I've had the ViewSonic monitor for a few days now and I really like it.
When I first got it, I thought the picture was nothing special, but that is
because I spent most of my time with Word documents, Outlook Express, or
Excel. Since then, I have seen some video clips, looked at a number of
jpg's and surfed the web. This is much better than my old crt. Perhaps my
crt was just as good when it was new - I really cannot recall. The crt is 6
years old so the quality may have faded over time.
I love the ergonomic adjustments and the small footprint. For $320 incl
shipping, I am one happy camper.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:57:02 GMT, "The poster formerly known as Colleyville
Alan" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>I've had the ViewSonic monitor for a few days now and I really like it.
>When I first got it, I thought the picture was nothing special, but that is
>because I spent most of my time with Word documents, Outlook Express, or
>Excel.
>Since then, I have seen some video clips, looked at a number of
>jpg's and surfed the web. This is much better than my old crt. Perhaps my
>crt was just as good when it was new - I really cannot recall. The crt is 6
>years old so the quality may have faded over time.>I love the ergonomic adjustments and the small footprint. For $320 incl
>shipping, I am one happy camper.
"Null" <Null@null.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:h5l1k21hmqaj0umuelg6aa6pfv8lcdc1he@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:57:02 GMT, "The poster formerly known as
> Colleyville
> Alan" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>I've had the ViewSonic monitor for a few days now and I really like it.
>>When I first got it, I thought the picture was nothing special, but that
>>is
>>because I spent most of my time with Word documents, Outlook Express, or
>>Excel.
>
> Have you enabled Cleartype? Probably make those apps look better.
> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypeInfo.mspx
Cleartype is on. They do not look bad, but when there is a lot of black
text on a white background, some areas seem as though they have a general
"darkness" about them.
I think that this is probably similar to the optical illusion of a bunch of
black boxes on a white background that appear to have gray at the
intersections of the white lines; the gray disappears when you look directly
at the intersections, but you can always see the gray if you are looking
somewhere other than directly at an intersection.
>>Since then, I have seen some video clips, looked at a number of
>>jpg's and surfed the web. This is much better than my old crt. Perhaps
>>my
>>crt was just as good when it was new - I really cannot recall. The crt is
>>6
>>years old so the quality may have faded over time.>I love the ergonomic
>>adjustments and the small footprint. For $320 incl
>>shipping, I am one happy camper.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:25:51 GMT, "The poster formerly known
as Colleyville Alan" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>"Null" <Null@null.org.invalid> wrote in message
>news:h5l1k21hmqaj0umuelg6aa6pfv8lcdc1he@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:57:02 GMT, "The poster formerly known as
>> Colleyville
>> Alan" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I've had the ViewSonic monitor for a few days now and I really like it.
>>>When I first got it, I thought the picture was nothing special, but that
>>>is
>>>because I spent most of my time with Word documents, Outlook Express, or
>>>Excel.
>>
>> Have you enabled Cleartype? Probably make those apps look better.
>> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypeInfo.mspx
>
>Cleartype is on. They do not look bad, but when there is a lot of black
>text on a white background, some areas seem as though they have a general
>"darkness" about them.
>
Some people consider cleartype a cruel joke of a marketing
tactic. The great thing about LCDs is the per-pixel
precision, then cleartype goes and blurs that, and on text
of all things instead of the place where it would at least
blend in more- the gradient colored graphical elements of
the GUI. It does not make text easier to read, if that is
the problem then a different font (or larger or bolder) is
the better measure.
>I think that this is probably similar to the optical illusion of a bunch of
>black boxes on a white background that appear to have gray at the
>intersections of the white lines; the gray disappears when you look directly
>at the intersections, but you can always see the gray if you are looking
>somewhere other than directly at an intersection.
It's not an illusion, that's what cleartype does, it doesn't
make type clear at all, it's like spreading grease over the
character so it is blurrier, lower contrast which is a bit
ironic to have as a goal since one of LCD's weaknesses is
usually lower contrast.
That doesn't mean someone couldn'tlike it for esthetic
reasons, but "clear" is an inappropriate description in the
title, it should be called "SmoothType".
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:54:13 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:25:51 GMT, "The poster formerly known
>as Colleyville Alan" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>"Null" <Null@null.org.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:h5l1k21hmqaj0umuelg6aa6pfv8lcdc1he@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:57:02 GMT, "The poster formerly known as
>>> Colleyville
>>> Alan" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've had the ViewSonic monitor for a few days now and I really like it.
>>>>When I first got it, I thought the picture was nothing special, but that
>>>>is
>>>>because I spent most of my time with Word documents, Outlook Express, or
>>>>Excel.
>>>
>>> Have you enabled Cleartype? Probably make those apps look better.
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypeInfo.mspx
>
>>
>>Cleartype is on. They do not look bad, but when there is a lot of black
>>text on a white background, some areas seem as though they have a general
>>"darkness" about them.
