Specularity

BobHegwood · Post #21by **BobHegwood** » 10.11.2007, 02:16

Well, wouldn't you just KNOW it...

As soon as I updated the Nvidia forceware - AGAIN - I got a very
interesting notification from Windows that an optional Vista update
was now available for my machine. This optional update had to do
with Nvidia graphics displays, so I grabbed it quick.

Now, I can adjust my colors so that they look to be correct to me
again.

I suppose that someone knows what they're doing, but it sure as hell
ain't at at Microsoft. Methinks I now have this problem repaired. At
least until Vista comes out with another update. Should be in about
an hour and twenty minutes if my recent experience has been of any
indication. :roll:

Thanks ALL for your help here. Was MUCH appreciated.

Take care, Brain-Dead

MKruer · Post #22by **MKruer** » 10.11.2007, 02:51

Bob don?€™t take this the wrong way, but I do know for a fact that Nvidia had a lot of problems getting there drivers certified for Vista, and I believe they even missed the OEM launch date. I would just keep an eye out for updates. I would even install the force ware drivers and install them. If they don?€™t work you can always uninstall them. In my experience keeping with the latest drivers far outweighs OEM drives that come with the machine. But then again if you get ones that work. dont push it, keep them.

Fenerit · Post #23by **Fenerit** » 10.11.2007, 03:08

Ehi, Bob: don't tell me that Vista doesn't shows these panels because I don't believe it for the Nvidia driver, though. Your wide monitor would be manage at least 100 Hz. If so stands the things Vista should be away from my "vista" (sight, in italian).

Johaen · Post #24by **Johaen** » 10.11.2007, 03:32

LCDs don't have a standard CRT style refresh rate. LCDs should only have 60 Hz as an option. (If my understanding is correct, that is...)

MKruer · Post #25by **MKruer** » 10.11.2007, 03:36

Fenerit, Bob has a LCD display (I can tell by the resolution). I have yet to see any LCD that has a setting of anything other 60 Hertz. I am using an LCD and I only have 60 Hertz

Fenerit · Post #26by **Fenerit** » 10.11.2007, 03:48

My monitor too, it's a LCD 15"; nevertheless I can change the refresh. Not beyond 75 Hz, though. Just 60 - 72 - 75 Hz.

Fenerit · Post #27by **Fenerit** » 10.11.2007, 04:15

This is from my webcam (I do not have better). It shows the OSD of my monitor. This value change with the changes in the panels above.

Reiko · Post #28by **Reiko** » 10.11.2007, 04:52

MKruer wrote:Fenerit, Bob has a LCD display (I can tell by the resolution). I have yet to see any LCD that has a setting of anything other 60 Hertz. I am using an LCD and I only have 60 Hertz

I have an LCD widescreen and I can set the refresh up to 75Hz depending on what resolution I use.
I currently run at 1280x800 and can set it up to 75Hz

MKruer · Post #29by **MKruer** » 10.11.2007, 05:23

I stand corrected

BobHegwood · Post #30by **BobHegwood** » 10.11.2007, 15:43

Trust me, I CANNOT change the refresh rate... But a caveat...

Now, I CAN change it if I wish to use a lesser resolution, but why
would I want to do that? I have a very large display screen that I
WANT to use. The rate is at 60 MHZ and that's that. Do you wish
me to display the screen? I will if you want me to, but I'm not crazy.
Well, at least not about this topic.... :wink:

EDIT: Remember, I'm at 1680 x 1050 now...

Johaen · Post #31by **Johaen** » 10.11.2007, 16:20

BobHegwood wrote:Now, I CAN change it if I wish to use a lesser resolution, but why would I want to do that? I have a very large display screen that I WANT to use. The rate is at 60 MHZ and that's that.

That is standard on CRTs as well. Lower your resolution and you can raise your refresh rate. I guess I've never really bothered to look into it on LCDs that much. If I was at work where I have 2 LCDs I'd look, but alas, I am not. So here I am at home, stuck with 2 CRTs.

I would tend to agree with you about the "lower resolution = higher refresh rate" thing. I cannot stand to have anything but the highest resolution allowable by my monitor (1280x1024 here, 1600x1200 at work). Some people say they see flickering at 60Hz, but I've never had a problem *shrug*.

BobHegwood · Post #32by **BobHegwood** » 10.11.2007, 16:26

Johaen wrote:That is standard on CRTs as well. Lower your resolution and you can raise your refresh rate. I guess I've never really bothered to look into it on LCDs that much. If I was at work where I have 2 LCDs I'd look, but alas, I am not. So here I am at home, stuck with 2 CRTs.

If I may...

You may wish to investigate LCD's a bit more closely. When I went
shopping for my current monstrosity, I saw NOT ONE crt available for
use with the new PC's. Just FYI...

Thanks, Brain-Dead

Johaen · Post #33by **Johaen** » 10.11.2007, 16:35

BobHegwood wrote:If I may...

You may wish to investigate LCD's a bit more closely. When I went
shopping for my current monstrosity, I saw NOT ONE crt available for
use with the new PC's. Just FYI...

