 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> While we're on the subject... If you wanted to, how hard is it to
>> connect a PC to a normal TV? (Obviously, PCs normally run at vastly
>> different scanrates and lack the propper connectors...)
>
> If you have a DVI output and a modern TV with HDMI input, then you
> simply buy the correct cable which is about 10 quid. DVI and HDMI are
> electrically the same, just different connectors (plus HDMI can include
> digital audio).
Nobody I know of has a TV this new. However, my latest video card does
have DVI output. (Fortunately it comes with a DVI to VGA adaptor, so I
can still plug it in to my monitor and get a picture...)
Actually, for that matter, my dad can use DVI or VGA with his PC, and
there doesn't appear to be a significant difference...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:09:08 -0000, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] dev null>
did spake, saying:
>> Yeah, often times there is a key combination to get it turned on.
>
> But usually it's clearly marked.
Yeah IIRC a picture of two squares representing monitors. Fine if
understand that. Though saying that someone I know has a laptop with an
unmarked Bluetooth toggle which he has to remember.
> And, usually, you can do it from the video driver settings too...
Provided you know how to get into the video driver settings.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
>> And, usually, you can do it from the video driver settings too...
>
> Provided you know how to get into the video driver settings.
Most laptops I've seen have a big icon in the system tray that won't go
away. When you click it, it gives you a menu that lets you instantly
change resolution, colour depth, etc., without going through the whole
settings dialog. Usually switching output is one of the very big,
unmissable options.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:40:37 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I have to disagree with Warp - I don't believe this is not an NTSC vs.
>> PAL issue
>
> I didn't mean to say it's an NTSC vs PAL issue, but that the NTSC/PAL
> standards suck for high-definition images.
Good job they don't use them for true-HD broadcasts then.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (My dad claims his TV has a VGA input socket. But then, I suppose it is an
> LCD, so multiple scanrates probably isn't an issue...)
Well actually an LCD only uses 1 or 2 scanrates (usually 50 and/or 60 Hz),
the difference is that an LCD will include sophisticated DSP functionality
and a frame-buffer anyway, so scan-rate conversion comes almost for free.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> (My dad claims his TV has a VGA input socket. But then, I suppose it
>> is an LCD, so multiple scanrates probably isn't an issue...)
>
> Well actually an LCD only uses 1 or 2 scanrates (usually 50 and/or 60
> Hz),
Well, that's true...
> the difference is that an LCD will include sophisticated DSP
> functionality and a frame-buffer anyway, so scan-rate conversion comes
> almost for free.
...which is the part I was getting at.
BTW, is it true that an LCD is matrix addressible? (i.e., all the pixels
can be changed exactly simultaneously.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> BTW, is it true that an LCD is matrix addressible? (i.e., all the pixels
> can be changed exactly simultaneously.)
You can only change a line at a time. You charge up all the "column" wires
to what voltage you want, then power up the row line which opens all the
transistors inside every sub-pixel on that row, hence they all the get the
voltage you wanted. You then turn off that row (and hence the transistors
close) and the sub-pixels remember their voltages until you come round next
frame. You can only do this process one row at a time.
So yes, it's matrix addressable, but no you can't change all the pixels
exactly at the same time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> BTW, is it true that an LCD is matrix addressible? (i.e., all the
>> pixels can be changed exactly simultaneously.)
>
> You can only change a line at a time. You charge up all the "column"
> wires to what voltage you want, then power up the row line which opens
> all the transistors inside every sub-pixel on that row, hence they all
> the get the voltage you wanted. You then turn off that row (and hence
> the transistors close) and the sub-pixels remember their voltages until
> you come round next frame. You can only do this process one row at a time.
>
> So yes, it's matrix addressable, but no you can't change all the pixels
> exactly at the same time.
I see...
For what it's worth, does "TFT" actually mean something? Or is it just a
marketing term that means "hey, this screen is great!!!1!1 please buy
me!!1"?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> For what it's worth, does "TFT" actually mean something? Or is it just a
> marketing term that means "hey, this screen is great!!!1!1 please buy
> me!!1"?
*T*hin *F*ilm *T*ransistor
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> For what it's worth, does "TFT" actually mean something? Or is it just a
> marketing term that means "hey, this screen is great!!!1!1 please buy
> me!!1"?
As Michael said, it is the type of transistor that is laid down onto the
glass in every sub-pixel. TFT is also called active matrix (ie each
sub-pixel is "active" because it has some control circuitry).
FWIW the opposite is passive matrix, which is basically a grid of wires,
with a layer of LC (and no electronics) between the X and Y grid lines.
Because LC needs above a certain voltage to work (let's say 5V), you can
apply +4V to each row in turn, and then a voltage between -1 and -5 V to
each column to set the brightness of just that row. If you do the frame
quick enough you can make a steady image, but then you get problems with
stray charge "spilling over" from one line to the next because there is no
time for voltages to settle.
There are numerous other problems with this method which makes it only
suitable for black and white displays or very low resolution colour displays
(eg low-end mobile phones). Any monitor or TV is going to be TFT.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
