Matrox Parhelia

Note the low refresh frequency when driving two digital and one CRT on the
Parhelia...but only noticeable on the CRT. It's better to have matching
monitor type when driving three monitors.

http://www.killamanjaro.linux-dude.c...09%20small.jpg

Sony since sold - yippeee!!!

"KJ" wrote in message
om...
The last monitor I had was a Sony 21" Artisan....AVOID THEM LIKE THE
PLAGUE!!!

For the cash, you'd think they'd be good, but mine was horribly
mis-converged, and I couldn't adjust out the convergence across the
screen.
I could get the center tack-sharp, then the quality was crap 6" from
center
and was progressively worse out to the edges. It did, however, have some
of
the best color rendition of any monitor, at any price, I've ever seen; and
the color adjustments were good. Unfortunately the color adjustments
can't
make up for the horrible focus anywhere out from center.

That experience with the Sony CRT made me run for a pair of Samsung
SyncMaster 191T LCD's. My eyes are thanking me now, even though I cannot
have the same POTENTIAL level of CRT output, the great and CONSISTENT
output
is better than the single Sony 21" by a large margin -not to mention saved
desktop space and greater display area. The digital connectors are great.
Color profiling is MUCH EASIER!!! =)


"HMSDOC" wrote in message
...
I am not sure that my printer Epson 2200 can produce that many colors
and
what
I care about most is the final output, so while I want the best image I
am
not
sure that the Gigacolor is really all that helpful to me.

Based on what I have read almost everyone says Matrox is best at 2D but
by
how
much. Seems like almost everywhere I read I am told that the difference
is
minimal unless, perhaps, one is using a 21 inch monitor at high res. So
the
question is at my monitor size will I see a meaningful difference, if
not
then
by getting ATI I get the gaming option for free.

Also, from what I have read the drivers are a bit quirky with Matrox and
modern
boards and have also heard of image banding problems with the Parhelia
in
specific.

So I am vasilating (?sp) and while I was previously strongly in favor of
the
Matrox now I am not so sure.

Howard







If you have a good CRT, and want to use the program for (among other
things)
Photoshop, like the original poster, the Parhelia lets you see pictures
in
10 bits per colour. That can be a very significant difference,
especially
for nuances of green and grey.
Also, all ATI cards I've tried don't have a rock steady picture in high
resolutions (1920x1440 and up) -- the image seems to vibrate or swim. I
even blamed the monitor for a while, until I got a Parhelia.

Regards,
--
*Art

What do you think of the Samsung NF series CRT monitors, if you have seen them.

Howard

HMSDOC wrote:

What makes you say this...most of what I have read syas that perhaps a touch
worse but very subjectively and minimally so!

If you've got a really clear monitor, you can notice the difference from going
from a Matrox card to something else. The text doesn't look as fine. I'm not
sure if it's worth paying huge money for unless you're a professional, but there
is an appreciable difference in some contexts.

As for nVidia cards, those benchmark-tuned pixel chewers are so bad at colours
that even my onboard S3 Savage looks good in comparison :|

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:31:51 GMT
"KJ" wrote:

Note the low refresh frequency when driving two digital and one CRT on
the Parhelia...but only noticeable on the CRT. It's better to have
matching monitor type when driving three monitors.

http://www.killamanjaro.linux-dude.c...09%20small.jpg

Sony since sold - yippeee!!!

If you're talking about the darker area at the top of the screen in the
jpg you linked, that is perfectly normal for a photo of a CRT--you can
even see it in movies and broadcast TV shows sometimes. Unless the
camera is timed to exactly capture one scan you'll see that. LCDs work
on a different principle and don't have a scan per se, so no darker
area.

"KJ" wrote in message
om...
The last monitor I had was a Sony 21" Artisan....AVOID THEM LIKE THE
PLAGUE!!!

For the cash, you'd think they'd be good, but mine was horribly
mis-converged, and I couldn't adjust out the convergence across the
screen.
I could get the center tack-sharp, then the quality was crap 6" from
center
and was progressively worse out to the edges. It did, however, have
some
of
the best color rendition of any monitor, at any price, I've ever
seen; and the color adjustments were good. Unfortunately the color
adjustments
can't
make up for the horrible focus anywhere out from center.

That experience with the Sony CRT made me run for a pair of Samsung
SyncMaster 191T LCD's. My eyes are thanking me now, even though I
cannot have the same POTENTIAL level of CRT output, the great and
CONSISTENT
output
is better than the single Sony 21" by a large margin -not to mention
saved desktop space and greater display area. The digital
connectors are great. Color profiling is MUCH EASIER!!! =)


"HMSDOC" wrote in message
...
I am not sure that my printer Epson 2200 can produce that many
colors
and
what
I care about most is the final output, so while I want the best
image I
am
not
sure that the Gigacolor is really all that helpful to me.

Based on what I have read almost everyone says Matrox is best at
2D but
by
how
much. Seems like almost everywhere I read I am told that the
difference
is
minimal unless, perhaps, one is using a 21 inch monitor at high
res. So
the
question is at my monitor size will I see a meaningful difference,
if
not
then
by getting ATI I get the gaming option for free.

Also, from what I have read the drivers are a bit quirky with
Matrox and
modern
boards and have also heard of image banding problems with the
Parhelia
in
specific.

So I am vasilating (?sp) and while I was previously strongly in
favor of
the
Matrox now I am not so sure.