Thanks, Brain-Dead

Believe me, I have been investigating LCDs for a while now. My main issue currently is that my CRTs work, and it's hard to justify spending money on something I don't really need right now. I've been looking at monitors on newegg in the $200ish price range. I just need to wait until I decide they're actually worth it to me.

Fenerit · Post #34by **Fenerit** » 10.11.2007, 16:42

BobHegwood wrote:Trust me, I CANNOT change the refresh rate... But a caveat...

Now, I CAN change it if I wish to use a lesser resolution, but why
would I want to do that? I have a very large display screen that I
WANT to use. The rate is at 60 MHZ and that's that. Do you wish
me to display the screen? I will if you want me to, but I'm not crazy.
Well, at least not about this topic....

EDIT: Remember, I'm at 1680 x 1050 now...

I'm rely of you, Bob. It's only that all this sounded strange, since 1024x768 is the most high resolution that I can obtain for my monitor; nevertheless I can obtain it with the most high refresh rate (75 Hz) as well as with the lesser (60 Hz). And this for all the remaining resolutions, as showed in the second screenshot (the drop down combo box of the first picture would show the same). I thought that the new monitors were better again in these issues; friends of mine driven 19" widescreen monitors at 1440x720 with 85 Hz, and the equivalent of 25 Hz lesser for 330x240 of difference was seemed to me a little excessive, although it's right. No more than this. Drop this post in the wazoo. :lol:

BobHegwood · Post #35by **BobHegwood** » 10.11.2007, 18:19

Fenerit wrote: I thought that the new monitors were better again in these issues; friends of mine driven 19" widescreen monitors at 1440x720 with 85 Hz, and the equivalent of 25 Hz lesser for 330x240 of difference was seemed to me a little excessive, although it's right. No more than this. Drop this post in the wazoo.

I can modify my refresh rate at 1440x720 too...

But again, Why would I want to do that? I got his beautiful new
monitor so that I can see things in LARGE scale. Why would I want to
view them in smaller resolutions? You guys have me so confused
now, that I really don't know what the hell I want anymore. :roll:

At any rate, I'm finally happy with the way in which Celestia displays
itself on my new PC. So Wazoo, here I come... :lol:

Thanks for your help and advice though. 'Twas ALL much
appreciated even if I AM an old SOB.

Post #36by **selden** » 10.11.2007, 19:13

A comment on LCD panel design:

If you do not drive the LCD display at its native resolution then you aren't going to see the best image. If you provide a signal either at a higher or at a lower resolution, then the LCD display enables an internal scaler. This is a digital frame buffer memory which stores the video image data at the resolution and scanrate provided by the computer. It is then read out at the resolution and scanrate required by the LCD panel. The scaler's electronics interpolates between the pixels provided by the computer to produce the pixels needed by the display. This interpolation degrades the image that you can see, even if you drive the display with a signal that is a higher resolution than its LCD panel.

For the best resolution you must drive the display with a video signal which matches exactly the resolution of its LCD panel and the scanrate for which it is designed. When the signals match the hardware, the scaler's internal frame buffer is disabled and you get to see exactly the image that the computer's graphics hardware is providing.

(People putting together high-end home video systems have had to fight with this problem for years. Often they purchase extremely expensve video scalers which are designed to optimize the pixel interpolation in many ways so that the video signal looks its best when using a digital projector.)

ANDREA · Post #37by **ANDREA** » 10.11.2007, 19:35

Well, I'm the happy owner of a Philips Brilliance 201B CRT monitor, actually 9 years old, that works flawlessly with all the new stuff I have in my PC, shown here below.
It has following maximum refresh rates:
up to 1280x960 (excluded)= 120 Hz
from 1280x960 to 1360x768 (included)= 100 Hz
higher, up to 1600x1200= 75 Hz
And, believe me, the image overall quality has no comparison with whatever LCD display actually on the market, I checked a lot of models but didn't find any that could compete with mine.

I find difficult to believe that no actual CRT can be used with modern hardware, but I agree, the CRTs have enormous dimensions and weight, occupy practically half of the desk, and need a lot more space in front of you, due to their size (and this is the reason why I was searching for a good LCD).
Actualy we are seeing the first steps of the new OLED screen technology (OLED= Organic Light-Emitting Diode), so surely in the next months there will be interesting news on the market (but surely very expensive, alas!).
Let's wait and see.
Meanwhile, CRT is better than LCD. :wink:

My little cent.
Bye

Andrea

Fenerit · Post #38by **Fenerit** » 11.11.2007, 05:15

For Selden:
Yes. I think of seeing what you say with the cleartype font option; since the native resolution of my monitor is 1024x728 at 75 Hz, when I switch to 60 Hz the fonts become blurrish than one can suppose and then (at least for me) unreadables.

For ANDREA:
I completly agree with you. a CRT monitor is ever the best in a photoretouch contest; also with Celestia is better a CRT monitor than a LCD, no matter what say the advertising. I've had the CRT monitors and sincerely the only advantage of LCDs is the space's gain, no more.