Best tv for pc resolution
 

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:53:16 +0100, charles
wrote:

and since the start of colour it's been 1 part in 10e6. (1 part in a
million).

10e6 is actually 1e7 i.e. 10 million.

Anyway, I thought subcarrier tolerance was to within 1 Hz, so it would be
1 part in 4.433... million.

Best tv for pc resolution
 

In message , Paul Ratcliffe
writes
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:53:16 +0100, charles
wrote:

and since the start of colour it's been 1 part in 10e6. (1 part in a
million).

10e6 is actually 1e7 i.e. 10 million.
Am I being deluded, or isn't that 1e5?

Anyway, I thought subcarrier tolerance was to within 1 Hz, so it would be
1 part in 4.433... million.
For easy comparison, it's usual to state tolerances and accuracies as
parts per million (ppm), ie XXe6.
--
Ian

Best tv for pc resolution
 

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Paul Ratcliffe
writes
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:53:16 +0100, charles
wrote:

and since the start of colour it's been 1 part in 10e6. (1 part in a
million).

10e6 is actually 1e7 i.e. 10 million.
Am I being deluded, or isn't that 1e5?


afaik:

10e1 = 10
10e2 = 100
10e3 = 1000
10e4 = 10000
10e5 = 100000
10e6 = 1000000

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Best tv for pc resolution
 

In message , charles
writes
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Paul Ratcliffe
writes
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:53:16 +0100, charles

wrote:

and since the start of colour it's been 1 part in 10e6. (1 part in a
million).

10e6 is actually 1e7 i.e. 10 million.
Am I being deluded, or isn't that 1e5?


afaik:

10e1 = 10
10e2 = 100
10e3 = 1000
10e4 = 10000
10e5 = 100000
10e6 = 1000000


Yes. I am deluded. I've got my plusses and minuses mixed up. I'm more
used to minuses. 10E6 IS the same as 1E7. (And 10E-6 is 1E-5, which is
what I was thinking of).

But haven't you 'slipped a cog' with the numbers above?
1.00E+00 = 1 (= 1 times 10 to the power zero)
(so 10E+00 will be 10)
1.00E+01 = 10 (1 times 10 to the power 1)
(so 10E+01 will be 100)
etc.
--
Ian

Best tv for pc resolution
 

In article , Colin Stamp
wrote:
It's only a problem for the bean counters. Alas, bean counters abound.
There's not much incentive to do it anyway. If they spend an extra
couple of quid or whatever and fit an oscillator that's well up to the
job, then claim that the TV can handle 1920X1080 on the VGA port, how
many extra TVs will that sell? How many complaints will it bring in
from customers who plug in cheap video cards and find it doesn't work?

I think if you look at a few circuit boards you'll find that crystal
oscillators are pretty much standard wherever oscillators are needed in
digital circuitry, except where there's a special requirement for a
different type. A designer who wanted something with the much lower
stability and accuracy of an LC tuned circuit would probably have to go
out of their way to design it with discrete components instead of using
a ready-made module, or an integrated circuit with a couple of terminals
intended for a quartz crystal. Somehow I doubt this would reduce the
price, and might even increase it.

The alternative is to save a bit of money, down-spec the resolution of
the VGA input and expect anyone that wants full resolution to use an
interface that was designed for the job from the outset rather than
one that's now well into "legacy" status.

I thought VGA *was* designed for the job, the job in this case being
that of conveying RGB analogue video signals along a couple of metres of
cable, though I have used 10 metres with no problems. I can't think why
it should suddenly stop working just as well as it ever did simply
because somebody has invented something else. Legacy or not, all my VGA
monitor connections still work, and in the one instance where I've been
able to make a direct comparison with digital, simply because all the
equipment can handle both interfaces without altering anything else, I
cannot see any difference.

Rod.

Best tv for pc resolution
 

In article , Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
Anyway, I thought subcarrier tolerance was to within 1 Hz, so it would be
1 part in 4.433... million.

It is, but the phase tolerance required to decode colour accurately is
whatever maximum phase error you are prepared to accept at the right hand
side of the screen when the oscillator has been free-running since the
previous colour burst, nearly 64 microseconds ago. My head hurts trying to
think about it after all this time, but I realise it isn't the same
specified requirement as long-term frequency stability.

Rod.

Best tv for pc resolution
 

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:46:19 +0100, charles
wrote:

and since the start of colour it's been 1 part in 10e6. (1 part in a
million).

10e6 is actually 1e7 i.e. 10 million.

afaik:

10e1 = 10
10e2 = 100
10e3 = 1000
10e4 = 10000
10e5 = 100000
10e6 = 1000000

You k very wrongly then. "e" in this context means "times 10 to the power of".
It does not mean "to the power of".
So: 1e3 is 1 times 10 to the power of 3, which is 1000.
4e4 is 40000
9.9e2 is 990
10e2 is 1000

Some people miss the decimal point and read 1.0e3 as 10e3 - obviously this
means you are an order of magnitude out on everything.
Many people seem to get this wrong, including makers of satellite IRDs where
I have seen exactly this example.

