comp.sys.mac.advocacy

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
news:alangbaker-46371D.23002129032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> In article <0_idnVD7ds17kXLanZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Hasta La Vista" wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-BCB586.20175929032008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>> > In article ,
>> > "Hasta La Vista" wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Timberwoof" wrote in message
>> >> news:timberwoof.spam-61663F.19384129032008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
>> >> > In article ,
>> >> > "Hasta La Vista" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Timberwoof" wrote in
>> >> >> message
>> >> >> news:timberwoof.spam-237C4F.17233129032008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
>> >> >> > In article ,
>> >> >> > Tim Murray wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:02:43 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Visually you can stand across the room and tell that the
>> >> >> >> > cheaper
>> >> >> >> > card
>> >> >> >> > is more washed out and doesn't have as much "punch" as the ATI
>> >> >> >> > card.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I stealing a line from Alan, and coughing out a bullshit.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> A digital value for a certain color is the same across video
>> >> >> >> cards.
>> >> >> >> Generally
>> >> >> >> I see you as pretty technical, so I don't think you'd say that
>> >> >> >> without
>> >> >> >> reason. If you can enlighten me as to how that's possible, then
>> >> >> >> I'm
>> >> >> >> all
>> >> >> >> ears.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In any video system, even a digital-input monitor, there's an
>> >> >> > amplifier
>> >> >> > at the end of the signal path that has to provide a specific
>> >> >> > voltage
>> >> >> > or
>> >> >> > current level for the pixel element. If it's calibrated wrong
>> >> >> > (with
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > wrong gain or bias levels) then the image will look bad.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > However, analog video signals are standardized so that 0.0 V is
>> >> >> > black
>> >> >> > and 1.0 V is white. It's not rocket science to calibrate an AD
>> >> >> > converter
>> >> >> > to provide that voltage range for the full input range. There's
>> >> >> > more
>> >> >> > variation between different types of monitors than between video
>> >> >> > cards.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The only way I'd accept that diagnosis is with two identical
>> >> >> > monitors
>> >> >> > from the same production run, connected with an ABX switch, to
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > video
>> >> >> > sources in question.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You described an analog input. Digital inputs aren't levels of
>> >> >> current
>> >> >> or
>> >> >> voltage to brightness level, i.e. they're not analogs of brightness
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> scene. The brightness of each pixel in a digital system are
>> >> >> expressed
>> >> >> by a
>> >> >> binary number, not a current or voltage level.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's true at the graphics card's connector, yes. But you missed
>> >> > where
>> >> > I wrotre,
>> >>
>> >> I don't think I missed it.
>> >>
>> >> >> > In any video system, even a digital-input monitor, there's an
>> >> >> > amplifier
>> >> >> > at the end of the signal path that has to provide a specific
>> >> >> > voltage
>> >> >> > or
>> >> >> > current level for the pixel element.
>> >> >
>> >> > The final feed to a pixel is analog, not digital. So the same
>> >> > problems
>> >> > apply.
>> >>
>> >> No, the final feed is not analog. Of the three color elements that
>> >> make
>> >> up
>> >> a pixel, each receives a discrete level, defined by a number. Analog
>> >> feeds
>> >> to the pixel can vary any level between minimum and maximum, there's
>> >> no
>> >> fixed steps of graduation.
>> >
>> > By your own definition, the final feed *is* analog.
>>
>> Not by my defintion, Gimp.
>>
>> > You defined "digital" in this context binary numbers and "not a current
>> > or a voltage level".
>>
>> I defined digital as levels in discrete steps, and analog as a
>> continuously
>> variable level that can be value between minimum and maximum.
>
> No, you didn't. You explicitly said that "Digital inputs aren't levels
> of current or voltage"

I said no such thing.

>>
>> > The fact that each binary number corresponds to a discrete voltage
>> > level
>> > doesn't change the fact that it *is* a voltage level.
>>
>> But it does make it digital instead of analog.
>
> No, it doesn't. You said (and I'm quoting you again) digital meant
> "expressed by a binary number".

You're misquoting me again. It is expressed as a binary number, but not at
the pixel element that produces the light. I've clarified for this for you
already, but you go on as if I hadn't.

> Discrete voltage levels from 0 to 255 are *not* binary numbers.

No, they're not. But they are digital, not analog.

>>
>> > All a DVI system does is move where the change from binary
>> > representation to discrete voltage takes place. In a VGA system, the
>> > video card converts a pixels binary representation into discrete
>> > voltages which get put onto the output pins. From there they got to the
>> > monitor which converts the VGA standard levels to those actually
>> > necessary to drive its LCD pixel elements. In a DVI system, the binary
>> > representation of the pixels colours is what gets transmitted down the
>> > wire and the monitor converts those binary numbers into discrete
>> > voltages.
>>
>> You clearly don't understand what you're talking about, Gimp.
>
> LOL

You're laughing again, Gimp?

> Let's see you provide a reference that agrees with you...

You mean in the way you failed to produce any reference that agree with you?

"A digital system uses discrete (that is, discontinuous) values to represent
information for input, processing, transmission, storage, etc. By contrast,
non-digital (or analog) systems use a continuous range of values to
represent information. Although digital representations are discrete, the
information represented can be either discrete, such as numbers, letters or
icons, or continuous, such as sounds, images, and other measurements of
continuous systems."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital