Hi
I am designing a new project studio that will be atached to my house
and be an occoassional control room and a regular lace to compose, mix
and master ( and practice the drums......).

It will be about 12ft deep and I was considering getting a big plasma
screen so that I could sit away from the display and the speakers, have
bluetooth computer keyboard and mouse, and a mixer and midi controller
keyboard at my seating position.

THis is rather than having a big desk along one wall with a mixer on it
with nearfields perched on the meter bridge and having to sit there all
crammed up - or having the desk in the middle of the room and making it
unusable for anything else.

This would mean I could use the room as a kind of home cinema too when
I am not working.....

I wondered if anyone had used a LCD TV screen (eg 1368x 768 32") for
use as a computer monitor for work in a DAW when you are sitting 6 to
10ft from the screen?

Any views feedback appreciated

Tommy Banana

"tommy banana" wrote:

This would mean I could use the room as a kind of home cinema too when
I am not working.....

Any views feedback appreciated

Why not install a toilet and refrigerator, too...you'll never have to leave!

Bob

tommy banana wrote:

I wondered if anyone had used a LCD TV screen (eg 1368x 768 32")
for use as a computer monitor for work in a DAW when you are
sitting 6 to 10ft from the screen?

Size is not the only issue, quality also matters, as does btw. the use
of mains power.

Any views feedback appreciated

Just calculate how many quality microphones you can get for the price of
a high qualiyt 50" screen that may not even have pixels enough for the
required screen image.

Tommy Banana

/ Peter Larsen

I wondered if anyone had used a LCD TV screen (eg 1368x 768 32")
for use as a computer monitor for work in a DAW when you are
sitting 6 to 10ft from the screen?

Size is not the only issue, quality also matters, as does btw. the use
of mains power.

Any views feedback appreciated

Just calculate how many quality microphones you can get for the price of
a high qualiyt 50" screen that may not even have pixels enough for the
required screen image.

I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen LCD
at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x 960. Just
a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768. The real thing
to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain) and interlacing
(flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native resolution is available on
whatever video card you plan on getting and always use an all digital (DVI)
connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type analog connections.

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
ews.com...

"tommy banana" wrote:

This would mean I could use the room as a kind of home cinema too when
I am not working.....

Any views feedback appreciated

Why not install a toilet and refrigerator, too...you'll never have to
leave!

Bob

Forgery by Brian L. McCarty, who used to be a sound mixer.

I wondered if anyone had used a LCD TV screen (eg 1368x 768 32") for
use as a computer monitor for work in a DAW when you are sitting 6 to
10ft from the screen?

I can't say that I have a control room with a 32" as the only monitor. I
have a control room with 2 17" normal LCDs and a 17" widescreen HDTV ready
VGA compatible monitor. But I have a computer in the TV room running a 37"
1920X1080 LCD at max resolution and it wouldn't be something I'd like to
work on for audio/video. Not because it's not a nice setup, but rather
because you either have to lose resolution in order to SEE small items, or
you have to increase the objects you use, like menus, fonts and such through
the display properties so as to make the increased resolution a waste. If
you have to do sample level edits, the increased distance is probably a
disadvantage.

Plus, and even though there is currently a 32" 1368X768 on Tigerdirect.com
for $699, at current prices it is much more probable that the use of three
monitors allows for more application specific design of a system interface.
In my case I use my lefthand 17" (4:3) for my actual tracks, although I
admit that a 19" or 20" might encompass all my tracks with an
easier-on-the-eye view. My 17" center monitor (16:9) is the mixing console
(yes, although I can mix on my 24*8 console, I usually mix in the box), and
the right hand 17" (4:3) is used for visually monitoring my metering and my
VST/DirectX plugins. I can see no way I could do this with a 32" at a
reasonable resolution. As it is, my reasonable use of space gives me about
42" of computer desk space horizontally, all within an easy eye's movement
in the vertical.

So my suggestion would be to purchase a 32" LCD HDTV ready/VGA monitor only
if you are planning to do some video work. And at $699 for said 32", I may
want to put that onto the wall behind my system setup for video and still us
my current system setup for audio. Even at that, we shouldn't be talking
about much more than $1k for having these abilities, assuming that you have
enough of a video card to push the monitors. BTW, my control room card is a
Matrox 750 (AGP), but the one pushing my 37" HDTV ready/VGA system is a
GeForce 6600GTX (AGP) which can take my 480P DVD output and double the lines
for superb resolution. Both systems are Athlon 64s.

Hope this gives you some useful information.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"tommy banana" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi
I am designing a new project studio that will be atached to my house
and be an occoassional control room and a regular lace to compose, mix
and master ( and practice the drums......).

It will be about 12ft deep and I was considering getting a big plasma
screen so that I could sit away from the display and the speakers, have
bluetooth computer keyboard and mouse, and a mixer and midi controller
keyboard at my seating position.

