You are obviously not going to listen to anybody that doesn't agree with you, so this reply is addressed to anybody that might read this load of cra.... uhhh, erroneous information and be inclined to believe it.
The very simple reason that you're wrong is perfectly illustrated by your 3 examples of cursors - one with no ghost and 2 with ghosting. The difference between the 2 with ghosts is correct - IF the drawing scale is pixels. I.e. Yes, the ghost on the WUXGA screen would have more pixels between it and the real cursor than it would on a WXGA screen. And so, IF the pixel pitch was the same between the two kind of screens, the ghost on the WUXGA screen would appear further physically behind the actual cursor. And the screen itself would be physically much larger than a WXGA screen.
But that's not the case. The screens are the same physical dimensions, so the pixel pitch is much higher on the WUXGA screen. I.e. the pixels are a lot closer together on the WUXGA screen.
If you redo your illustrations using a physical dimension scale, instead of a pixel scale, then (if you do it correctly), the ghost on the WUXGA screen would be exactly as far behind the real cursor (in inches, for example) as it is on the WXGA screen.
Which means the ghosting is no worse on a WUXGA screen than it is on a WXGA screen that has the same pixel response times.
Of course, the speed in pps is higher for WUXGA. You already said the screens are the same physical dimensions and you're moving the cursor at the same speed (in INCHES per second). Therefore, obviously, the rate of pixels per second is higher. Good thinking, Sherlock.
Now tell us why the ghost is there at all. Hint: where was the real cursor location the last time the screen refreshed?
THEN calculate for us how far the ghost is from the real cursor on a WUXGA screen. You may assume that, on a WXGA screen, under identical circumstances (i.e. same physical cursor speed in inches per second), its ghost is 1 inch behind the real cursor.
To save you a whole lot of calculations that might be really hard for you, I'll tell you the answer, the ghost on the WUXGA screen is ALSO 1 inch behind the real cursor. Therefore, to the human eye, the ghosting is exactly the same.
Imagine, that you are with mouse cursor (only example, it can be some object) on WXGA from left side of your screen, the tip of your cursor starts on the first pixel on left side. Now you start moving with speed 640 pixels per second. After one second you will be with the tip of mouse cursor exact in the middle of WXGA screen, in distance 167,5mm from the left side of the screen. If you do same start on the left side of your screen on WUXGA moving with same speed as on WXGA 640 pixels per second you will be with your mouse cursor at shorter distance 112mm from left side of the screen. Now you are on WXGA exactly in the middle of screen, but on WUXGA you are not in the middle of screen. If you want have on WUXGA tip of the mouse cursor exactly in same position as WXGA in the middle of the screen you must move faster with speed 960 pixels per second. If you want to move with mouse cursor in same position (to have same distances in millimeters from all sides of the screen) on the both WXGA and WUXGA screens you must move with faster speed pixels per second.
What are you trying to proof!!! you never get the point. I already told you 2 times!!!
Think about this:
Q: if you have a picture of a square 640x640 pixels. Go from point (0,0) to(640,0) with speed 640 pixels per second. Try on a WXGA and WUXGA LCD with 35 ms response time. Do you arrive at the end point at the same time???
The answer is: yes!!! you are arrive at the same time.
Q: Do you have the same ghosting effect???
The answer: of course!!!
Q: If you have a square 1280x800 pixels(max WXGA LCD resolution). Go from point(0,0) to (1280,0) with speed 640 pixel per second. Try on a WXGA and WUXGA LCD with 35 ms response time. Do you arrive at the end of the point at the same time???
The answer is:again.....yes....
Conclusion:
response time doesn't have to do with resolution. This is very easy to prove. I just need aprrox. only 40 words to explain this(but for you I need more words). But you still don't get it. I have a pitty on you...
Message Edited by onetobenl on 01-29-2004 08:31 PM
Q: if you have a picture of a square 640x640 pixels. Go from point (0,0) to(640,0) with speed 640 pixels per second. Try on a WXGA and WUXGA LCD with 35 ms response time. Do you arrive at the end point at the same time???
The answers is YES, you will be have same ghostig, because you will have same speed in pixels per second. Do you think, that you have same speed in millimetrs per second ?? You havent !!.
Relize, that you are not in same position in millimeters from the sides of the screen. Not pixels !!!
What you said is right, but you forgot to realise, that the difference in both speed in pixels per second is big enought. Its 320 pixels per second. I agree with you, that WUXGA has smaller pixels then WXGA, but different in speeds ( pixels per second) is large, so smaller pixels will not help you. It only reduce difference between these different ghost on both WXG and WUXGA. Notify this !!!
Let's say that you have a 'screen' that is 10 pixels wide and 1 pixel tall (10x1), and I have a screen that is 10,000 pixels wide and 1 pixel tall (10,000x1 or 10Kx1).
Each screen has a 35ms refresh-rate and are each are 10cm wide. At time = 0ms all pixels on both screens are white.
At the exact same time, I drag a black 'cursor' that is 1x1pixel all the way across each screen which, as it travels, turns each pixel that it 'touches' black. This action takes me exactly 70ms on each screen.
Now, on the 10x1 screen the cursor travels 10pixels/70ms = .70p/ms. On the 10Kx1 screen the cursor travels 10000p/70ms = 142.85p/ms.
Let's assume that each pixel's refreshment begins at the moment that the cursor 'hits' that pixel. On the 10x1 screen, the pixels will begin their refreshment at 70ms/xp = 7ms, 14ms,... 70ms. On the 10Kx1 screen their refreshment will begin at 70ms/xp = .0007ms, .0014ms,... 70ms.
At 70ms, 1/2 of the pixels on each screen will have turned completely black. The rest will be not-black.
In other words, if the time since the initial refreshment rate began is => 35ms, ( [70-(70*(yp / xp)) => 35] ; where x is the # of pixels traveled, and y is the total # of pixels on the screen) then that pixel has turned completely black. If it is < 35ms then it is not-black.
So, yes, the 10Kx1 screen will have many, many more pixels that are not-black, but the 10x1 screen will still have 1/2 of the screen (5cm worth) that is not-black and thus 5cm of screen that is 'ghosting'.
Q: If you have a square 1280x800 pixels(max WXGA LCD resolution). Go from point(0,0) to (1280,0) with speed 640 pixel per second. Try on a WXGA and WUXGA LCD with 35 ms response time. Do you arrive at the end of the point at the same time???
The answer is:again.....yes....
But if you start on both LCD at same time you will be on the WXGA exactly in the right corner, but on WUXGA you will not be in the right corner of WUXGA, you will be 223 mm from the right corner . The cursor on WXGA on same distance 334,5mm will be move faster, with same ghosting on both screen !!!. WXGA and WUXGA has same dimension 334,5mm and this is this problem !!!
334,5 mm / 1920 pixels = 0.174 mm ( size of one pixel )
334,5 mm / 1280 pixles = 0,261 mm ( size of one pixle )
- There is small mistake in mesuration, becaouse I dont count the gaps, between two pixels. Its only plus for WUXGA, because have smaller gaps between two pixles.
If you want to be in corner of your WUXGA you must move with faster speed pixels per second, so you will have more ghosting !! In your premise you count wiht your WUXGA, tha you have more space in millimers, but you havent, realized it, that you have bigger space only in pixles !!!
Thank you for your question, all people will see, where is your mistake !!
Q: If you have a square 1280x800 pixels(max WXGA LCD resolution). Go from point(0,0) to (1280,0) with speed 640 pixel per second. Try on a WXGA and WUXGA LCD with 35 ms response time. Do you arrive at the end of the point at the same time???
The answer is:again.....yes....
But if you start on both LCD at same time you will be on the WXGA exactly in the right corner, but on WUXGA you will not be in the right corner of WUXGA, you will be 223 mm from the right corner . The cursor on WXGA on same distance 334,5mm will be move faster, with same ghosting on both screen !!!. WXGA and WUXGA has same dimension 334,5mm and this is this problem !!!
