comp.sys.mac.advocacy

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-A36513.23133729032008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.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.
>
> Your definition is wrong.

No it's not, other than I left out the word "any" before the word "value."

>> > 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.

Yes, it does.

> You can define a tail to be a leg, but a dog will still have four legs.

You can claim to know what you're talking about, but clearly you don't. No
mention of tails, legs, or dogs will change that either.

>> > 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.
>
> IOW, you don't understand what he's talking about.

Your other words are mistaken.