THis is rather than having a big desk along one wall with a mixer on it
with nearfields perched on the meter bridge and having to sit there all
crammed up - or having the desk in the middle of the room and making it
unusable for anything else.

This would mean I could use the room as a kind of home cinema too when
I am not working.....


Any views feedback appreciated

Tommy Banana

Tommy

If you feed the monitor with its native resolution you will have the
best chance of seeing the text correctly. When the monitor has to scale the
incoming image you are at the mercy of its quality. This is why most TV
monitor resoutions look poor with computer input unless it matches the
monitor and no scaling has to be done.

I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen LCD
at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x 960. Just
a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768. The real
thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain) and
interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native resolution is
available on whatever video card you plan on getting and always use an all
digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type analog connections.

First, we are talking LCDs, not Plasma, but you knew that, so I don't
understand the plasma reference.

The real situation is whether a complete video/computer system has the
ability to pixel map, as was stated by Stephen St. Croix (may he RIP) in a
Mix article last year. Some of you may have followed his efforts to gain a
foothold in how to use current technology for some of the film work he was
engaged with and the efforts to find a HD solution that provided the movie
type of experience that his clients needed to relay to the film going
public.

Turns out that he had tried out a number of systems, mostly projector types
because he wanted a large theater like environment, but had decided that DLP
(digital light processing, which focuses a number of itty-bitty mirrors to
correct for aberrations) and a system that provided for pixel mapping worked
best. I believe his system ran into close to $25k.

But DVI-D will allow for direct pixel mapping from a computer based system
(or any set top that supports the functions) and an LCD with response times
under 12 MS one could expect extremely lifelike representation of what's
coming over the air. Even today the best response times I've seen are down
around 6-8 MS.

But by the time these types of LCDs are ubiquitious the first wave of H.264
compatible products will start hitting the shelves, again at $10K, but with
a resolution at least 4 times greater than 1080P. It would be like looking
outdoors with an absolutely clean window to peer through. The reality might
just be less than the representation. If anyone wonders what I'm talking
about I refer them to National Geographics to research an article about
having 8 billion pixels of resolution (turns out it is a very large format
film camera that can resolve images that allow one to enlarge a 1/4" X 1/4"
section to 8' X 8' with Kodak 25 slide film resolution).

With the continued upgrade of digital image technology we may actually get
finely detailed video of UFOs! g

Interestingly enough, a year ago I had a 14 year old 45" Mitsubishi rear
screen projector and wasn't all that worried about HDTV. Now I have 4 HDTV
compatible monitors in the house. The Westinghouse (BenQ, I believe) 37"
LCD (1920X1080), 2 17" (1280X768 which supports 1080I, looks better in
720P), and a new 20" (1368X768 that supports 1080I but it's only hooked up
to my wife's computer right now).

For a man that took 7 years to really get into CDs I think this is amazing
or amazingly stupid. And I bought a 2.4 GHz video/audio wireless setup that
allows me to take one of my 17" out to the patio and watch football whilst
grilling, albeit not in HD. But at least I won't miss the game.

BTW, essentially the same model 37" I bought in January for $2400 is now
around $1600, so figure from there.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message
. com...
I wondered if anyone had used a LCD TV screen (eg 1368x 768 32")
for use as a computer monitor for work in a DAW when you are
sitting 6 to 10ft from the screen?

Size is not the only issue, quality also matters, as does btw. the use
of mains power.

Any views feedback appreciated

Just calculate how many quality microphones you can get for the price of
a high qualiyt 50" screen that may not even have pixels enough for the
required screen image.

I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen
LCD at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x 960.
Just a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768. The
real thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain) and
interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native resolution is
available on whatever video card you plan on getting and always use an all
digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type analog connections.

The line reading "the reality might just be less than the representation",
after further review, doesn't represent what I wanted to say. I'm saying
that looking out a perfectly clean window onto the world won't be as clear
as the presentation of a truly stunning HD image.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen
LCD at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x
960. Just a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768.
The real thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain) and
interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native resolution
is available on whatever video card you plan on getting and always use an
all digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type analog connections.

First, we are talking LCDs, not Plasma, but you knew that, so I don't
understand the plasma reference.

The real situation is whether a complete video/computer system has the
ability to pixel map, as was stated by Stephen St. Croix (may he RIP) in a
Mix article last year. Some of you may have followed his efforts to gain
a foothold in how to use current technology for some of the film work he
was engaged with and the efforts to find a HD solution that provided the
movie type of experience that his clients needed to relay to the film
going public.

Turns out that he had tried out a number of systems, mostly projector
types because he wanted a large theater like environment, but had decided
that DLP (digital light processing, which focuses a number of itty-bitty
mirrors to correct for aberrations) and a system that provided for pixel
mapping worked best. I believe his system ran into close to $25k.

