Anyone tried QSXGA on Parhelia?

[alexudal]

I mean, 2560x2048 res. for a single head (say, for Sony GDM F520 with its 360 MHz dot clock, 0.21-0.22 mm pitch), to render fonts at 157 dpi? Matrox whitepaper hints that Phas cutoff freq at about 360 Mhz which roughly corresponds to 7.7 Mpixels, so I thought I might try to fire up them all...

Any idea how to hack the registry for that?

Also, I wonder how fast is P at 2048x1536 for mpeg2/DVD (my G400 needs a fallback to 1600x1280 to play DVDs)?

[Ryu Connor]

I posed your question last night in the TR IRC channel. None of us could think of a monitor that has a fine enough dot pitch alongside a large enough viewable screen area to properly support 2048x1536.

Some of the best monitors we could find topped out a little over 1920 when you do the math.

We on the other hand did find a LCD that could do it.

http://www.9xmedia.com/pages-Build_a_system/X-Top_Expert---2_over_2.html

Of course it is so expensive only a big company/corporation could afford it. They would have to use analog because DVI doesn't extend that far. To top it off of course a dead pixel on one of those screen would really suck.

Not to dissuade you from trying to do what you want to do, but the values you are aiming for will be alot like trying to run 1600x1200 on a 17" monitor. It just doesn't make sense.

[UtwigMU]

How 'bout Quato Color station professional

or La Cie Electronblue 22

[TdB]

I always wanted one of these:

http://www.sonystyle.com/home/item.jsp?hierc=9683x76x9704&catid=9709&itemid=8241&telesale=null&hidden=null&cps=null&type=s

it seems to be able to take advantage of the parhelias 2d-capabilities.

but as far as I can see, its max resolution is 2048*1536 @85hz and not 2560*2048 or am i missing something?

[Ryu Connor]

Quato Color Station:

Doesn't give it's viewable area, so I'll assume this 21" monitor has a 20" viewable. It has a .22 dot pitch. Soo.

4*20/5 = 16"

16 * 25.4 = 406.4mm

406.4 / .220 = 1847.27

So, it too would be packing more pixels into the screen than it can support trying to do 2048x1536

electron22blue III:

This monitor has a 20" viewable area and a .24 dot pitch.

4*20/5 = 16"

16 * 25.4 = 406.4mm

406.4 / .240 = 1693.33

It too comes up short of being able to support 2048.

Sony GDM-520:

19.8" viewable with a .22 pitch.

4*19.8/5 = 15.84"

15.84 * 25.4 = 402.336

402.336 / .220 = 1828.8

It too comes up short. Hell, even some of Sony's recommended resolutions for that monitor are a tad high.

[TdB]

sorry for my ignorance, but would you mind explaining what you are calculating in your post, Im not too familiar with the inner workings of a monitor.

[Pace]

The actual number of dots the monitor can display. You take how big the monitor is, how fine the dot pitch is, and calculate how many dots it can realistically show. Most monitors can show more dots than that though, but you're not getting any more detail.

P.

[alexudal]

I do 2048x1536 noproblema, right now...

...on my HP P1110 refurb. ($349) monitor (Hsync 29-121. Vsync 50-180, dot clock 300 MHz) with G400 (not even Max(ed)). I do it in Win98 and in Linux, everything is sharp and clear which certainly tells me of robust hardware AA (subpixelazation). It works just fine for aperture grills: my thinnest (sharp) verticals are about 0.16-0.19 mm -- not full 0.24 mm triple strip, as TDB tried to calculate here. BTW, Cornerstone 1650 with its standard 2048x1536 resolution is based on similar model of the Sony tube.

Don't know whether it could work for shadow masks though... but don't care either: their .22mm pitch tubes wouldn't focus in 99 % of all cases and render crappy colors in 100 %.

On the other hand, Sony F520's .22 mm triple strips render saturated vivid colors, and I could calculate 2560x2048 modelines for my X server like in 5 minutes. All what is needed now is $1540 for F520 (~$750 for used one), $320 for Parhel, plus Parhel Linux driver capable of QSXGA (or more)

Now with ~157 dpi, I could definitely get ~20 % more 'DETAIL ', plus apparently lose some vision of grill wires which is good, too