Can I get a clear picture from a laptop through a video switch to an XGA projector?

Q. I'm running 2 laptops & a dvd through a video switch to 2 lcd monitors & an XGA projector. I've connected everything with svideo cables (not VGA). When I'm using the laptops my lcd's are perfectly clear but the projected image through the XGA is incredibly blurry. Note that if I run the laptops to the projector with VGA the picture is clear. Is it the projector itselft or is this an issue that can't be resolved?

A. Not with S-Video.

If you run the projector straight from the VGA port then you'll get a very clear image (because the VGA connector was designed to handle computer graphics, though it can start to have problems when you push past UXGA) but you'll never get a good image from a computer using the TV out feature (S-Video just can't transmit a very clear image).

If the projector can handle PAL and you're outputting NTSC then switching to PAL might give you better image quality (as PAL tends to transmit with 576 visible scan lines while NTSC only transmits 480) although even then it'll be crap (just a bit less crappy than NTSC).

A VGA matrix would probably be better (and use the projector input select to get S-Video for the DVD player).

Original Question

What is different between a progressive scaned and none progressive sacned image?

Q. Do they effect on the image quality or not. Or is the the progressice scan effective in all tvs?

A. Progressive scan creates a complete image in one field (1/60 sec in the US) by displaying every line one after the other. The other method, called interlace, takes two fields to complete an image; the first field displays only every other line (the odd-nombered lines, e.g.), and the second field displays the remaining lines. Interlace scanning was used when television was first developed to reduce the required bandwidth needed to transmit the signal. For images that are stationary or slow-moving, your eye retains the image of the first field while the second field is being displayed, so you have the illusion of a complete picture with all the scan lines.

There are two problems with interlacing: 1) fast-moving objects will contain only half the number of lines in any position and will suffer loss of resolution. Edges of moving objects will appear jagged. 2) Cathode ray tube (CRT) displays have difficulty keeping the spacing between the two sets of lines exactly right. This is especially noticeable in text images (even stationary ones) and this is the reason that computer monitors are always progressive scan, and have been from the early days.

New TV sets have gone away from CRTs and use "fixed pixel" displays such as plasma, LCD or DLP. All of these displays are progressive scan; program material that is interlaced is converted to progressive by the electronics in the TV.

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Can you always tell whether the TV is analog or digital just by the image quality?

Q. The image quality of an analog tv can sometimes be poor.

Is Denmark the first country to mandate the change from analog TV to digital transition? I mean, before US mandated the change.

A. Not really. For example, on a large screen LCD HDTV, an analog signal won't look as good as it does on a smaller screen analog TV. On the other hand, an over-the-air digital channel in the U.S., received via a set top converter on an old analog TV, can look a lot better than the former analog signal from the same channel.

If you're unsure about a set or monitor and can't figure it out from the user's guide, search the make and model in Google. A hit on several different sites, Amazon in particular, will give you the set's specs.

Original Question

Why do old crt monitors have better picture quality than lcds?

Q. I have a 22" 1920x1080 lcd monitor on my computer. Well the other day I went over my friends house and he had a old CTX 17" crt monitor, and it was the clearest thing I ever seen. Perfect black levels, very crisp text, and the colors were much richer. Why does his crt have a better picture than my 22" 1080p full hd monitor?

A. It really depends on your LCD monitor, there are cheaper models with less mature technology, whereas CRTs have been around a long time and hence it's cheap to produce good models, and they don't (afaik) make them anymore.

Try look at high-end IPS monitors, which do have much better colour reproduction, viewing angles and then the price :P.

People moved to LCD, not because of image quality, but for energy-efficiency and how light it is.

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

May I get a better image by connecting my screen to a DVI port?

Q. My LCD screen has both a VGA and a DVI input. I'm currently using the VGA one, connected to my 9800gtx+ with a VGA->DVI adapter.
Will I get a better image quality by using the DVI input?

A. You should use DVI whenever possible for a totally digital connection. I don't see the point of converting a digital video signal into analog VGA only to have the monitor convert it back to digital for display.

Original Question

I want a camera with professional type images that can still fit in my jeans pocket. What can you recommend?

Q. I've looked at the Panasonic Lumix DMC LX2 which has all the features i want, not sure about the image quality though and it looks a little big for my pocket. Also I've looked at the new canon ixsus 850 and canon powershot g7. Can you recommend others? I'm an amature photographer but need a camera that i can easily take when going on a night out.

A. Check out a Canon Powershot SD900, which is almost a direct comparison, or an SD800-IS, which is a little cheaper (fewer MP) and has image stabilization. My reason for suggesting these two cameras is because the Panasonic you are looking at does not have an optical viewfinder and you will end up going through batteries faster than you like if you have to use that thing all the time.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_sd800is%2Ccanon_sd900%2Cpanasonic_dmclx2&show=all

I would choose almost any camera with an optical viewfinder over one that only has an LCD viewfinder. Why?

1. You never have the option of turning off the LCD and these things eat batteries for lunch and spit them out. Why do away with the option of a viewfinder that has zero electrical drain?