But DVI-D will allow for direct pixel mapping from a computer based system
(or any set top that supports the functions) and an LCD with response
times under 12 MS one could expect extremely lifelike representation of
what's coming over the air. Even today the best response times I've seen
are down around 6-8 MS.

But by the time these types of LCDs are ubiquitious the first wave of
H.264 compatible products will start hitting the shelves, again at $10K,
but with a resolution at least 4 times greater than 1080P. It would be
like looking outdoors with an absolutely clean window to peer through.
The reality might just be less than the representation. If anyone wonders
what I'm talking about I refer them to National Geographics to research an
article about having 8 billion pixels of resolution (turns out it is a
very large format film camera that can resolve images that allow one to
enlarge a 1/4" X 1/4" section to 8' X 8' with Kodak 25 slide film
resolution).

With the continued upgrade of digital image technology we may actually get
finely detailed video of UFOs! g

Interestingly enough, a year ago I had a 14 year old 45" Mitsubishi rear
screen projector and wasn't all that worried about HDTV. Now I have 4
HDTV compatible monitors in the house. The Westinghouse (BenQ, I believe)
37" LCD (1920X1080), 2 17" (1280X768 which supports 1080I, looks better in
720P), and a new 20" (1368X768 that supports 1080I but it's only hooked up
to my wife's computer right now).

For a man that took 7 years to really get into CDs I think this is amazing
or amazingly stupid. And I bought a 2.4 GHz video/audio wireless setup
that allows me to take one of my 17" out to the patio and watch football
whilst grilling, albeit not in HD. But at least I won't miss the game.

BTW, essentially the same model 37" I bought in January for $2400 is now
around $1600, so figure from there.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message
. com...
I wondered if anyone had used a LCD TV screen (eg 1368x 768 32")
for use as a computer monitor for work in a DAW when you are
sitting 6 to 10ft from the screen?

Size is not the only issue, quality also matters, as does btw. the use
of mains power.

Any views feedback appreciated

Just calculate how many quality microphones you can get for the price of
a high qualiyt 50" screen that may not even have pixels enough for the
required screen image.

I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen
LCD at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x
960. Just a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768.
The real thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain) and
interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native resolution
is available on whatever video card you plan on getting and always use an
all digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type analog connections.

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen
LCD at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x
960. Just a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768.
The real thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain) and
interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native resolution
is available on whatever video card you plan on getting and always use an
all digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type analog connections.

First, we are talking LCDs, not Plasma, but you knew that, so I don't
understand the plasma reference.

I was mentioning in case the OP WAS also considering plasma, next time I'll
add "in case you're considering plasma", so I won't confuse you :-)

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen
LCD at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x
960. Just a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768.
The real thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain) and
interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native resolution
is available on whatever video card you plan on getting and always use an
all digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type analog connections.

First, we are talking LCDs, not Plasma, but you knew that, so I don't
understand the plasma reference.

The real situation is whether a complete video/computer system has the
ability to pixel map,
snip really long ...

whew.. Roger.. I am starting to think you could be the global warming cause
that Gore is seeking..

ALL devices 'pixel map'. And the most loyal reproductions will be displayed
when the scaling is 1:1 between the incoming image and the LCD.

The problem in scaling computer images is the small thin data , like small
fonts and other data that gets mulched in scaling algorithms. The better the
scaler the better the image.

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen
LCD at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x
960. Just a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768.
The real thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain) and
interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native resolution
is available on whatever video card you plan on getting and always use an
all digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type analog connections.

First, we are talking LCDs, not Plasma, but you knew that, so I don't
understand the plasma reference.

Actually he does mention plasma in his original post, but you knew that :-)

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen
LCD at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x
960. Just a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768.
The real thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain) and
interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native resolution
is available on whatever video card you plan on getting and always use an
all digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type analog connections.

First, we are talking LCDs, not Plasma, but you knew that, so I don't
understand the plasma reference.

As far as scalers and resolution goes.. they're the same.

I was mentioning in case the OP WAS also considering plasma, next time
I'll add "in case you're considering plasma", so I won't confuse you :-)

Oh, you didn't confuse me, you might have confused the OP since he
specifically said "LCD"! g Maybe you didn't. What do I know? But hey,
you allowed me to get in the response time, so neither of us actually gave
any bad information, as far as I know.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message
om...

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen
LCD at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x
960. Just a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768.
The real thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain)
and interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native
resolution is available on whatever video card you plan on getting and
always use an all digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type
analog connections.

First, we are talking LCDs, not Plasma, but you knew that, so I don't
understand the plasma reference.

No, all devices don't pixel map. Simple use of some compression strategies
suggests that all devices don't pixel map, much less whether one uses
component or DVI/HDCP inputs. Mapping the total resolution of the screen
and mapping individual pixels are two different things. I'd suggest you go
back to last year's Mix mags and read the series Stephen wrote before he
passed away. That was one smart fellow and he did over a year's worth of
research for this project.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"nappy" wrote in message
. com...