Best tv for pc resolution
 

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:46:01 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Colin Stamp
wrote:
It's only a problem for the bean counters. Alas, bean counters abound.
There's not much incentive to do it anyway. If they spend an extra
couple of quid or whatever and fit an oscillator that's well up to the
job, then claim that the TV can handle 1920X1080 on the VGA port, how
many extra TVs will that sell? How many complaints will it bring in
from customers who plug in cheap video cards and find it doesn't work?

I think if you look at a few circuit boards

Does an estimated several thousand qualify as "a few"?

you'll find that crystal
oscillators are pretty much standard wherever oscillators are needed in
digital circuitry, except where there's a special requirement for a
different type. A designer who wanted something with the much lower
stability and accuracy of an LC tuned circuit would probably have to go
out of their way to design it with discrete components instead of using
a ready-made module, or an integrated circuit with a couple of terminals
intended for a quartz crystal. Somehow I doubt this would reduce the
price, and might even increase it.

What's all this about LC oscillators? If a crystal is called for and I
wanted to save money, I'd use discrete components to make a crystal
oscillator. If the IC has a built-in driver, that would typically
consist of a crystal and a pair of capacitors. No real effort is
needed - the circuit is pretty universal, but will be included in the
IC data-sheet anyway. The resulting accuracy wouldn't be well defined,
but I wouldn't count on getting better than a few hundred ppm over a
reasonable temperature range on an un-adjusted discrete crystal
oscillator.

If more accuracy is needed, then the easiest way of guaranteeing it
would be to fit an off-the-shelf oscillator module. For high volumes,
you could carefully characterize and compensate the discrete circuit.


The alternative is to save a bit of money, down-spec the resolution of
the VGA input and expect anyone that wants full resolution to use an
interface that was designed for the job from the outset rather than
one that's now well into "legacy" status.

I thought VGA *was* designed for the job, the job in this case being
that of conveying RGB analogue video signals along a couple of metres of
cable, though I have used 10 metres with no problems.

The bit that you missed was that it was designed to do that *for CRT
displays only*. No thought was given to display types which didn't
even exist at the time.

I can't think why it should suddenly stop working just as well as it ever
did simply because somebody has invented something else.

You've got your cause and effect back-to-front. DVI was developed
because VGA was getting increasingly stretched by higher and higher
flat-panel resolutions - not the other way round.


Legacy or not, all my VGA monitor connections still work,

So do mine as it happens, but that's no indication that everyone
else's will too, especially those that want to run significantly
higher horizontal resolution than you and I. I've certainly seen some
that don't work.

and in the one instance where I've been
able to make a direct comparison with digital, simply because all the
equipment can handle both interfaces without altering anything else, I
cannot see any difference.

You won't need to make a comparison. If VGA works for a flat-panel,
it'll look absolutely perfect and you can revel in the fact that you
can use slightly cheaper cables. If it doesn't work, it'll look crap.

Cheers,

Colin.

Best tv for pc resolution
 

Colin Stamp wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:48:35 GMT, "ThePunisher"
wrote:

Colin Stamp wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:40:07 GMT, "ThePunisher"
wrote:

Andrew wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:19:09 +0100, Colin Stamp
wrote:

You're agreeing, yet you haven't tried it any more than he has.

Thousands of people use 1080P via VGA on XBox 360's.

And some people use 1080p over component

And these are *all* pixel-perfect (as a PC display needs to be) are
they?


May be it's the newsreader I'm using but the words "pixel-perfect"
don't seem to exist in your original post.

Maybe you don't require your PC display (that's what this thread is
about, remember) to be pixel-perfect. We'd have to agree to disagree
on that one.

Cheers,

Colin.

I'll make is simple, where do the words pixel perfect appear in your
original post? also what makes you think analogue signals can't be pixel
perfect over VGA?

--
ThePunisher

Best tv for pc resolution
 

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:24:54 GMT, "ThePunisher"
wrote:

Colin Stamp wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:48:35 GMT, "ThePunisher"
wrote:

Colin Stamp wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:40:07 GMT, "ThePunisher"
wrote:

Andrew wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:19:09 +0100, Colin Stamp
wrote:

You're agreeing, yet you haven't tried it any more than he has.

Thousands of people use 1080P via VGA on XBox 360's.

And some people use 1080p over component

And these are *all* pixel-perfect (as a PC display needs to be) are
they?


May be it's the newsreader I'm using but the words "pixel-perfect"
don't seem to exist in your original post.

Maybe you don't require your PC display (that's what this thread is
about, remember) to be pixel-perfect. We'd have to agree to disagree
on that one.

Cheers,

Colin.

I'll make is simple,

And boy, do you need is[sic] simple.

where do the words pixel perfect appear in your original post?

Nowhere. I've already answered this question once. What exact problem
do you have with previous answer?

also what makes you think analogue signals can't be pixel
perfect over VGA?

*Can't* be pixel perfect? I don't recall ever saying that anywhere. I
can't imagine myself ever saying it since it's never been my view.
Perhaps you could point out where your mis-interpretation occurred.
I'd be happy to try to help you understand your mistake.

Cheers,

Colin.