Howard







If you have a good CRT, and want to use the program for (among
other
things)
Photoshop, like the original poster, the Parhelia lets you see
pictures
in
10 bits per colour. That can be a very significant difference,
especially
for nuances of green and grey.
Also, all ATI cards I've tried don't have a rock steady picture in
high resolutions (1920x1440 and up) -- the image seems to vibrate
or swim. I even blamed the monitor for a while, until I got a
Parhelia.

Regards,
--
*Art









--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Hi,

In message , KJ
writes
Note the low refresh frequency when driving two digital and one CRT on the
Parhelia...but only noticeable on the CRT. It's better to have matching
monitor type when driving three monitors.

http://www.killamanjaro.linux-dude.c...09%20small.jpg

I don't think I understand this. The Parhelia cannot drive two digital
(DVI) outputs plus a CRT. It can drive three analogue outputs, or one
digital plus two analogue, so at least one of the flat panels in the
picture linked above is being driven with an analogue signal. Since flat
panel monitors are physically incapable of "flickering" in the same
manner as a CRT (whether they are driven with an analogue or a digital
signal) the picture is exactly what I would expect. Did I miss
something?

A good many flat panels can accept an analogue signal at up to 85Hz, so
even if you have to run all three displays at the same vertical refresh,
you should be able to achieve sensible settings given good displays.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

I stand corrected. You are correct. I should have written two LCD's and
one CRT, rather than refer to the LCD's as digitals.

No perceptable flicker on the LCD's.

"Glenn Booth" wrote in message
...
Hi,

In message , KJ
writes
Note the low refresh frequency when driving two digital and one CRT on
the
Parhelia...but only noticeable on the CRT. It's better to have matching
monitor type when driving three monitors.

http://www.killamanjaro.linux-dude.c...09%20small.jpg

I don't think I understand this. The Parhelia cannot drive two digital
(DVI) outputs plus a CRT. It can drive three analogue outputs, or one
digital plus two analogue, so at least one of the flat panels in the
picture linked above is being driven with an analogue signal. Since flat
panel monitors are physically incapable of "flickering" in the same
manner as a CRT (whether they are driven with an analogue or a digital
signal) the picture is exactly what I would expect. Did I miss
something?

A good many flat panels can accept an analogue signal at up to 85Hz, so
even if you have to run all three displays at the same vertical refresh,
you should be able to achieve sensible settings given good displays.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

I am very familiar with the persistence of vision, and CRT scanning
frequencies. However, the CRT monitor does flicker enough to give me
headache after much shorter extended periods than the LCD's do. The degree
of flicker will vary for some individuals, but 70Hz on a CRT is too slow a
refresh for me - at least with the persistence duration of the phosphors on
the Artisan.


"J.Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:31:51 GMT
"KJ" wrote:

Note the low refresh frequency when driving two digital and one CRT on
the Parhelia...but only noticeable on the CRT. It's better to have
matching monitor type when driving three monitors.

http://www.killamanjaro.linux-dude.c...09%20small.jpg

Sony since sold - yippeee!!!

If you're talking about the darker area at the top of the screen in the
jpg you linked, that is perfectly normal for a photo of a CRT--you can
even see it in movies and broadcast TV shows sometimes. Unless the
camera is timed to exactly capture one scan you'll see that. LCDs work
on a different principle and don't have a scan per se, so no darker
area.

"KJ" wrote in message
om...
The last monitor I had was a Sony 21" Artisan....AVOID THEM LIKE THE
PLAGUE!!!

For the cash, you'd think they'd be good, but mine was horribly
mis-converged, and I couldn't adjust out the convergence across the
screen.
I could get the center tack-sharp, then the quality was crap 6" from
center
and was progressively worse out to the edges. It did, however, have
some
of
the best color rendition of any monitor, at any price, I've ever
seen; and the color adjustments were good. Unfortunately the color
adjustments
can't
make up for the horrible focus anywhere out from center.

That experience with the Sony CRT made me run for a pair of Samsung
SyncMaster 191T LCD's. My eyes are thanking me now, even though I
cannot have the same POTENTIAL level of CRT output, the great and
CONSISTENT
output
is better than the single Sony 21" by a large margin -not to mention
saved desktop space and greater display area. The digital
connectors are great. Color profiling is MUCH EASIER!!! =)


"HMSDOC" wrote in message
...
I am not sure that my printer Epson 2200 can produce that many
colors
and
what
I care about most is the final output, so while I want the best
image I
am
not
sure that the Gigacolor is really all that helpful to me.

Based on what I have read almost everyone says Matrox is best at
2D but
by
how
much. Seems like almost everywhere I read I am told that the
difference
is
minimal unless, perhaps, one is using a 21 inch monitor at high
res. So
the
question is at my monitor size will I see a meaningful difference,
if
not
then
by getting ATI I get the gaming option for free.

Also, from what I have read the drivers are a bit quirky with
Matrox and
modern
boards and have also heard of image banding problems with the
Parhelia
in
specific.

So I am vasilating (?sp) and while I was previously strongly in
favor of
the
Matrox now I am not so sure.

Howard







If you have a good CRT, and want to use the program for (among
other
things)
Photoshop, like the original poster, the Parhelia lets you see
pictures
in
10 bits per colour. That can be a very significant difference,
especially
for nuances of green and grey.
Also, all ATI cards I've tried don't have a rock steady picture in
high resolutions (1920x1440 and up) -- the image seems to vibrate
or swim. I even blamed the monitor for a while, until I got a
Parhelia.

Regards,
--
*Art









--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)