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen
LCD at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x
960. Just a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768.
The real thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain)
and interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native
resolution is available on whatever video card you plan on getting and
always use an all digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type
analog connections.

First, we are talking LCDs, not Plasma, but you knew that, so I don't
understand the plasma reference.

The real situation is whether a complete video/computer system has the
ability to pixel map,
snip really long ...

whew.. Roger.. I am starting to think you could be the global warming
cause that Gore is seeking..

ALL devices 'pixel map'. And the most loyal reproductions will be
displayed when the scaling is 1:1 between the incoming image and the LCD.

The problem in scaling computer images is the small thin data , like small
fonts and other data that gets mulched in scaling algorithms. The better
the scaler the better the image.

As far as scalers and resolution goes.. they're the same.

Again, no they are not. First, plasma seems to be set at 720P because it
has relatively large pixels, regardless of size. I've yet to see a 1080I or
1080P plasma screen, although they were originally promised for this year or
next. Plasma screens upscale/downscale to native resolution for all input,
regardless of whether it is advantageous to the content or not. But, for
purposes of explanation, my set top box allows me to select the maximum
resolution (sometimes 1080I looks better, sometimes 720P looks better) for
HD content, and I have the box automatically convert and upscale all regular
television to 480P. My monitors don't do squat in terms of upscaling. They
just recognize the signal the set top box is supplying and adjust for it.

But then, when we switch over to the computer for DVD viewing, it's up to
the computer as to how it handles the output, or better said, it's up to me
to set the computer to how I want to view a DVD. It's a given for DVD that
I want line doubling. But there's still the problem of whether the
widescreen format is 1.85 to 1 or 2.35 to 1, and I have to actually search
this information out on some older DVDs to find the best resolution to watch
it. If I choose the wrong one it looks weird. Hence and obviously, not all
scalers are the same. There's no set standard for recognizing the content
of a DVD or a HD broadcast. TNT broadcasts in HD over cable, but it's not
always HD content. Just HD broadcast, which means that they are doing the
pan/scan at whatever ratio they choose. Sometimes it looks good, sometimes
it doesn't. ESPN HD has the same problems. Ever watch a football game with
little squat people?

There's also the difference between how a plasma screen works and an LCD
works. In plasma, the pixels are always on, sometimes they just show black,
but they are always on. LCDs turn off pixels not in use. Plasmas used to
have a problem with burn in, most LCDs don't (although I'm looking at one
right now that does - this cheap piece of **** - and not HD, btw). Plasma's
pixel size is relatively large in comparison with LCD. In the early days of
plasma screens on portable computers (luggable), you could easily see each
and every individual pixel. Wanna try something fun? Take a camera lens to
a video store and look at the pixels. You'll be surprised. And although
plasma screens have come a long way, they still degrade over a period of 4
years or so. LCDs should have a life expectency of about twice that. And
in the next year or so we'll be seeing LCDs without backlighting, which
extends the life even greater.

Now if you are talking about a HD TV setup and not a HD compatible monitor,
then it does have it's own scaling system to bring standard broadcast up or
HD content down to it's native resolution. But I'd dare say that Sony,
Sanyo, BenQ and others would argue that their scaling systems are the better
video processors and thus give better scaling. But to say they are the same
is just plain wrong. And for the prior post, they don't all pixel map.
Pixel mapping is a technique that has the output being matched on the screen
pixel for pixel. If something scales up or down, then obviously it can't be
pixel mapping. The different manufacturers might even use the same scaling
chipset and still come up with something different. But mostly they use
their own designs on chipsets and under carefull observation one can see the
differences, whether it be plasma or LCD. And as a general I try to never
make general statements, but here goes. Plasma tends to have more brilliant
colors and cleaner blacks, but LCD tends to have greater sharpness and
longer life. I opted for the 4 LCD HD compatible monitors I currently own
and I enjoy the purchase.

But like I said, H.264 is going to change HD to 4 times the resolution in
just a couple of years, so if one can't figure out what's happening now,
just think of how bad it's going to be to make a decision then! g

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"nappy" wrote in message
. com...

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen
LCD at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x
960. Just a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768.
The real thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain)
and interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native
resolution is available on whatever video card you plan on getting and
always use an all digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type
analog connections.

First, we are talking LCDs, not Plasma, but you knew that, so I don't
understand the plasma reference.

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
No, all devices don't pixel map. Simple use of some compression
strategies suggests that all devices don't pixel map, much less whether
one uses component or DVI/HDCP inputs. Mapping the total resolution of
the screen and mapping individual pixels are two different things. I'd
suggest you go back to last year's Mix mags and read the series Stephen
wrote before he passed away. That was one smart fellow and he did over a
year's worth of research for this project.