334,5 mm / 1920 pixels = 0.174 mm ( size of one pixel )
334,5 mm / 1280 pixles = 0,261 mm ( size of one pixle )
- There is small mistake in mesuration, becaouse I dont count the gaps, between two pixels. Its only plus for WUXGA, because have smaller gaps between two pixles.
If you want to be in corner of your WUXGA you must move with faster speed pixels per second, so you will have more ghosting !! In your premise you count wiht your WUXGA, tha you have more space in millimers, but you havent, realized it, that you have bigger space only in pixles !!!
Thank you for your question, all people will see, where is your mistake !!
Thats why I told you...in this case(with LCD, Pictures, Images) we are talking about pixels and not about distance(cm, mm, m,etc).
If you make a square 1920x1200. Try go from point(0,0) to (1200,0), zoom the pictures 100%. Try with WUXGA and WXGA(you may pause the timer if you can get the picture to full screen with WXGA and scrool your windows to the right). Do you get the same time??? yess you do!!!...
If you make 2 square. 1920x1200 on WUXGA and 1280x800 on WXGA:
WXGA: from point(0,0) to (1920,0)
WXGA:from(0,0) to(1280,0)
sure...it takes longer for WUXGA vecause it have more pixel to cover(this is very logic)...but it doesn't prove that WXGA is faster than WUXGA, because at the same time, with the same speed, with the same response time they can cover the same amount of pixels(This is the most important thing). That is the answer, it doesn't have to do with distance. We are talking about pixel.
I have a question for ya.. I have to admit i didn't read your explination because i don't agree with it, but do have a question that may help me understand how your are thinking. In simple terms it seems to me you are assuming that the screen doesn't right the next pixel till it starts or completes the previous pixel disturbed. Is that the case
Example of what i mean is pixel A takes 35ms and then pixel b another 35ms and then pixel C another 35ms. Is this basically what you are saying. If so I can very easily see how you came to your conclusion. But at the same time i also see you don't understand how a LCD panel actually works. If i am correct with what you are believing please let me know and i willl provide you with a graphical explination of how the LCD works and how to get a correct understanding of the situation.
i would also like to point out that if the screen isn't redrawn all at once but pixel by pixel as what i believe is being suggest we are are talking about pixels per second it would take a wooping 80 seconds to have my lcd refresh the screen 1 time. I think that is a bit impracticale don't you
I am pretty dissappointed in the lack of knowledge of LCD's. Here is a simple truth all. You are basing this on distance and pixel count. They are irrelevent, A LCD doesn't function pixel by pixel. The entire screen can be refresed at once. Simply put every pixel on the screen can change within 35ms weather it is XGA or SXGA or UXGA. The ghosting occurs when the pixel has to change more then once in that 35ms. This argument of Pixels per second is pointless.
One more thing i can see how someone would say that a higher res monitor would then have a higher change of having ghosting based on a higher change the pixel will have to change. I would argue that because they are smaller they would also be told to change back faster as well. No matter what size the screen is if the responce time is the same you will get basically the same ghosting
actually if its using a framebuffer which most video cards do it is being drawn out at once, and its being drawn faster than 35ms so if you refresh all the pixels on the screen you should be able to do it in 35ms so pixel amount or amount of pixels doesnt matter, the only thing that might matter is how obvious it is, obviously when your refreshing more pixels the ghosting is more noticeable, not much only because you can see the pixels that are moving more clearly, but playing a game or something like that will look the same on both screens regardless of the resolution assuming both have equal response times.
I entirely agree with above two posts. Every pixel can refresh at 35 ms as it gets every 1/60 second (60 hz) new information to change its state. 60 Hz refresh means the entire graphics buffer (thus the whole srceen) is dumped 60 times per sec on the screen. Its not like in 3D or graphics rendering that each moving pixel is updated separetely while others remain untouched. All pixels are always updated as fast as they can (which is on the dell screen 35 ms).
There are only two factors influencing blurr and shadowing and thats the respons time (fall+ rise) and temperatures. The higher the temp the higher the response rate. Just try to work on your laptop outside in 2 °C conditions and you'll see, the blurr and shadowning is terible... Doesn't mean you have to crank up your room temp to 40 °c or so . I think once above 25 °C (which is the optimal temp for most LCD screens) there is only little improvement.
Conclusion : When two screens (no matter what resolution) have the same response time they will have the same level of ghosting.
Let's say that you have a 'screen' that is 10 pixels wide and 1 pixel tall (10x1), and I have a screen that is 10,000 pixels wide and 1 pixel tall (10,000x1 or 10Kx1).
Each screen has a 35ms refresh-rate and are each are 10cm wide. At time = 0ms all pixels on both screens are white.
At the exact same time, I drag a black 'cursor' that is 1x1pixel all the way across each screen which, as it travels, turns each pixel that it 'touches' black. This action takes me exactly 70ms on each screen.
Now, on the 10x1 screen the cursor travels 10pixels/70ms = .70p/ms. On the 10Kx1 screen the cursor travels 10000p/70ms = 142.85p/ms.
Let's assume that each pixel's refreshment begins at the moment that the cursor 'hits' that pixel. On the 10x1 screen, the pixels will begin their refreshment at 70ms/xp = 7ms, 14ms,... 70ms. On the 10Kx1 screen their refreshment will begin at 70ms/xp = .0007ms, .0014ms,... 70ms.
At 70ms, 1/2 of the pixels on each screen will have turned completely black. The rest will be not-black.
In other words, if the time since the initial refreshment rate began is => 35ms, ( [70-(70*(yp / xp)) => 35] ; where x is the # of pixels traveled, and y is the total # of pixels on the screen) then that pixel has turned completely black. If it is < 35ms then it is not-black.
So, yes, the 10Kx1 screen will have many, many more pixels that are not-black, but the 10x1 screen will still have 1/2 of the screen (5cm worth) that is not-black and thus 5cm of screen that is 'ghosting'.
Firstly to example, on my firts look I can see that is absolutly nonsence.
If you have screen 10cm = 100mm long pixel size on 10000x1 must be maximal (100mm/10000pixles) = 0,01 mm
Do you really think, that 0,01 pixel size exist ?? Your WUXGA has 0,179 mm !!!
In second case you premise, that you have same 10cm = 100mm long screen 10x1, pixel size on this screen must be (100mm/10) = 10mm
On 10000x1 you have pixel size 0,01 mm
On 10x1 you have pixel size 10mm
- These screen are very differet to each other !!!!
Everybody can see, that Im real physicist and you arent. If you will write me again I will ingore you, because you are stupid and absolutely dont know somethig about physics.
Instruction: How to count pixles size on your LCD
You must take distance your screen in millimetrs (or inches) and divide it with quantity of pixles
Examples: WUXGA (1920x1200) dimensions:
Heigh - 222,5 mm ; Width - 334,5 mm ; diagonal - 391,2 mm
Pixel size for WUXGA is = 334,5 mm / 1920pixels = 0.1742 mm ( real is 0,1725mm )
Pixel size for WSXGA is = 334,5 mm / 1600pixels = 0,2091 mm ( real is 0,1971mm )
Pixel size for WXGA is = 334,5 mm / 1280pixels = 0.2613 mm ( real is 0,2588mm )
real pixels sizes and dimesions I took from pdf "Dell Inspiron 8600 Reviewr
'
s Guide"
Notify there is small mistake in mensuration, because I count without gaps between two pixels. In real there are gaps between pixels so the pixels size is in real little smaller. But this mistake is so small as you can see.
This is exactly set example, there are all informations and the mistake of mensuration. If you pretend that you are physicist or mathematician I will recognize it. Because Im physicist and I know how you must set your exapmle to have solution.
All people can belive from all my previous articles and examples that are exactly set and all have exactly solution. There are so many people on this forum which they dont know what is talking about. Everybody can take a sheet of paper and count my examples and they will see, that they are true.
