Yes, 8890 systems are available with UXGA - Page 6

could this color gradient issue be related to the 16M color depth topic?

Aussi,

thanks for all the info. Right now, I am leaning toward the 8890 with the SXGA screen. I am getting a bit older and my eyes are a bit shot anyhow for UXGA screens. Since you have seen and tested the Samsung 191T and compared it to the 8890, I am going on your experience. I just want a screen similar to the 191T. All these different opinions are giving me a large headache.

Now, all I have to do is wait for the price to drop...

Actually, no one seems to know FOR SURE that that is the case.

Sony's GRT series (the non-Xbrite ones) use an outstandinhg 16" UXGA. Since Sony doesn't make the panels, they have to buy from an outside source. We'll see once someone actually gets a UXGA 8890 in their hands. At this point, I think it's just guessing on everyones part.

True, but that is what Adam posted.

Especially with its higher resolution...right?</sarcasm>

As far as I know, there is only one manufacturer that makes a 16.1" UXGA display and that is Hitachi.

Ok people lets back up some of these so called claims with *hard* science not just *opinion*.

Here is my claim to hard science.
There are two common graphics formats that are LOSSLESS ie. they don't introduce artifacts. They are bitmap (BMP) and portable network graphics (PNG).
Edit: JMorton also pointed out TIFF format which is also lossless and for which I am grateful to him pointing out my omission.
From the PNG official home page they have a link to an image (59Kb .png) that shows all 16M colours.

For those with an 8890 or an attached CRT of recent vintage you will be able to see a smooth transition across the image (btw don't stare at it too long, your eye and brain will start to see changing colours and extra lines - it is caused by the small movement in your eye/head and your retina's rods and cones getting overloaded - and don't anybody tell me any different. I don't want to have to start another thread about colour perception, the physics of the eye etc etc etc. Short of you having a major in physics and opthalmology (anyone care to offer, we want hard facts not guesses) you will not win.

For lower spec screens such as my Toshiba's which only does 64K colours you will see small boxes where the LCD has to do a colour step. For screens with 262K colours you will see smaller boxes of colour step.

The reason CRT's can display this image properly is because the input to a CRT is analog not digital. The RAMDAC's in the 9600 Pro are 400MHz @ 10 bits per channel (look it up if you don't believe me) they can put out an analog signal with 1024 different voltage levels. On the CRT end you are totally analog so you are concerned with the accuracy of your amplifiers, capacitors and resistors which then drive the guns of the picture tube. Given you will lose 1.3 bits of voltage level to noise, jitter etc etc (do the hard science guys - read the data sheets on RAMDACs) you are still within the 16M possible colour specification.

If you care to read thru the PNG website they cover all this in great depth, backed with hard facts and hard science, not just hearsay.

Bottom line a PNG file displayed on the 8890 will display without banding or other artifacts. If you are seeing banding etc with another image, it is not your 8890 LCD nor is it faulty ATI's drivers (if they were at fault you would get banding with the PNG file above). ANY banding is due to poor image processing of the image prior to it being displayed on the 8890 screen.

If anything, the down side of the 8890 screen is that it is TOO good. Other screens just gloss over (so to speak). The Sharp LCD screen in the 8890 is *brutally* honest. Why do you think when they take "celebrity" or "studio" photos the photographers use softer lighting and special filters. It is to soften the edges. On the other hand why do doctors use specially designed lights in an operating theatre that increase the contrast, brightness and clarity? They need the fine detail to stand out.

Short of any one *needing* UXGA, the SXGA in the 8890 is the best LCD, period (I just put on my asbestos suit to ward off the imminent flame war ).

Here endeth the lesson.

Not a flame, but I do not think that we have ever actually established that the specs of the UXGA screen are substantially different than the SXGA screen.

I finally found some specs on the Sharp that mention that it employs a technique to reduce glare. Other than that, 170/170 viewing, 400:1 contrast and 25msec response.

I think that the Hitachi must be similar; however, the Sharp is marginally a newer design. Maybe there is something else going on that's not directly related to the specs.

My personal observation is that the contrast and response times probably have the most impact on perceived image quality. However, apparently, there is little relation between published contrast specs and reality. Soemtimes, actual performance is much better than the spec, sometimes worse.

The Samsungs, for example, test out much better than their listed specs.

The spec you have is for the Sharp LCD they use in the desktop monitors and flat screen TV's. Slightly different to the 8890 LCD.

The LCD in the 8890 is 140H 110V degree viewing angles at CR>=10.

Agree about the Samsungs (check the 191T). They are about as good as the 8890 LCD.

Do you have any exact part number on the LCD used in the Samsung's, or are you going by the general specs?