I am on my third year as lead software developer for a number of very high
end LCD display systems and scalers. This is what I do. I don't need to read
Mix magazine to get any information on the technology that I make a living
doing. Thanks anyway.

I can tell you that it would be beneficial for you to read them again.. or
even better read some of the tech specs on the current crop of scaler ICs
which are used by all of the LCD / Plasma manufacturers on the planet. hmmm.
start with the AL310 from Averlogic.. and go from there..



--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"nappy" wrote in message
. com...

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen
LCD at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x
960. Just a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768.
The real thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain)
and interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native
resolution is available on whatever video card you plan on getting and
always use an all digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type
analog connections.

First, we are talking LCDs, not Plasma, but you knew that, so I don't
understand the plasma reference.

The real situation is whether a complete video/computer system has the
ability to pixel map,
snip really long ...

whew.. Roger.. I am starting to think you could be the global warming
cause that Gore is seeking..

ALL devices 'pixel map'. And the most loyal reproductions will be
displayed when the scaling is 1:1 between the incoming image and the LCD.

The problem in scaling computer images is the small thin data , like
small fonts and other data that gets mulched in scaling algorithms. The
better the scaler the better the image.

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
As far as scalers and resolution goes.. they're the same.

Again, no they are not.

They definately are. IT is only the drive technology that is different. As
far as how they deal with inputs and scaling.. no diff.


First, plasma seems to be set at 720P because it
has relatively large pixels, regardless of size.

WHAT? That's quite funny Roger.. It certainly wouldn't have anything to do
with the complexity of developing a dependable, dense plasma device.. naw.
Not to mention the fact that LCD displays are gaining and surpassing plasma
tech.

Look.. the rest of your post was nothing more than a clear indicator that
you barely understand display technology. There were no real points in there
to respond to.

You do have a distinct ability to write alot without saying much though..
I'll give ya that.

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
I was mentioning in case the OP WAS also considering plasma, next time
I'll add "in case you're considering plasma", so I won't confuse you :-)

Oh, you didn't confuse me, you might have confused the OP since he
specifically said "LCD"! g Maybe you didn't. What do I know? But hey,
you allowed me to get in the response time, so neither of us actually gave
any bad information, as far as I know.

Did I not read a mention of plasma in the original post? He changed it to
LCD later in the post. I assumed he was considering both equally. As far as
response time, take it with a grain of salt. My LCD boasts a quick repsonse
time, but it's latency (and not just this LCD) really sucks big time.
Latency is something that the LCD manufacturers have left out of the story
altogether. Just take a CRT and an LCD, hook them both up to your video card
and set it to "clone" mode. Then run a sequencer with a timecode window, and
take a picture with both monitors in the frame. Yep... it's horrifying (to
quote the great Tom Sholtz) This one is a few frames behind, yeah "FRAMES"
So, the image is smooth and motion doesn't look blurry, but my display is
behind in time to the audio I'm editing (does it matter too much, who
knows... but my brother beats me in Quake now and he didn't used to, he has
a CRT :-). I'm wondering if this increases with the size of the display or
whether or not there is a huge difference between manufacturers. You
probably know more about this than I do...

You still don't get it, and for that I have no clue. Just because it's all
the same to you and your company doesn't mean that its the same for all
companies. It's programming, not the chip.

But you knew that, right?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"nappy" wrote in message
. net...

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
No, all devices don't pixel map. Simple use of some compression
strategies suggests that all devices don't pixel map, much less whether
one uses component or DVI/HDCP inputs. Mapping the total resolution of
the screen and mapping individual pixels are two different things. I'd
suggest you go back to last year's Mix mags and read the series Stephen
wrote before he passed away. That was one smart fellow and he did over a
year's worth of research for this project.


I am on my third year as lead software developer for a number of very high
end LCD display systems and scalers. This is what I do. I don't need to
read Mix magazine to get any information on the technology that I make a
living doing. Thanks anyway.

I can tell you that it would be beneficial for you to read them again.. or
even better read some of the tech specs on the current crop of scaler ICs
which are used by all of the LCD / Plasma manufacturers on the planet.
hmmm. start with the AL310 from Averlogic.. and go from there..



--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"nappy" wrote in message
. com...

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a
widescreen LCD at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running
at 1280 x 960. Just a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at
1024 x 768. The real thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate
(eye strain) and interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the
native resolution is available on whatever video card you plan on
getting and always use an all digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA
d-sub type analog connections.

First, we are talking LCDs, not Plasma, but you knew that, so I don't
understand the plasma reference.

The real situation is whether a complete video/computer system has the
ability to pixel map,
snip really long ...

whew.. Roger.. I am starting to think you could be the global warming
cause that Gore is seeking..

ALL devices 'pixel map'. And the most loyal reproductions will be
displayed when the scaling is 1:1 between the incoming image and the
LCD.