I give you example of nonsence statement:
Andrew WOT and
minkylee9
9
wrote:
Consider yourself lucky, Sharp is best of the best of the best, sir. ;)
Where do you have the specifications of your SHARP, you havent !! He lies, he havent specifications, but he knows, that SHARP is best of best. If I want to say, that SHARP has better then Samsung, I must write specifications of SHARP (with internet link from manufacturer). If these specifications will be better I finaly can write, that SHARP is better then Samsung. Andrew WOT havent these spec. !!!! We can compare Hitachi and Samsung, because we have specificatons. I have never seen the SHARP specificatons !!! If somebody write here that he saw WUXGA and WXGA side by side and said that both has same speed. Where is verificaton ?? How can I know if he is writing truth or he lies. Think about my words and all of you will recognize these liars, who said that poo is better then caviar.
I write in advance, that I will not response to stupid articles, which are not fully setting. I won´t answer to nonsence question.
article :
WUXGA - Samsung = GOOD, Hitachi = BAD - but what about Sharp???
StuartV
1 Rookie
•
55 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 16:00
You are obviously not going to listen to anybody that doesn't agree with you, so this reply is addressed to anybody that might read this load of cra.... uhhh, erroneous information and be inclined to believe it.
The very simple reason that you're wrong is perfectly illustrated by your 3 examples of cursors - one with no ghost and 2 with ghosting. The difference between the 2 with ghosts is correct - IF the drawing scale is pixels. I.e. Yes, the ghost on the WUXGA screen would have more pixels between it and the real cursor than it would on a WXGA screen. And so, IF the pixel pitch was the same between the two kind of screens, the ghost on the WUXGA screen would appear further physically behind the actual cursor. And the screen itself would be physically much larger than a WXGA screen.
But that's not the case. The screens are the same physical dimensions, so the pixel pitch is much higher on the WUXGA screen. I.e. the pixels are a lot closer together on the WUXGA screen.
If you redo your illustrations using a physical dimension scale, instead of a pixel scale, then (if you do it correctly), the ghost on the WUXGA screen would be exactly as far behind the real cursor (in inches, for example) as it is on the WXGA screen.
Which means the ghosting is no worse on a WUXGA screen than it is on a WXGA screen that has the same pixel response times.
- Stu
StuartV
1 Rookie
•
55 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 17:00
I didn't forget to realize anything.
Of course, the speed in pps is higher for WUXGA. You already said the screens are the same physical dimensions and you're moving the cursor at the same speed (in INCHES per second). Therefore, obviously, the rate of pixels per second is higher. Good thinking, Sherlock.
Now tell us why the ghost is there at all. Hint: where was the real cursor location the last time the screen refreshed?
THEN calculate for us how far the ghost is from the real cursor on a WUXGA screen. You may assume that, on a WXGA screen, under identical circumstances (i.e. same physical cursor speed in inches per second), its ghost is 1 inch behind the real cursor.
To save you a whole lot of calculations that might be really hard for you, I'll tell you the answer, the ghost on the WUXGA screen is ALSO 1 inch behind the real cursor. Therefore, to the human eye, the ghosting is exactly the same.
onetobenl
73 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 17:00
What are you trying to proof!!! you never get the point. I already told you 2 times!!!
Think about this:
Q: if you have a picture of a square 640x640 pixels. Go from point (0,0) to(640,0) with speed 640 pixels per second. Try on a WXGA and WUXGA LCD with 35 ms response time. Do you arrive at the end point at the same time???
The answer is: yes!!! you are arrive at the same time.
Q: Do you have the same ghosting effect???
The answer: of course!!!
Q: If you have a square 1280x800 pixels(max WXGA LCD resolution). Go from point(0,0) to (1280,0) with speed 640 pixel per second. Try on a WXGA and WUXGA LCD with 35 ms response time. Do you arrive at the end of the point at the same time???
The answer is:again.....yes....
Conclusion:
response time doesn't have to do with resolution. This is very easy to prove. I just need aprrox. only 40 words to explain this(but for you I need more words). But you still don't get it. I have a pitty on you...
