DVI vs Analog

[SK]

Hi everyone

I have a Viewsonic VP201s, that I drive from a Matrox G450 through the analog Sub-D connection (no DVI out). PC is running XP Pro.

Now I believe I’ve heard that the display will be better quality wise, if I upgraded the display adapter to, say, a Matrox P650 and used the DVI connection.

Is this true? How can I expect things to improve, sharper defined text, brighter colors, higher contrast? Can anyone here with a P650 confirm it (by changing from sub-d to dvi)?
Best regards

S. Klauber

[Chrono_Wanderer]

yea, quality should increase even more, because DVI is a fully digital connection.

but... G450 analog should have good enough quality, so I don't see why you would want to shell out another 200 for such little quality increase. If you have only one panel, what I will do is get a Radeon 9600 PRO (with that money) that has a DVI port. The DVI quality is excellent in ATI cards (make sure you get the generic ATI or Sapphire)... that way you get both awesome 2D and 3D quality.

[SK]

Quick respons, thanks.

I don't play games. I do photo editing, so picture quality is paramount. Are you realy sure the 9600 Pro better than the P650 for that purpose?

I believe the 9600 comes with a noisy fan, which I am allergic to!

Best

[Wombat]

With DVI, outputs are pretty much all created equal.

[rylan]

DVI is for lcd is far superior than analog. In fact in my opinion running analog to an lcd monitor is a waste.

[Chrono_Wanderer]

no, my point is G450's analog quality is already so good that its hard to distinguish anything "a lot better" to a naked eye

[SK]

So, Chrono_Wanderer, can I deduct that since I do not very interested in 3D performance, you would not recommend upgrading and switch to DVI at all?

[Wombat]

Actually, if you're doing photo editing, there's very few LCDs I would recommend. Most of them have limited color depth and range. Many/most graphic designers/editors still use CRTs for this reason.

What LCD are you using?

[SK]

See above, a Viewsonic VP201s, same Phillips panel as Dell use in their Ultrasharp 2001FP. Used to have a direct link to it at Phillips site, however it is a 16ms S-IPS S-IPS display.

[Chrono_Wanderer]

In my opinion, for 2D works, G450 is good enough, and unless you want to waste money, i won't upgrade to a P-series. (I don't see any big advantage of upgrading to a P-series if you only work with 1 monitor. analog on G450 is already very sweet.

[Chrono_Wanderer]

oh ya, forgot to mention, i used to run my G550 on my viewsonic P95f+ (professional series) CRT, and i couldn't complain the quality Matrox cards have to offer. And that was analog.

[Calhoun]

I think that Chrono_Wanderer is right. I was testing 15" and 17" LCDs from LG, Philips and Hyundai on G550 and G450. Absolutely no quality differences between analog or digital connections.

[rylan]

Its not the point that the analog output on the G550 is extremely good... the problem is that you're taking awesome analog signals and driving them into a generally cheap A/D capture circuit and then relying on the auto phase compensation and sync generation to work perfectly.
I'll admit however that I'm biased since I work on high resolution lcds, so I can pick out the analog artifacts pretty easily

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Calhoun
I think that Chrono_Wanderer is right. I was testing 15" and 17" LCDs from LG, Philips and Hyundai on G550 and G450. Absolutely no quality differences between analog or digital connections.

You wouldn't happen to have also tested the Hyundai Q15 ?

I looked a bit at this panel in a few showrooms, it seemed a little dark. I'm mainly curious about ghosting.
Also interested if it uses a 20ms Hydis or 16ms AU Optronics panel ?

[rylan]

I'd suspect that a Hyundai panel would use Hydis glass, since its basically the same company.