WooWoo 19" FP Monitor at work

[Nowhere]

No, but not only on CRTs. You're not supposed to use it on any monitor in which the signal is feeded in analogue way. Cleartype works on subpixel level and there's no way to send that info when not using DVI (DVI-D!) or something similar...
Perhaps you Dell at work is connected via Dsub?

[Wombat]

No, but not only on CRTs. You're not supposed to use it on any monitor in which the signal is feeded in analogue way. Cleartype works on subpixel level and there's no way to send that info when not using DVI (DVI-D!) or something similar...

This simply isn't true. Cleartype works by making assumptions about how your pixels are built, but it still sends pixel data. It modifies what the pixels will look like. It's nothing you can't do via analog.

[Nowhere]

But using analog to send this data, you can't be certain how they'll be represented...which is quite crucial I think (if average video card/cable/monitor trio can't be razor sharp when we evaluate look of pixels, than with Cleartype it can be only worse since it works on one step smaller level...)
(and form my understanding, it modifies what the subpixels will "look" like (so in effect: how pixels will look), by not "making assumptions" but knowing how the pixels are built)

[Wombat]

But using analog to send this data, you can't be certain how they'll be represented

Yes you can. It's no different than digital.

(and form my understanding, it modifies what the subpixels will "look" like (so in effect: how pixels will look), by not "making assumptions" but knowing how the pixels are built)

No, it's an assumption. The RGB will always show up in the same order, horizontally and vertically. They might use the DDI information to know how to treat specific models of monitor, but that's no different in analog vs. digital.

[Nowhere]

Somehow I'm not convinced one can do that...how can you be sure that neighboring pixels won't influence each other? (especially in this example when high precision of displayed data is crucial to the point that pixel could be considered "big").

And I somehow still disagree about "assumption" (of course there's always the possibilty that I misunderstood your English...). After all you can be 100% certain in what order/shape the subpixels are in LCD, but to control that one particular subpixel with 100% certainity you need DVI...da?

[Admiral]

ClearType looks like crap on my 710N, I'm happier playing with the Digital Vibrance and gamma on the 6800.

[Wombat]

Somehow I'm not convinced one can do that...how can you be sure that neighboring pixels won't influence each other? (especially in this example when high precision of displayed data is crucial to the point that pixel could be considered "big").

If you've got a crappy connection with ClearType on, then you've got a crappy connection with ClearType off.

And I somehow still disagree about "assumption" (of course there's always the possibilty that I misunderstood your English...). After all you can be 100% certain in what order/shape the subpixels are in LCD

No you can't. Different models, types of glass & circuit. "LCD" is not enough of a definition. But the DDI information could tell you what you need to know, but this works in analog or digital.

but to control that one particular subpixel with 100% certainity you need DVI...da?

Ne. Analog to your CRTs already addresses that "particular subpixel with 100% accuracy." That's how good signal clocking works.

[Nowhere]

If you've got a crappy connection with ClearType on, then you've got a crappy connection with ClearType off.

I was thinking more among the lines digital vs. analog , in large parts in areas...well, CRTs are analog technology. I'm sure they can be done to work very accurately...but how often does that happen? (and also I wouldn't be surprised if cheaply made any part of DAC, cable, ADC when using LCD via analog connection had some impact on all this...)

No you can't. Different models, types of glass & circuit. "LCD" is not enough of a definition. But the DDI information could tell you what you need to know, but this works in analog or digital.

?
AFAIK there are only two possibilities/"standards" of it, one more used: generally a square pixel (or not square, doesn't matter) made from RGB parts as high as pixel and 1/3 in thickness. And in the one less used you can see that somethings "wrong" immadietely after you turn Cleartype on, so everything you has to do is change some setting...

Ne. Analog to your CRTs already addresses that "particular subpixel with 100% accuracy." That's how good signal clocking works.

You're sure? I don't doubt that it's possible, but...would it be so cheap as it is?

edit: and what about the thing that the number of physical "pixels" (so also subpixels) on CRT doesn't match with resolution of image? How can you have 100% accuracy in that case?

[Wombat]

I was thinking more among the lines digital vs. analog , in large parts in areas...well, CRTs are analog technology. I'm sure they can be done to work very accurately...but how often does that happen? (and also I wouldn't be surprised if cheaply made any part of DAC, cable, ADC when using LCD via analog connection had some impact on all this...)