Message Edited by onetobenl on 01-29-2004 08:31 PM
William.w
31 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 17:00
onetobenl wrote:
Q: if you have a picture of a square 640x640 pixels. Go from point (0,0) to(640,0) with speed 640 pixels per second. Try on a WXGA and WUXGA LCD with 35 ms response time. Do you arrive at the end point at the same time???
The answers is YES, you will be have same ghostig, because you will have same speed in pixels per second. Do you think, that you have same speed in millimetrs per second ?? You havent !!.
Relize, that you are not in same position in millimeters from the sides of the screen. Not pixels !!!
William.w
31 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 17:00
To suartV :
What you said is right, but you forgot to realise, that the difference in both speed in pixels per second is big enought. Its 320 pixels per second. I agree with you, that WUXGA has smaller pixels then WXGA, but different in speeds ( pixels per second) is large, so smaller pixels will not help you. It only reduce difference between these different ghost on both WXG and WUXGA. Notify this !!!
CECarl
179 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 18:00
This is kinda like a modern-day Zeno's paradox.
Let's say that you have a 'screen' that is 10 pixels wide and 1 pixel tall (10x1), and I have a screen that is 10,000 pixels wide and 1 pixel tall (10,000x1 or 10Kx1).
Each screen has a 35ms refresh-rate and are each are 10cm wide. At time = 0ms all pixels on both screens are white.
At the exact same time, I drag a black 'cursor' that is 1x1pixel all the way across each screen which, as it travels, turns each pixel that it 'touches' black. This action takes me exactly 70ms on each screen.
Now, on the 10x1 screen the cursor travels 10pixels/70ms = .70p/ms. On the 10Kx1 screen the cursor travels 10000p/70ms = 142.85p/ms.
Let's assume that each pixel's refreshment begins at the moment that the cursor 'hits' that pixel. On the 10x1 screen, the pixels will begin their refreshment at 70ms/xp = 7ms, 14ms,... 70ms. On the 10Kx1 screen their refreshment will begin at 70ms/xp = .0007ms, .0014ms,... 70ms.
At 70ms, 1/2 of the pixels on each screen will have turned completely black. The rest will be not-black.
In other words, if the time since the initial refreshment rate began is => 35ms, ( [70-(70*(yp / xp)) => 35] ; where x is the # of pixels traveled, and y is the total # of pixels on the screen) then that pixel has turned completely black. If it is < 35ms then it is not-black.
So, yes, the 10Kx1 screen will have many, many more pixels that are not-black, but the 10x1 screen will still have 1/2 of the screen (5cm worth) that is not-black and thus 5cm of screen that is 'ghosting'.
William.w
31 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 18:00
Q: If you have a square 1280x800 pixels(max WXGA LCD resolution). Go from point(0,0) to (1280,0) with speed 640 pixel per second. Try on a WXGA and WUXGA LCD with 35 ms response time. Do you arrive at the end of the point at the same time???
The answer is:again.....yes....
But if you start on both LCD at same time you will be on the WXGA exactly in the right corner, but on WUXGA you will not be in the right corner of WUXGA, you will be 223 mm from the right corner . The cursor on WXGA on same distance 334,5mm will be move faster, with same ghosting on both screen !!!. WXGA and WUXGA has same dimension 334,5mm and this is this problem !!!
334,5 mm / 1920 pixels = 0.174 mm ( size of one pixel )
334,5 mm / 1280 pixles = 0,261 mm ( size of one pixle )
- There is small mistake in mesuration, becaouse I dont count the gaps, between two pixels. Its only plus for WUXGA, because have smaller gaps between two pixles.
If you want to be in corner of your WUXGA you must move with faster speed pixels per second, so you will have more ghosting !! In your premise you count wiht your WUXGA, tha you have more space in millimers, but you havent, realized it, that you have bigger space only in pixles !!!
Thank you for your question, all people will see, where is your mistake !!
onetobenl
73 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 19:00
onetobenl
73 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 19:00
Thats why I told you...in this case(with LCD, Pictures, Images) we are talking about pixels and not about distance(cm, mm, m,etc).