2. It can be difficult to see the image on an LCD in bright sunlight, even if they are "new and improved."

3. You have to hold an LCD viewer out at some distance in front of your face. This is more conspicuous than I prefer to be all the time.

4. The need to hold a camera at arms length will introduce some shake. I like the idea of stabilizing a camera against my face when I am taking a picture. This is especially important with a longer zoom lens. No wonder "image stablization" or "vibration reduction" is necessary with these cameras. Not that there's anything WRONG with IS or VR, but it is really a requirement with LCD viewfinders and telephoto lenses.

5. Using the LCD to view photos after you've taken them slows down the camera quite a bit. You can't shut of the LCD monitor and still take pictures if you don't have an optical viewfinder.

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

I want a camera with professional type images that can still fit in my jeans pocket. What can you recommend?

Q. I've looked at the Panasonic Lumix DMC LX2 which has all the features i want, not sure about the image quality though and it looks a little big for my pocket. Also I've looked at the new canon ixsus 850 and canon powershot g7. Can you recommend others? I'm an amature photographer but need a camera that i can easily take when going on a night out.

A. Check out a Canon Powershot SD900, which is almost a direct comparison, or an SD800-IS, which is a little cheaper (fewer MP) and has image stabilization. My reason for suggesting these two cameras is because the Panasonic you are looking at does not have an optical viewfinder and you will end up going through batteries faster than you like if you have to use that thing all the time.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_sd800is%2Ccanon_sd900%2Cpanasonic_dmclx2&show=all

I would choose almost any camera with an optical viewfinder over one that only has an LCD viewfinder. Why?

1. You never have the option of turning off the LCD and these things eat batteries for lunch and spit them out. Why do away with the option of a viewfinder that has zero electrical drain?

2. It can be difficult to see the image on an LCD in bright sunlight, even if they are "new and improved."

3. You have to hold an LCD viewer out at some distance in front of your face. This is more conspicuous than I prefer to be all the time.

4. The need to hold a camera at arms length will introduce some shake. I like the idea of stabilizing a camera against my face when I am taking a picture. This is especially important with a longer zoom lens. No wonder "image stablization" or "vibration reduction" is necessary with these cameras. Not that there's anything WRONG with IS or VR, but it is really a requirement with LCD viewfinders and telephoto lenses.

5. Using the LCD to view photos after you've taken them slows down the camera quite a bit. You can't shut of the LCD monitor and still take pictures if you don't have an optical viewfinder.

Original Question

Is it possible to contact print an inverted image on an lcd monitor to a piece of photo paper?

Q. I am wondering if you could invert an image in photoshop, make it say 5x7, black out your screen tape a piece of photo paper on there,turn the monitor on for a second or whatever and produce a developable print.

A. Yes. There is no reason whatsoever that this shouldn't work and produce a low resolution somewhat out of focus print given the correct exposure time and an environment that prevents the paper from being significantly fogged during the process.

A few things to keep in mind. There is a piece of plastic between the actual displayed pixel on the monitor and the piece of paper you are applying. This will mean that the light will diffuse and scatter somewhat before it reaches the paper thus reducing the clarity of the print. Also your pixel count per square inch on your monitor will be low in comparison to what is considered acceptable in a high quality print. This will depend on your monitor but even the very best monitors do not come near the 240 dpi that is required for a high quality print. Lastly the monitor will not have the orange mask that light sensitive photographic paper needs to produce a proper color image. This could likely be emulated though by experimenting with different degrees of orange being added to the inverted image.

Regardless...cool idea and worth giving it a try. With the right image it might distress it in such a way it might be desirable in some respects.

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Is it possible to contact print an inverted image on an lcd monitor to a piece of photo paper?

Q. I am wondering if you could invert an image in photoshop, make it say 5x7, black out your screen tape a piece of photo paper on there,turn the monitor on for a second or whatever and produce a developable print.

A. Yes. There is no reason whatsoever that this shouldn't work and produce a low resolution somewhat out of focus print given the correct exposure time and an environment that prevents the paper from being significantly fogged during the process.

A few things to keep in mind. There is a piece of plastic between the actual displayed pixel on the monitor and the piece of paper you are applying. This will mean that the light will diffuse and scatter somewhat before it reaches the paper thus reducing the clarity of the print. Also your pixel count per square inch on your monitor will be low in comparison to what is considered acceptable in a high quality print. This will depend on your monitor but even the very best monitors do not come near the 240 dpi that is required for a high quality print. Lastly the monitor will not have the orange mask that light sensitive photographic paper needs to produce a proper color image. This could likely be emulated though by experimenting with different degrees of orange being added to the inverted image.

Regardless...cool idea and worth giving it a try. With the right image it might distress it in such a way it might be desirable in some respects.

Original Question

Does LCD monitor or plasma give more better quality image?

Q. I know LCD monitor is cheaper then plasma but more LCD have 1080p, right? Which is better? Why there is a price difference? I know LCD is liquad, and?

A. Plasma has better response time so will show movement better than an LSD TV; important when watching action particularly sports. A good LCD has a 5 Milli Second response time where as a good plasma 0.2 MS.