The problem in scaling computer images is the small thin data , like
small fonts and other data that gets mulched in scaling algorithms. The
better the scaler the better the image.

Hi Guys
thanks for all the incredible info.

First of all when I wrote the original post I was a bit vague on some
stuff but I am definitely only looking at LCD.

I went into Comet (I'm in Scotland!) today and hooked up my MacBook Pro
to a Samsung 32" HD LCD TV screen with 1368x768 res. And the result
was.....

Well it looked fine. I had the choice of various resolutiions in the
display control panel and I didnt have it set to mirror mode ( I had a
seperate control panel for th MBP screen and the samsung)

but as you said no matter which res 5 had it on the text on menus and
the like looked a wee bit woolly. I didnt think that I would be
comfortable with it for long sessions.

If I was doing mostly home cinema and a bit of music then it would be
fine but the proportion is the other way round.

My main question is:

is that cos I was running bioth screens off the internal graphics of
the MBP, was it becasue there was some scaling going on as the output
didnt exactly match the screen reolution eg 1380 to 1368 or the like,
os is that just what you gut with 1368 pixels stretched across a 32"
screen.

If the latter then I think Ihave to go for a LCD computer monitor and
budget says 1 or 2 20"is the max 5 can do.

Any more thought s very very appreciated.

Tommy Banana

On 7 Jun 2006 19:03:55 -0700, "tommy banana"
wrote:

but as you said no matter which res 5 had it on the text on menus and
the like looked a wee bit woolly. I didnt think that I would be
comfortable with it for long sessions.


is that cos I was running bioth screens off the internal graphics of
the MBP, was it becasue there was some scaling going on as the output
didnt exactly match the screen reolution eg 1380 to 1368 or the like,
os is that just what you gut with 1368 pixels stretched across a 32"
screen.

Scaling of *any* kind is your enemy here. What Roger has
been trying hard to get across is that the only good
resolution for text on a fixed, coarse-pixel screen, like
an LCD or plasma, is the *native* resolution.

Our eyes focus continuously, and "look" for edges. Any
display without good sharp edges to focus on, and at a very
rapid reading rate, are fatiguing.

IOW, the goal is to have the computer tell each RGB pixel
personally and forcefully what to do, and without an
intermediary translator. Text is totally unlike watching
movies.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

Look.. the rest of your post was nothing more than a clear indicator that
you barely understand display technology. There were no real points in
there to respond to.

Ah, now I remember why it's a waste of time corresponding on this newsgroup.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"nappy" wrote in message
. net...

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
As far as scalers and resolution goes.. they're the same.

Again, no they are not.

They definately are. IT is only the drive technology that is different. As
far as how they deal with inputs and scaling.. no diff.


First, plasma seems to be set at 720P because it
has relatively large pixels, regardless of size.

WHAT? That's quite funny Roger.. It certainly wouldn't have anything to
do with the complexity of developing a dependable, dense plasma device..
naw. Not to mention the fact that LCD displays are gaining and surpassing
plasma tech.

Look.. the rest of your post was nothing more than a clear indicator that
you barely understand display technology. There were no real points in
there to respond to.

You do have a distinct ability to write alot without saying much though..
I'll give ya that.

tommy banana wrote:

but as you said no matter which res 5 had it on the text on menus and
the like looked a wee bit woolly. I didnt think that I would be
comfortable with it for long sessions.

is that cos I was running bioth screens off the internal graphics of
the MBP

No, it's because you're looking at a TV screen, and TV sets just don't
have that good resolution. I was once on the front end of a two week
long business trip when the screen on my laptop computer went blank. I
took it in to a computer shop (this was back when there were real
computer shops and the computer was running DOS 6.1) and found that it
worked with an external monitor, just not with the built-in screen. So
I ordered one of those VGA-RF video adapters so that I could use the TV
set in the hotel room as a monitor for the computer.

No matter how I adjusted it and fiddled with resolution, text size, and
color scheme, text (which was all I was interested in seeing) was
always fuzzy and hard to read. I was able to keep up with e-mail but as
soon as I got home, I shipped the adapter back for a refund, telling
them that I just couldn't get usable resolution with it.

Although TV sets are better today than they were back then, you're
still fighting the same battle. The large monitors that look pretty
decent with a computer are the ones you see at trade shows, but they're
still in the $3,000 range.

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...


Scaling of *any* kind is your enemy here. What Roger has
been trying hard to get across is that the only good
resolution for text on a fixed, coarse-pixel screen, like
an LCD or plasma, is the *native* resolution.


no... Roger was quoting things he barely understood.. Nappy made the native
resolution point

"Roger Norman" wrote in message
...
You still don't get it, and for that I have no clue. Just because it's
all the same to you and your company doesn't mean that its the same for
all companies. It's programming, not the chip.

