Am 18.12.2012 05:50, schrieb clipka:
> Am 18.12.2012 04:39, schrieb Ive:
>
>> But more seriously, I was always puzzled about the lack of interest in
>> well calibrated viewing devices that seems so common among people within
>> these newsgroups.
>
> I guess it's mainly underestimation (due to lack of personal experience)
> what a difference a good and well-calibrated display can make.
>
> The half-hearted support for gamma handling in older versions of POV-Ray
> might also have contributed in the past.
>
>
>  > On the contrary things seem even worse now as in former times every
>> calibrated mid-class CRT was already better than any contemporary
>> high-end TFT.
>
> I suspect that's not true - if only because the CRTs of former times
> were typically connected to the graphics adapter via some analog
> interface and were therefore subject to both static and dynamic signal
> distortions; suffered from both static and dynamic geometric
> distortions; and came with ergonomic problems due to inherent flickering
> and buildup of static electricity.
>

By writing *calibrated* mid-class CRT, I was referring to professional 
graphics usage and there was a Mac or PC equipped with a Matrox graphics 
card (and its superior analog signal quality but lack of 3d 
acceleration) de-facto standard.
My own CRT did run at a 1600x1200 resolution with 100Hz frequency. It 
had minor divergence problems at the corner pixels but was able to 
actually show pitch black pixels (and off course all shades of near 
black) where my current TFT shows something my wife would call medium 
anthracite.
This is what I really do miss. And - as it is winter again - it's 
ability to heat the whole room. Not so fortunate during summer and one 
of the reasons I had to dismiss it ;)

-Ive

Post a reply to this message