Re: use of LCD screens in control room

The line reading "the reality might just be less than the representation",
after further review, doesn't represent what I wanted to say. I'm saying
that looking out a perfectly clean window onto the world won't be as clear
as the presentation of a truly stunning HD image.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Roger Norman" <Roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:TKmdnU2HUPmsLRjZnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen
LCD at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x
960. Just a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768.
The real thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain) and
interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native resolution
is available on whatever video card you plan on getting and always use an
all digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type analog connections.

First, we are talking LCDs, not Plasma, but you knew that, so I don't
understand the plasma reference.

The real situation is whether a complete video/computer system has the
ability to pixel map, as was stated by Stephen St. Croix (may he RIP) in a
Mix article last year. Some of you may have followed his efforts to gain
a foothold in how to use current technology for some of the film work he
was engaged with and the efforts to find a HD solution that provided the
movie type of experience that his clients needed to relay to the film
going public.

Turns out that he had tried out a number of systems, mostly projector
types because he wanted a large theater like environment, but had decided
that DLP (digital light processing, which focuses a number of itty-bitty
mirrors to correct for aberrations) and a system that provided for pixel
mapping worked best. I believe his system ran into close to $25k.

But DVI-D will allow for direct pixel mapping from a computer based system
(or any set top that supports the functions) and an LCD with response
times under 12 MS one could expect extremely lifelike representation of
what's coming over the air. Even today the best response times I've seen
are down around 6-8 MS.

But by the time these types of LCDs are ubiquitious the first wave of
H.264 compatible products will start hitting the shelves, again at $10K,
but with a resolution at least 4 times greater than 1080P. It would be
like looking outdoors with an absolutely clean window to peer through.
The reality might just be less than the representation. If anyone wonders
what I'm talking about I refer them to National Geographics to research an
article about having 8 billion pixels of resolution (turns out it is a
very large format film camera that can resolve images that allow one to
enlarge a 1/4" X 1/4" section to 8' X 8' with Kodak 25 slide film
resolution).

With the continued upgrade of digital image technology we may actually get
finely detailed video of UFOs! <g>

Interestingly enough, a year ago I had a 14 year old 45" Mitsubishi rear
screen projector and wasn't all that worried about HDTV. Now I have 4
HDTV compatible monitors in the house. The Westinghouse (BenQ, I believe)
37" LCD (1920X1080), 2 17" (1280X768 which supports 1080I, looks better in
720P), and a new 20" (1368X768 that supports 1080I but it's only hooked up
to my wife's computer right now).

For a man that took 7 years to really get into CDs I think this is amazing
or amazingly stupid. And I bought a 2.4 GHz video/audio wireless setup
that allows me to take one of my 17" out to the patio and watch football
whilst grilling, albeit not in HD. But at least I won't miss the game.

BTW, essentially the same model 37" I bought in January for $2400 is now
around $1600, so figure from there.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Romeo Rondeau" <noone@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:skahg.17624$VE1.16891@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I wondered if anyone had used a LCD TV screen (eg 1368x 768 32")
for use as a computer monitor for work in a DAW when you are
sitting 6 to 10ft from the screen?

Size is not the only issue, quality also matters, as does btw. the use
of mains power.

Any views feedback appreciated

Just calculate how many quality microphones you can get for the price of
a high qualiyt 50" screen that may not even have pixels enough for the
required screen image.

I think 1368 x 768 is high enough for a DAW, I run mine on a widescreen
LCD at 1440 x 900, but I used to have a regular LCD running at 1280 x
960. Just a few years ago, everyone was running ProTools at 1024 x 768.
The real thing to consider with a plasma is refresh rate (eye strain) and
interlacing (flicker sucks). Also, make sure that the native resolution
is available on whatever video card you plan on getting and always use an
all digital (DVI) connection, NOT the VGA d-sub type analog connections.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: use of LCD screens in control room
    ... NOT the VGA d-sub type analog connections. ... First, we are talking LCDs, not Plasma, but you knew that, so I don't ... correct for aberrations) and a system that provided for pixel mapping worked ... a resolution at least 4 times greater than 1080P. ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Multi-sampling and "2400x4800 dpi" scanners
    ... even when there is no resolution advantage there is always the ... "appropriate downsampling" when downsampling an image that is made by ... and 1/4 of a pixel vertically. ... Some blurring, up to a quarter of a pixel may be ...
    (comp.periphs.scanners)
  • Re: STUNNING image of M51
    ... >> Magnum wrote: ... An imager who lives in FL. ... >>> Your pixel size is not same since you used compressor. ... >> You keep mixing up pixel count with resolution. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Noise levels as a function of pixel size
    ... with a larger sensor produces the same result as one taken with a smaller sensor. ... >resolution limit has nothing to do with f-number of the fully open>lens. ... It is NOT, however, an acceptable baseline for the extrapolations that you have made and which have resulted in a pixel size which no physical lens could ever resolve. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Any thoughts /news on Foveon sensors?
    ... resolution, 150 dpi of chrominance, 200 dpi of green channel etc. ... the human eye's luminance resolution is about 60 cycles per ... but the problem is that with a Bayer sensor you don't ... The red pixel for instance might be illuminated by yellow or green ...
    (rec.photo.digital)