LCD screens are generally much brighter and better suited for rooms the receive a lot of light. Plasma's are better in darker rooms; easier on the eyes.

Generally plasmas are 42 inches or larger. LCDs are manufacured by more companies.

LCDs sometimes are manufactured with pixles that are burned out causing a dot on the screen. Plasmas have problems from screen burn.

I decided after much research to forget about buying a set for another year; I was holding out for 42 - 48 inch 1080 p plasma. A couple of weeks ago Tiger Direct had a 42 inch LCD 720 p set on sale for $699 and I couldn't resist. I am extremely happy because I am getting a great picture, I have all the bells and whistles (PIP, split screen, TV tuner, multi connectors including computer) and I paid a lot less than anything I have seen before or after.

My advice: Get a good inexpensive 720 p that you you like (plasma or LCD) make sure it has an antenna (broadcast hi def is better than hi def on cable or satelitte), and enjoy. 1080 p is more expensive and really only gives a better picture with a Blue Ray DVD (also relatively expensive).

By the time prices fall for Blue Ray machines and discs and more channels are broadcasting in hi def the price of TVs will fall dramatically. Move the set you buy now into another room and get yourself a bigger set

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

What is different between a progressive scaned and none progressive sacned image?

Q. Do they effect on the image quality or not. Or is the the progressice scan effective in all tvs?

A. Progressive scan creates a complete image in one field (1/60 sec in the US) by displaying every line one after the other. The other method, called interlace, takes two fields to complete an image; the first field displays only every other line (the odd-nombered lines, e.g.), and the second field displays the remaining lines. Interlace scanning was used when television was first developed to reduce the required bandwidth needed to transmit the signal. For images that are stationary or slow-moving, your eye retains the image of the first field while the second field is being displayed, so you have the illusion of a complete picture with all the scan lines.

There are two problems with interlacing: 1) fast-moving objects will contain only half the number of lines in any position and will suffer loss of resolution. Edges of moving objects will appear jagged. 2) Cathode ray tube (CRT) displays have difficulty keeping the spacing between the two sets of lines exactly right. This is especially noticeable in text images (even stationary ones) and this is the reason that computer monitors are always progressive scan, and have been from the early days.

New TV sets have gone away from CRTs and use "fixed pixel" displays such as plasma, LCD or DLP. All of these displays are progressive scan; program material that is interlaced is converted to progressive by the electronics in the TV.

Original Question

May I get a better image by connecting my screen to a DVI port?

Q. My LCD screen has both a VGA and a DVI input. I'm currently using the VGA one, connected to my 9800gtx+ with a VGA->DVI adapter.
Will I get a better image quality by using the DVI input?

A. You should use DVI whenever possible for a totally digital connection. I don't see the point of converting a digital video signal into analog VGA only to have the monitor convert it back to digital for display.

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Can I get a clear picture from a laptop through a video switch to an XGA projector?

Q. I'm running 2 laptops & a dvd through a video switch to 2 lcd monitors & an XGA projector. I've connected everything with svideo cables (not VGA). When I'm using the laptops my lcd's are perfectly clear but the projected image through the XGA is incredibly blurry. Note that if I run the laptops to the projector with VGA the picture is clear. Is it the projector itselft or is this an issue that can't be resolved?

A. Not with S-Video.

If you run the projector straight from the VGA port then you'll get a very clear image (because the VGA connector was designed to handle computer graphics, though it can start to have problems when you push past UXGA) but you'll never get a good image from a computer using the TV out feature (S-Video just can't transmit a very clear image).

If the projector can handle PAL and you're outputting NTSC then switching to PAL might give you better image quality (as PAL tends to transmit with 576 visible scan lines while NTSC only transmits 480) although even then it'll be crap (just a bit less crappy than NTSC).

A VGA matrix would probably be better (and use the projector input select to get S-Video for the DVD player).

Original Question

What is different between a progressive scaned and none progressive sacned image?

Q. Do they effect on the image quality or not. Or is the the progressice scan effective in all tvs?

A. Progressive scan creates a complete image in one field (1/60 sec in the US) by displaying every line one after the other. The other method, called interlace, takes two fields to complete an image; the first field displays only every other line (the odd-nombered lines, e.g.), and the second field displays the remaining lines. Interlace scanning was used when television was first developed to reduce the required bandwidth needed to transmit the signal. For images that are stationary or slow-moving, your eye retains the image of the first field while the second field is being displayed, so you have the illusion of a complete picture with all the scan lines.

There are two problems with interlacing: 1) fast-moving objects will contain only half the number of lines in any position and will suffer loss of resolution. Edges of moving objects will appear jagged. 2) Cathode ray tube (CRT) displays have difficulty keeping the spacing between the two sets of lines exactly right. This is especially noticeable in text images (even stationary ones) and this is the reason that computer monitors are always progressive scan, and have been from the early days.

New TV sets have gone away from CRTs and use "fixed pixel" displays such as plasma, LCD or DLP. All of these displays are progressive scan; program material that is interlaced is converted to progressive by the electronics in the TV.

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers