> At 04:26 PM 9/17/2006, you wrote: > >LCDs operate in digital. If you send it an analog signal, it must convert it > >back to digital for presentation. Most LCDs that accept a digital input seem > >to do a pretty poor job converting an analog input back to digital. > >Additionally, Cleartype works best with an all-digital signal path. > > Well, every source I have found so far doesn't place too much importance on it. > For example from CNET Monitor buying guide > http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7610_7-5084364-3.html?tag=tnav >
I'll admit that most of my experience is with Dell's displays, which arguably have cheaper electronics in general. I've seen a couple Sonys and a couple Viewsonics in analog as well though. I didn't think that either of them looked as good in analog as they did in digital. The biggest differences I notice, in no particular order, are (1) moiré patterns, (2) color vibrancy, and (3) text sharpness. > > >In your case, the 2407WFP runs 1920x1200. That will require a very high > >pixel clock...I don't think you're ever going to see good results with a 15' > >run over analog at that resolution. > > If it doesn't work then there is no point in buying the monitor for me. I > can tell you that there is no loss running a long SVGA cable to CRT, and > analog video card. I have been doing this for years, and have done my own > extensive side by side comparisons. > Yes, there is loss. Either you have a very high quality cable, or your resolution/refresh/color depth aren't high enough to really tax the cable. Alternatively, you may not be very sensitive to the quality loss. > I am currently running a ATI AIW800X with a digital analog convertor > through 25 foot cable to my Mitsubishi 2040u. That monitor is sitting next > to an identical monitor with a six foot cable on it plugged into a > AIW9600PRO, I stare at these all the time and I have noticed no difference > in quality what so ever. > > PCMAG once investigated the use of longer analog monitor cables and what > they found out was that up to 50 feet it wasn't the length that was > important, it was the number of connections that mattered. If you daisy > chained monitor extension cables, then you suffered significant breakdown > of the signal, but an uninterrupted cable had no loss, that they could > detect, under 50 feet. > Again, it is all a question of how high your pixel clock is. At lower resolutions/refresh rates/color depths, no, there wouldn't be much impact. On a high resolution display, there will be. The 2407 running 1920x1200 at 60hz with 32bpp will require a very high pixel clock. > >Even DVI may be problematic at that resolution. You're probably either going > >to need a pretty high quality DVI cable, or perhaps even a DVI repeater. > I wish I could find a definitive answer on this because I don't want to buy > the monitor if it isn't going to work the way I need it to work. > I hear you. Dell does have the 21-day total satisfaction guarantee...just return it for a full refund if it doesn't work out. They used to even pay the return shipping... More than anything, though, is what you're willing to live with and what you're sensitive to. I consider myself pretty damn picky when it comes to image quality. On the flip side, there are some people that can't tell the difference between 60Hz and 85Hz on a CRT.
