[ale] OT - ViewSoniic A90f+ Monitor

[aaron]

On Sunday 29 February 2004 02:55, Nathan J. Underwood wrote:
> Well, no response yet from my email to the Viewsonic folks, but I did 
> try cranking down the refresh rate.  Now, I had always thought that a 
> higher refresh rate was better for the eyes, so I would crank the 
> monitor up, generally the setting just below max.  I bumped this down to 
> 60Hz, and it does seem to be a little crisper.  I'm going to give it a 
> day or two to verify. 
> 
> nathan

I've always understood the "frame rate" of the human eye to be around 55-65 
frames per second depending on person and conditions. Of course, being fuzzy 
logic aqueous analog computational systems, our perceptions are not so simply 
quantified or defined. For example, some people are hugely sensitive to the 
60 hz fluorescent light flicker, but most are not uncomfortable with it; 
there a dozens of factors surrounding human visual acuity. 

I'm just noting that to say that there is a good possibility that your wet 
works may filter the monitor screen to a sharper image at a lower scan or 
frame rate.

Then again, it may also be that the electro magnets that are rapidly steering 
the electron gun across the micron sized phosphor dots are exhibiting 
harmonic distortions or introducing noise at the higher flux oscillation 
rates.  

It's all relative to what you see and what the equipment can produce, so use 
whatever settings strike the best compromise for both.


peace
aaron














> 
> Calvin Harrigan wrote:
> 
> >On Thursday 26 February 2004 09:56 pm, zeb wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>On Thursday 26 February 2004 02:30 pm, Nathan J. Underwood wrote:
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Ok, so I upgraded my old 17" Optiquest Q72 (around 5 years old)
> >>>with a new 19" ViewSonic UltraBrite A90f+ monitor (moved the 17" to
> >>>my Linux box, got it running dual head with my Matrox G400 Pro
> >>>
> >>>:-D).  Primarily because I got used to 16x12, and my 17" Optiquest
> >>>
> >>>just wouldn't do it. Well, it (the A90f+) will do 1600x1200 with a
> >>>refresh rate of 120Hz, but it just seems 'fuzzy'.  Now, it's
> >>>running on a (gasp) Windows XP Pro box, and I've got an ATI Radeon
> >>>8500 Pro 128MB video card (that seemed to provide a nice crisp
> >>>picture to the old 17" monitor).  I've gone through the settings,
> >>>and tried to tweak it, but it's still just, well, kindof fuzzy.  It
> >>>would probably be hard to notice to the casual user, but I have to
> >>>stare at it for extended periods of time, and it's a problem.  Any
> >>>of you have any suggestions?  Did I get a lemon?  I've tried
> >>>ViewSonic's support (e-mail), but haven't gotten anything back from
> >>>them yet.
> >>>
> >>>nathan
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>A long, long time ago, in a land far away....I used to fool with
> >>television sets.  They had vacuum tubes and other interesting
> >>things--like resistors and capacitors.  One of the interesting things
> >>they had was a "focus control".  Turning it this way and that way
> >>made the picture sharper.  Because monitors use CRTs just like TV
> >>sets do, I suspect there must be some way to change the focus.  I
> >>would specifically ask the Viewsonic people about this.  I don't
> >>believe they can manufacture every unit with a perfect focus.  Please
> >>let us know the solution to this problem.
> >>
> >>Good luck, Zeb
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Ale mailing list
> >>Ale at ale.org
> >>http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I have always noticed that the higher the refresh rate or higher the 
> >resolution I used on any monitor the less crisp the video becomes.  Not 
sure 
> >what causes it, but It's always been that way.
> >
> >
> >Calvin...
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ale mailing list
> >Ale at ale.org
> >http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >  
> >
>