You first. Where's your 'hard science' that says that the SXGA is better than the UXGA? All you did, was waste many paragraphs stating that the SXGA can display enough colors that a human eye will see smooth gradients on 16M color images. Nowhere have you established that the UXGA is incapable of it. Adam stated pretty clearly that the UXGA ought to be capable of the same, since both LCD's can display the same number of colors.

I don't have the 5680 UXGA screen so my premise was that someone who does could check the supplied link and report back.

Until I have concrete part numbers for the 5680 LCD, I am using similar spec'd LCD data sheets from IDT and Hitachi for my comparisons. Once we have clarification of the part number then and only then can we post up the numbers.

Most UXGA screens I have detailed specs for are lower in absolute terms than the 8890 SXGA screen (angles and colour depth). Adam's comment (I believe) was a subjective opinion having seen both systems side by side. Maybe if Adam could load the above PNG file and do a close up examination then we can compare exact notes. And by definition a 6 bit 262k colour LCD cannot display the full 16M present in that PNG image. The 8890 can because it is an 8 bit 16M colour display. If we find out the LCD in the 5680 is 8 bit then it will display without boxes. If it turns out to be 6 bit (my current opinion based on available evidence) users will see small boxes on the above PNG image.

I must say though for most users Adam is right - most people just will not see any difference. I compared Samsung, Toshiba, Philips, Sony, and Sharp LCDs, CRTs, papyrus leaves using the PNG image and it is a noticable difference imho. But then I am a perfectionist.

It is like the threads to do with the M10P and its characteristics. For some users fine detail is important. Go with what suits your needs. What I attempt to present is hard information rather than just opinion. Form opinions from facts. Don't form opinions from opinions - that is how rumours start.

I can see the gradient effect in certain images on my 8890(I saw the same thing in my UXGA 8887v), the above image looks absolutely perfect in it however.

I downloaded it & installed it as stretched wallpaper & again it looked perfect, so I think aussie is correct.

tiff images are also uncompressed if I'm not mistaken

Yes TIFF is also lossless.

Did you try the image on your 8887 LCD?
If you did, did you get any gradients with that?
I don't know which LCD was in the 8887 and if it is a 6 bit or 8 bit colour depth.

In that above 16m image, was I supposed to see a buinch of gradient boxes? Each box had its own shade of gradient, but seemed perfectly smooth to me. I have the 8887, which I bought in March.

Jeff

I don't have the 8887 anymore, but it showed the exact same gradient effect as the 8890(I have seen it in Toshiba laptops also).

I noticed the blotchy effect immediately on the bliss wallpaper in the 8887 & on the IE toolbar. It was no big deal as it never showed in normal use or in gaming(if it bothered me I never would have ordered a new 8890)

One more possibly interesting thing... try moving the scroll bar back and forth real quick when viewing that image. Ghosting is very apparent. I wonder if someone could write a utility that would allow us to compart ghosting by moving a similar image at a consistant rate... maybe a string of text? That way if they were side by side running the same app, you could get an idea which was better?

Jeff

You saw boxes? I thought it was supposed to be lots of little bananas .

The effect you will get with a lower colour depth screen is smaller boxes within the larger gradient boxes (by large I assume you expanded the image to its full size - IE of course shrinks the image to fit it on one page - you need to hit the IE expand button. But if you just see a smooth gradient within each larger box the LCD/CRT is capable of 16M colours.

Which screen did you get with your 8887?

You may also find some of that ghosting is due to the CPU/GPU having to do a bit of work moving the image - but a valid idea none the less.

image color depth

Aussie: Enjoyed your expose, now trying to validate it. I think i can be a good referee as i own a 5660 with the old sxga non wide angle non high contrast LCD.

Now should i see a bunch of boxes or not ? Cause i off course do. If my lcd is 16 M color able, should i have seen a perfect transition all accross the picture ? OR is the smooth part is supposed to be inside the boxes themselves ?

Thank you to clarify as it becomes really confusing as reading the post...

Yes, inside the larger boxes (which were obviously meant to BE boxes) the gradients are smooth. As I understand it, I have the UXGA 16.1.

Sager must have these specs... Does anyone else think its kinda assy of them not to tell us??...leaving all this guesswork out there...

Ok, my opinion is Sager offers something that other cant/dont at a (more) reasonable price BUT... It seems that the only reason for the secrets is this.. They buy whichever higher end LCD they can get at the time for the best $$. If they were to tell us which one was actually the BEST one, they know that everyone would either wait for that panel or bitch about the one they got and try to get them to replace it.. Then they would not have the flexability of putting different panels in throughout the pruduction run. This brings another school of thought down... Where do they get panels in such limited quantity? None of the other manufacturers seem to have this problem. Is it sager that selects and installs the panel, or Clevo?

Sorry for the novel

Jeff


Jeff

So, have we established that the 8887 UXGA is 8bit - 16M color capable?

Aussie - What do your Hitachi specs say for the 16.1 UXGA - 6 bit or 8 bit?