But you knew that, right?


Roger.. IT IS the same everywhere... We all use the same technology. In the
actual signal flow of a device it is hardware, large scale IC's doing the
work.. The 'software' sets up the proper parameters and gets out of the way.
I have no idea what you were trying to get across in the statement above..
except that display technology is not your forte.

"tommy banana" wrote in message
oups.com...
Maybe the flaming became a waste of time but you two guys really helped
me so it wasn't.

It wasn't flaming at all.. just a good honest discussion and simple
corection of the facts. Glad you got the monitor goin. The very simple
answer to your question was to work at the native resolution of the monitor
if you can

No, it's because you're looking at a TV screen, and TV sets just don't
have that good resolution. I was once on the front end of a two week
long business trip when the screen on my laptop computer went blank. I
took it in to a computer shop (this was back when there were real
computer shops and the computer was running DOS 6.1) and found that it
worked with an external monitor, just not with the built-in screen. So
I ordered one of those VGA-RF video adapters so that I could use the TV
set in the hotel room as a monitor for the computer.

No matter how I adjusted it and fiddled with resolution, text size, and
color scheme, text (which was all I was interested in seeing) was
always fuzzy and hard to read. I was able to keep up with e-mail but as
soon as I got home, I shipped the adapter back for a refund, telling
them that I just couldn't get usable resolution with it.

Although TV sets are better today than they were back then, you're
still fighting the same battle. The large monitors that look pretty
decent with a computer are the ones you see at trade shows, but they're
still in the $3,000 range.

Mike, you really don't know what you're talking about here, you were using a
standard TV, we're talking about the new digital TV's, BIG difference.
Sheesh... get some new technology :-)

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Mike, you really don't know what you're talking about here, you were using a
standard TV, we're talking about the new digital TV's, BIG difference.

We are? I was responding to someone who said he hooked his computer up
to a "TV set" and it didn't have good enough resolution to read text
easily. It may have been capable of receiving digital transmission, but
still the screen resolution wasn't sufficient for computer use.

Sheesh... get some new technology :-)

I don't even watch TV enough to justify having cable. What am I going
to do with a digital TV? It's probalby not even good enough to hook up
to a computer.

I'm still using that Pentium II in the studio, too.

We are? I was responding to someone who said he hooked his computer up
to a "TV set" and it didn't have good enough resolution to read text
easily. It may have been capable of receiving digital transmission, but
still the screen resolution wasn't sufficient for computer use.

I don't think you understood what the topic was all about, Mike. Regular TV
doesn't have enough resolution for computer use, that's a given. They are
talking about using HD type TV's, which do work just fine if you have all of
your ducks in a row. They will playback a DVD rather nicely as well.


Sheesh... get some new technology :-)

I don't even watch TV enough to justify having cable. What am I going
to do with a digital TV? It's probalby not even good enough to hook up
to a computer.

Yes, it is... if you buy the right one and have the right kind of video
card, and set it up correctly. AAMOF, most of them have various PC inputs
for that very purpose. You should get out more often :-)


I'm still using that Pentium II in the studio, too.

I rest my case :-) You'd be amazed at the things that can be done now, Mike.
*grin*

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I don't think you understood what the topic was all about, Mike. Regular TV
doesn't have enough resolution for computer use, that's a given. They are
talking about using HD type TV's, which do work just fine if you have all of
your ducks in a row. They will playback a DVD rather nicely as well.

It sounds like the original poster hooked his computer up to one that
didn't work well in the resolution department. I was just confirming
that this happens. Perhaps he's the one who doesn't understand what he
needs.

What am I going
to do with a digital TV? It's probalby not even good enough to hook up
to a computer.

Yes, it is... if you buy the right one and have the right kind of video
card, and set it up correctly. AAMOF, most of them have various PC inputs
for that very purpose. You should get out more often :-)

That's a lot of "ifs" for an audio guy like me. Last week, I saw that
Micro Center had a 15" LCD monitor on sale for $100 so I bought one. It
works fine on my Mackie HDR, and also on a computer. That's as much as
I know.

On 8 Jun 2006 15:41:46 -0700, "Mike Rivers"
wrote:


That's a lot of "ifs" for an audio guy like me. Last week, I saw that
Micro Center had a 15" LCD monitor on sale for $100 so I bought one. It
works fine on my Mackie HDR, and also on a computer. That's as much as
I know.

Fair enough. You have little interest in computers and little
knowledge of the subject. So why not keep quiet? I'd always rated
you as one of the sensible guys round here. But you're doing a chevdo
imitation on this topic.

Laurence Payne wrote:

Fair enough. You have little interest in computers and little
knowledge of the subject. So why not keep quiet? I'd always rated
you as one of the sensible guys round here. But you're doing a chevdo
imitation on this topic.

I read about someone's problem and I had a similar problem so I chimed
in with my experience . What's wrong with that? Has anyone here
actually helped the original poster? At least I assured him that he
wasn't nuts.

Besides, why would anyone expect to hook a computer up to a TV set? I
guess it's nice that it works sometimes, with some computeres, and some
TV sets, for certain displays, but it isn't as simple as buying a
computer monitor and plugging it in.

I read about someone's problem and I had a similar problem so I chimed
in with my experience . What's wrong with that? Has anyone here
actually helped the original poster? At least I assured him that he
wasn't nuts.

You didn't have a similar problem at all, though.



Besides, why would anyone expect to hook a computer up to a TV set? I
guess it's nice that it works sometimes, with some computeres, and some
TV sets, for certain displays, but it isn't as simple as buying a
computer monitor and plugging it in.

The OP needed a BIG display and was asking if the resolution of the type of
display he was asking about aould work as a DAW at the distance he was going
to be from it. He mentioned plasma and LCD. How is this like your
experience? And also just buying a monitor and plugging it in isn't as
simple as you may think, that is if picture quality and geometric purity
matter to you at all. I guess Dave and I should have taken you to Best Buy
instead of that Chinease restaurant a few years ago :-) OK, I'm teasing
you... but you really should get out more often :-)

Besides, why would anyone expect to hook a computer up to a TV set? I
guess it's nice that it works sometimes, with some computeres, and some
TV sets, for certain displays, but it isn't as simple as buying a
computer monitor and plugging it in.

I forgot about responding to this. One could expect to hook up a computer to
a TV set since most new HD sets have a port specifically for hooking up a
computer :-)

On 5 Jun 2006 16:30:44 -0700, "tommy banana"
wrote:

I wondered if anyone had used a LCD TV screen (eg 1368x 768 32") for
use as a computer monitor for work in a DAW when you are sitting 6 to
10ft from the screen?

One issue not yet mentioned is your own vision. If you're
approaching geezerhood, with its limited range of focal
distances, 6 to 10 feet is somewhere between good correction
for arm's-length work and good infinity correction.

If your eyeballs are still flexible, that not a problem.
Yet! Arf.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

The OP needed a BIG display and was asking if the resolution of the type of
display he was asking about aould work as a DAW at the distance he was going
to be from it. He mentioned plasma and LCD. How is this like your
experience?

As far as the TV set he tried, completely different. At the time I was
forced into this experiment, there were no plasma or LCD TV set,
particularly not in hotel rooms. However, the PROBLEM was exactly the
same. I had trouble reading text on the TV screens that I used, and HE
had trouble reading text on the TV screen that he tried.

When I reply to a post, I try to say a little more than just "me too"
when that's really all I have to say about the subject. I try to
explain what I agree, and that's what I did, and ALL that I did. I
didn't tell him that it would never work, I only suggested that he
needed better screen resolution.

And in fact, that's all you've suggested. The only differernece is that
you've said that this is possible in some modern TV sets. I have my
doubts, but I'm not interested enough to take a computer down to
Circuit City and ask to hook it up to a few TV sets to see what it
looks like today.

And also just buying a monitor and plugging it in isn't as
simple as you may think, that is if picture quality and geometric purity
matter to you at all.

Alternateively, I guess if I have a problem, I've never realized it.
Some people are like that with loudspeakers and microphones. I'm not
very "visually experienced." Did you notice how thick my glasses are?
g

On 8 Jun 2006 16:39:55 -0700, "Mike Rivers"
wrote:

I read about someone's problem and I had a similar problem so I chimed
in with my experience . What's wrong with that? Has anyone here
actually helped the original poster? At least I assured him that he
wasn't nuts.

You told him about an experience with a crt tv set. That was as if he
asked about input levels on a digital system and you replied with
advice about the noise floor of a tape machine!

Besides, why would anyone expect to hook a computer up to a TV set? I
guess it's nice that it works sometimes, with some computeres, and some
TV sets, for certain displays, but it isn't as simple as buying a
computer monitor and plugging it in.

As he is discovering. But it was a valid question. Today's
flat-screen tv's and large computer monitors are converging. Tv's now
typically have a SVGA input, sometimes also a digital video input.
It's reasonable to assume they might be good for something!

There's a 32" LCD tv here. I just plugged in my laptop with a DV
cable. Native resolution of the tv appears to be 1360 X 768. At
this setting, the picture's fine at an appropriate viewing distance.
Contrast needs to come down a bit from the tv viewing setting.

My comment would be - for a DAW I want twice this amount of screen.
My usual setup is dual monitors, both at 1280 X 1024. I'd like to
move up from here, not down! In another year, particularly if HDTV
catches on, I think we'll be seeing bigger screens with higher
resolutions at an affordable price.

You told him about an experience with a crt tv set. That was as if he
asked about input levels on a digital system and you replied with
advice about the noise floor of a tape machine!

Which happens often in this NG! :-)