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're saying here.

AFAIK there are only two possibilities/"standards" of it, one more used: generally a square pixel (or not square, doesn't matter) made from RGB parts as high as pixel and 1/3 in thickness. And in the one less used you can see that somethings "wrong" immadietely after you turn Cleartype on, so everything you has to do is change some setting...

So you're saying it's okay if ClearType is broken by different LCD technologies, but it could never work on a CRT?

You're sure? I don't doubt that it's possible, but...would it be so cheap as it is?

CRTs are only "cheap" because they're an established techonology - it's now routine to design, and manufacturing yields are high. The quality is there though It wasn't that long ago a roommate of mine spent $1,000+ on a 21" ViewSonic CRT.

edit: and what about the thing that the number of physical "pixels" (so also subpixels) on CRT doesn't match with resolution of image? How can you have 100% accuracy in that case?

You don't understand how CRTs work. They don't have a "number of physical pixels." The guns adjust to different display resolutions. There's a limit as to how accurate they can be, but otherwise you're fine. RGB,RGB,RGB

[Nowhere]

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Just some though about how accurate the whole analog chain can be (especially since it's useless step when using LCD - so one has to wonder how cheaply it's made)

So you're saying it's okay if ClearType is broken by different LCD technologies, but it could never work on a CRT?

The point is it's not broken since LCD are simple scenario, compared to CRT...

CRTs are only "cheap" because they're an established techonology - it's now routine to design, and manufacturing yields are high. The quality is there though It wasn't that long ago a roommate of mine spent $1,000+ on a 21" ViewSonic CRT.

Ahh, OK.
But what was that thing about why we're using Matrox cards/lack of IQ on other brands? Good clocking?

You don't understand how CRTs work. They don't have a "number of physical pixels." The guns adjust to different display resolutions. There's a limit as to how accurate they can be, but otherwise you're fine. RGB,RGB,RGB

I understand, I wouldn't have put pixels in "" otherwise. It's simply weird for me accuracy can to a "pixel" (not "") level...precizelly when screen must adjust (you way of saying what I was trying to say). And isn't it more like "triangles" than RGB,RGB,RGB? (the latter only in trinitorn afai remember...)






The punchline is: than why one "should" buy LCD with DVI connection?

And, more importantly: why then, when turning on cleartype on monitor with analogue connection (doesn't matter if it's CRT or LCD, although on CRT it's more visible) I see some colours around the letters (from normal distance from the screen), and when turning on Cleartype on DVI connected LCD, everything is ok - letters black, backrground white, no artifacts?

[Wombat]

But what was that thing about why we're using Matrox cards/lack of IQ on other brands? Good clocking?

Good clocking, clean signals.

The punchline is: than why one "should" buy LCD with DVI connection?

Because LCDs don't refresh the way CRTs do. The pixels don't fade, so they don't need a refresh signal, and they're not really meant to have it - looking at an analog-driven LCD drives me crazy. Because a "cheap" analog signal will mess up your video data, where digital is largely immune.

[Nowhere]

Good clocking, clean signals.

So is it at least very possible that on other brands it won't be good enough to give accuracy we need?

Because LCDs don't refresh the way CRTs do. The pixels don't fade, so they don't need a refresh signal, and they're not really meant to have it - looking at an analog-driven LCD drives me crazy. Because a "cheap" analog signal will mess up your video data, where digital is largely immune.

Exactly, and why this messing wouldn't come in the way of cleartype, preventing it from functioning properly?

[ALBPM]

I've had this monitor for about a week now.....

Cleartype helps with the text but images look grainy and too sharp. What looked great on a CRT looks like crap on this Philips monitor.

Any suggestions for images. I'm afraid to do any image editing on this thing cause they'll look like crap on a good monitor....LOL!!!!

[Kurt]

lower the refresh to 60Hz (you don't need anything above on an LCD and the VGA out on your laptop might not be the best) and see if the screen has an "auto" function/button that will let it adjust better to the signal it receives (NB: it's not always a panacea and you might have to do it more than once, but it usually helps a lot).

[ALBPM]

It's at 60 Hz and I've tweaked it a bit so images don't look as oversharpened as before.