Chuck McManis skrev:
>>How do you define resolution at the monitor level? I've always been able to
>>get entirely different resolutions out of monitors, and why would they
>>disagree? If it's an analogue signal, wouldn't the monitor just sweep along
>>and project whatever is input?
>Color monitors have a color mask, and that color mask has a 'dot pitch'
>which defines where you can display pixels. If you attempt to display more
>pixels on a line than there are holes in the mask, then you will get
>banding artifacts.
Perhaps I'm being a brute, but according to my definition, that is all right.
As long as the monitor doesn't give up the ghost or loses sync, I don't mind
how bad the image looks. Not in a clinical sense, anyway.
>Next there is frequency response. The amplifiers that connect to the color
>guns have something called a 'slew rate' which is the rate at which they
>can change their output color. If you put to many pixels side by side then
>you will start seeing color degradation due to the fact that the amplifier
>can't get to the new color fast enough. If you display several columns of
>vertical white lines on a black background you will see (in cheaper
>monitors) that the leading edge of the while line is not white, its gray.
>And as you increase the number of lines the white lines will get grayer and
>eventually you will have just a gray screen.
Also acceptable.
>You "can" drive monitors all over the map, eventually you will destroy them
>if you allow the horizontal output driver to over heat. However, getting an
>acceptable signal out of one is more constrained.
But a pixel rate is meaningless without an accompanying sync rate. When they
say 800?560, they must intend at a particular frequency, right?
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
If I don't document something, it's usually either for a good reason,
or a bad reason. In this case it's a good reason. :-)
--Larry Wall (perl) in <1992Jan17.005405.16806_at_netlabs.com>
Received on Thu May 10 2001 - 18:35:15 BST