If you make a square 1920x1200. Try go from point(0,0) to (1200,0), zoom the pictures 100%. Try with WUXGA and WXGA(you may pause the timer if you can get the picture to full screen with WXGA and scrool your windows to the right). Do you get the same time??? yess you do!!!...
If you make 2 square. 1920x1200 on WUXGA and 1280x800 on WXGA:
WXGA: from point(0,0) to (1920,0)
WXGA:from(0,0) to(1280,0)
sure...it takes longer for WUXGA vecause it have more pixel to cover(this is very logic)...but it doesn't prove that WXGA is faster than WUXGA, because at the same time, with the same speed, with the same response time they can cover the same amount of pixels(This is the most important thing). That is the answer, it doesn't have to do with distance. We are talking about pixel.
get it!!!??
cking32
155 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 19:00
WW
I have a question for ya.. I have to admit i didn't read your explination because i don't agree with it, but do have a question that may help me understand how your are thinking. In simple terms it seems to me you are assuming that the screen doesn't right the next pixel till it starts or completes the previous pixel disturbed. Is that the case
Example of what i mean is pixel A takes 35ms and then pixel b another 35ms and then pixel C another 35ms. Is this basically what you are saying. If so I can very easily see how you came to your conclusion. But at the same time i also see you don't understand how a LCD panel actually works. If i am correct with what you are believing please let me know and i willl provide you with a graphical explination of how the LCD works and how to get a correct understanding of the situation.
cking32
155 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 20:00
cking32
155 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 20:00
I am pretty dissappointed in the lack of knowledge of LCD's. Here is a simple truth all. You are basing this on distance and pixel count. They are irrelevent, A LCD doesn't function pixel by pixel. The entire screen can be refresed at once. Simply put every pixel on the screen can change within 35ms weather it is XGA or SXGA or UXGA. The ghosting occurs when the pixel has to change more then once in that 35ms. This argument of Pixels per second is pointless.
One more thing i can see how someone would say that a higher res monitor would then have a higher change of having ghosting based on a higher change the pixel will have to change. I would argue that because they are smaller they would also be told to change back faster as well. No matter what size the screen is if the responce time is the same you will get basically the same ghosting
Xevious
43 Posts
0
January 30th, 2004 01:00
godim
507 Posts
0
January 30th, 2004 08:00
I entirely agree with above two posts. Every pixel can refresh at 35 ms as it gets every 1/60 second (60 hz) new information to change its state. 60 Hz refresh means the entire graphics buffer (thus the whole srceen) is dumped 60 times per sec on the screen. Its not like in 3D or graphics rendering that each moving pixel is updated separetely while others remain untouched. All pixels are always updated as fast as they can (which is on the dell screen 35 ms).
There are only two factors influencing blurr and shadowing and thats the respons time (fall+ rise) and temperatures. The higher the temp the higher the response rate. Just try to work on your laptop outside in 2 °C conditions and you'll see, the blurr and shadowning is terible... Doesn't mean you have to crank up your room temp to 40 °c or so
. I think once above 25 °C (which is the optimal temp for most LCD screens) there is only little improvement.
Conclusion : When two screens (no matter what resolution) have the same response time they will have the same level of ghosting.
William.w
31 Posts
0
January 30th, 2004 13:00
CECarl wrote:
This is kinda like a modern-day Zeno's paradox.
Let's say that you have a 'screen' that is 10 pixels wide and 1 pixel tall (10x1), and I have a screen that is 10,000 pixels wide and 1 pixel tall (10,000x1 or 10Kx1).
Each screen has a 35ms refresh-rate and are each are 10cm wide. At time = 0ms all pixels on both screens are white.
At the exact same time, I drag a black 'cursor' that is 1x1pixel all the way across each screen which, as it travels, turns each pixel that it 'touches' black. This action takes me exactly 70ms on each screen.
