 Jan 2010 18:31 They do not call them pixels, and they are not pixels. The electron beam of a CRT is not sufficiently well focused and does not have sufficiently sharp edges (the edges are "fuzzy") to actually turn on and off individual phosphor dot triads. There are no fixed pixels on a CRT; pixels are formed by turning on and off the electron beam as it sweeps. If you turn it on and off 640 times as it goes across the screen, you have a 640 pixel display; if you turn it on and off 800 times, an 800 pixel display (the pixels are smaller), and 1024 and 1280 and so on. But to work well and produce a visually high quality image, the "pixels" so formed need to encompass MULTIPLE phosphor dot triads, e.g. phosphor dot triads (a single set of one each red, blue and green phosphor) are much smaller than pixels. If you drive the resolution to a point where this is not true, the image quality goes to hell very quickly because, again, the focus and edge sharpness of the electron beam don't ALLOW it to actually address a single phosphor dot triad. BTW, I have worked for both computer mfgrs. and TV mfgrs. and in broadcasting, since the 1960's. I worked for Zenith, and as a broadcast engineer, and as a product manager for computer displays (both CRT and LCD). I know what I'm talking about here. Sure you can show blown up pictures of an image on a phosphor dot CRT and see the individual phosphor dots. But those are not pixels. Really, they are not. There are NO physical pixels on a CRT. [Also, consider a monochrome (B&W) CRT; it has no individual dots at all in the phosphor coating, but you can blow up a character image on such a tube and see individual dots. They are "painted" on an absolutely continuous coating by turning the electron beam on and off. It forms dots .... but they are not physical entities.] BillW50 wrote: > Barry Watzman wrote on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:43:55 -0500: >> No bill; a phosphor dot triad is not the same thing as a pixel. A >> pixel is larger and for proper operation will cover multiple phosphor >> dot triads. > > Really? Then how do you explain every tech journal, every textbook, > every instructor, every TV tech, and any engineer I ever met calls them > pixels? And did you ever bother to visit this site I posted earlier? It > was in the very same post you replied to. With pictures no less. They > call them pixels too. So what you are saying is the whole world is > wrong, right? > >> BillW50 wrote: >>> http://express.howstuffworks.com/exp-tv1.htm >
From: BillW50 on 21 Jan 2010 22:12
Barry Watzman wrote on Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:31:58 -0500: > They do not call them pixels, and they are not pixels. During my electronic engineering classes and in the consumer market, we called the three different primary phosphors as a pixel. LCDs were not available yet. But when they were and when we heard they used pixels too, it was a no brainer. > The electron beam of a CRT is not sufficiently well focused and does not > have sufficiently sharp edges (the edges are "fuzzy") to actually turn > on and off individual phosphor dot triads. Let's get one thing straight. Color CRTs have three electron guns. One for red, one for green, and one for blue. And the red, green, or blue guns can only fire at the same color phosphor or it is all wrong (which is one third of a pixel). This error is known as convergence. > There are no fixed pixels on > a CRT; pixels are formed by turning on and off the electron beam as it > sweeps. False! The groups of color phosphor is fixed. Manufactures group them differently, but you can see them with a magnifying glass (I'm so near sighted, I can see them without one). Color CRTs has always had pixels as far as I have been alive. I never counted them, but I am sure they are in the hundreds or more in both directions. > If you turn it on and off 640 times as it goes across the > screen, you have a 640 pixel display; if you turn it on and off 800 > times, an 800 pixel display (the pixels are smaller), and 1024 and 1280 > and so on. But to work well and produce a visually high quality image, > the "pixels" so formed need to encompass MULTIPLE phosphor dot triads, > e.g. phosphor dot triads (a single set of one each red, blue and green > phosphor) are much smaller than pixels. If you drive the resolution to > a point where this is not true, the image quality goes to hell very > quickly because, again, the focus and edge sharpness of the electron > beam don't ALLOW it to actually address a single phosphor dot triad. Sounds like you are confusing monochrome with color to me. Color CRTs pixels are fixed and you can't change them. It all depends on the individual CRT. Much like you can't change the native LCD resolution. > BTW, I have worked for both computer mfgrs. and TV mfgrs. and in > broadcasting, since the 1960's. I worked for Zenith, and as a broadcast > engineer, and as a product manager for computer displays (both CRT and > LCD). I know what I'm talking about here. And I have worked for Zenith and Magnavox on the consumer end and Philips and Hitachi for the professional market. > Sure you can show blown up pictures of an image on a phosphor dot CRT > and see the individual phosphor dots. But those are not pixels. Really, > they are not. There are NO physical pixels on a CRT. They were called pixels as far as I have been alive. And *only* computer color CRT monitors were rated by pitch. Color TVs had pitch too, but I never seen them rated as such. And pitch was the distance between the pixels. The earlier ones was awful, at .52 pitch (normally CGA quality). Then they got better at .28 and I think down to .21 and then they stopped advertising the pitch. I don't know why they stopped. Maybe it was so fine that most people couldn't see any difference anymore anyway. > [Also, consider a monochrome (B&W) CRT; it has no individual dots at all > in the phosphor coating, but you can blow up a character image on such a > tube and see individual dots. They are "painted" on an absolutely > continuous coating by turning the electron beam on and off. It forms > dots .... but they are not physical entities.] Monochrome is totally different. The whole screen is one single layer of phosphor covering the whole screen. Like paint if you like to think of it that way. There are no pixels per se in monochrome CRTs at all. Although if somebody wants to argue that monochrome also has pixels too... well it isn't quite the same thing as color CRTs and LCDs. But somebody could generate a checkerboard pattern smaller and smaller and just before it turns all gray and claim this is the max pixel resolution of a given CRT. It would be hard for me to argue against it. But I would rather call it the max resolution instead. As there is no individual pixels that you could actually count per se. > BillW50 wrote: >> Barry Watzman wrote on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:43:55 -0500: >>> No bill; a phosphor dot triad is not the same thing as a pixel. A >>> pixel is larger and for proper operation will cover multiple phosphor >>> dot triads. >> >> Really? Then how do you explain every tech journal, every textbook, >> every instructor, every TV tech, and any engineer I ever met calls >> them pixels? And did you ever bother to visit this site I posted >> earlier? It was in the very same post you replied to. With pictures no >> less. They call them pixels too. So what you are saying is the whole >> world is wrong, right? >> >>> BillW50 wrote: >>>> http://express.howstuffworks.com/exp-tv1.htm >> -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03) |