Now, on the 10x1 screen the cursor travels 10pixels/70ms = .70p/ms. On the 10Kx1 screen the cursor travels 10000p/70ms = 142.85p/ms.
Let's assume that each pixel's refreshment begins at the moment that the cursor 'hits' that pixel. On the 10x1 screen, the pixels will begin their refreshment at 70ms/xp = 7ms, 14ms,... 70ms. On the 10Kx1 screen their refreshment will begin at 70ms/xp = .0007ms, .0014ms,... 70ms.
At 70ms, 1/2 of the pixels on each screen will have turned completely black. The rest will be not-black.
In other words, if the time since the initial refreshment rate began is => 35ms, ( [70-(70*(yp / xp)) => 35] ; where x is the # of pixels traveled, and y is the total # of pixels on the screen) then that pixel has turned completely black. If it is < 35ms then it is not-black.
So, yes, the 10Kx1 screen will have many, many more pixels that are not-black, but the 10x1 screen will still have 1/2 of the screen (5cm worth) that is not-black and thus 5cm of screen that is 'ghosting'.
Firstly to example, on my firts look I can see that is absolutly nonsence.
If you have screen 10cm = 100mm long pixel size on 10000x1 must be maximal (100mm/10000pixles) = 0,01 mm
Do you really think, that 0,01 pixel size exist ?? Your WUXGA has 0,179 mm !!!
In second case you premise, that you have same 10cm = 100mm long screen 10x1, pixel size on this screen must be (100mm/10) = 10mm
On 10000x1 you have pixel size 0,01 mm
On 10x1 you have pixel size 10mm
- These screen are very differet to each other !!!!
Everybody can see, that Im real physicist and you arent. If you will write me again I will ingore you, because you are stupid and absolutely dont know somethig about physics.
Instruction: How to count pixles size on your LCD
You must take distance your screen in millimetrs (or inches) and divide it with quantity of pixles
Examples: WUXGA (1920x1200) dimensions:
Heigh - 222,5 mm ; Width - 334,5 mm ; diagonal - 391,2 mmPixel size for WUXGA is = 334,5 mm / 1920pixels = 0.1742 mm ( real is 0,1725mm )
Pixel size for WSXGA is = 334,5 mm / 1600pixels = 0,2091 mm ( real is 0,1971mm )
Pixel size for WXGA is = 334,5 mm / 1280pixels = 0.2613 mm ( real is 0,2588mm )
real pixels sizes and dimesions I took from pdf "Dell Inspiron 8600 Reviewr
' s Guide"Notify there is small mistake in mensuration, because I count without gaps between two pixels. In real there are gaps between pixels so the pixels size is in real little smaller. But this mistake is so small as you can see.
This is exactly set example, there are all informations and the mistake of mensuration. If you pretend that you are physicist or mathematician I will recognize it. Because Im physicist and I know how you must set your exapmle to have solution.
All people can belive from all my previous articles and examples that are exactly set and all have exactly solution. There are so many people on this forum which they dont know what is talking about. Everybody can take a sheet of paper and count my examples and they will see, that they are true.
I give you example of nonsence statement:
Andrew WOT and
minkylee9 9 wrote: Consider yourself lucky, Sharp is best of the best of the best, sir. ;)Where do you have the specifications of your SHARP, you havent !! He lies, he havent specifications, but he knows, that SHARP is best of best. If I want to say, that SHARP has better then Samsung, I must write specifications of SHARP (with internet link from manufacturer). If these specifications will be better I finaly can write, that SHARP is better then Samsung. Andrew WOT havent these spec. !!!! We can compare Hitachi and Samsung, because we have specificatons. I have never seen the SHARP specificatons !!! If somebody write here that he saw WUXGA and WXGA side by side and said that both has same speed. Where is verificaton ?? How can I know if he is writing truth or he lies. Think about my words and all of you will recognize these liars, who said that poo is better then caviar.
I write in advance, that I will not response to stupid articles, which are not fully setting. I won´t answer to nonsence question.
article :
WUXGA - Samsung = GOOD, Hitachi = BAD - but what about Sharp???