>>
>
>Some people consider cleartype a cruel joke of a marketing
>tactic. The great thing about LCDs is the per-pixel
>precision, then cleartype goes and blurs that, and on text
>of all things instead of the place where it would at least
>blend in more- the gradient colored graphical elements of
>the GUI. It does not make text easier to read, if that is
>the problem then a different font (or larger or bolder) is
>the better measure.
>
>
>>I think that this is probably similar to the optical illusion of a bunch of
>>black boxes on a white background that appear to have gray at the
>>intersections of the white lines; the gray disappears when you look directly
>>at the intersections, but you can always see the gray if you are looking
>>somewhere other than directly at an intersection.
>
>It's not an illusion, that's what cleartype does, it doesn't
>make type clear at all, it's like spreading grease over the
>character so it is blurrier, lower contrast which is a bit
>ironic to have as a goal since one of LCD's weaknesses is
>usually lower contrast.
>
>That doesn't mean someone couldn'tlike it for esthetic
>reasons, but "clear" is an inappropriate description in the
>title, it should be called "SmoothType".
I guess the other thing that wasn't mentioned when trying to get the clearest
output, is ensuring the monitor is run at its native resolution.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:i6s4k2dpbb9jnrimn1rg3rkbuuv4rodk5a@4ax.com...
>>
>
> Some people consider cleartype a cruel joke of a marketing
> tactic.
I know they do. I have read these arguments before.
>
>>I think that this is probably similar to the optical illusion of a bunch
>>of
>>black boxes on a white background that appear to have gray at the
>>intersections of the white lines; the gray disappears when you look
>>directly
>>at the intersections, but you can always see the gray if you are looking
>>somewhere other than directly at an intersection.
>
> It's not an illusion, that's what cleartype does,
Yes it is an illusion - I get it with cleartype turned off. I got it on my
CRT. With higher-contrast screens, the effect is more pronounced and in
areas with lots of single-spaced text it is more pronounced. Cleartype
seems to increase the effect somewhat as well, but is not the primary cause.
>it doesn't
> make type clear at all, it's like spreading grease over the
> character so it is blurrier, lower contrast which is a bit
> ironic to have as a goal since one of LCD's weaknesses is
> usually lower contrast.
>
> That doesn't mean someone couldn'tlike it for esthetic
> reasons, but "clear" is an inappropriate description in the
> title, it should be called "SmoothType".
Maybe a larger font would work better, but I like having this much text on a
screen. Still, I will give larger fonts a try. Anyhow, I've tried turning
it on and turning it off. The text is much easier to read with it turned
on.
It might be true in theory that it should be less clear, but in reality I
can read text much more easily with it turned on. I recall a story about an
academic economist who presented a new theory of economic activity. During
the Q&A following the presentation, a colleage objected: "Professor, your
theory is brilliantly reasoned, but the underlying facts upon which it rests
bear no resemblance to the real world". The professor replied: "Ah, but the
real world is a special case!"
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 02:07:09 GMT, "The poster formerly known
as Colleyville Alan" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:i6s4k2dpbb9jnrimn1rg3rkbuuv4rodk5a@4ax.com.. .
>>>
>>
>> Some people consider cleartype a cruel joke of a marketing
>> tactic.
>
>I know they do. I have read these arguments before.
>
>>
>>>I think that this is probably similar to the optical illusion of a bunch
>>>of
>>>black boxes on a white background that appear to have gray at the
>>>intersections of the white lines; the gray disappears when you look
>>>directly
>>>at the intersections, but you can always see the gray if you are looking
>>>somewhere other than directly at an intersection.
>>
>> It's not an illusion, that's what cleartype does,
>
>Yes it is an illusion - I get it with cleartype turned off. I got it on my
>CRT. With higher-contrast screens, the effect is more pronounced and in
>areas with lots of single-spaced text it is more pronounced. Cleartype
>seems to increase the effect somewhat as well, but is not the primary cause.
>
>http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_herGrid/index.html
You seem to be overlooking that it takes a special pattern
to cause it, if it were present on text they'd just write
"look at the text you're reading".
Maybe it's your video card, maybe it's a poor monitor cable
causing analog degradation, but it's certainly not just high
contrast monitors, you seem to have a unique problem that
people with high contrast monitors don't usually have.
It wouldn't be surprising if Cleartype made it worse, but I
don't think it's an illusion at all that you're seeing,
unless you have some sort of problem with your eyesight.
>Maybe a larger font would work better, but I like having this much text on a
>screen. Still, I will give larger fonts a try. Anyhow, I've tried turning
>it on and turning it off. The text is much easier to read with it turned
>on.
It shouldn't be, there are so many fonts out there you
should be able to find the optimal solution with a standard
font. Cleartype necessarily reduces contrast and that is
never easier to read.
>
>It might be true in theory that it should be less clear, but in reality I
>can read text much more easily with it turned on. I recall a story about an
>academic economist who presented a new theory of economic activity. During
>the Q&A following the presentation, a colleage objected: "Professor, your
>theory is brilliantly reasoned, but the underlying facts upon which it rests
>bear no resemblance to the real world". The professor replied: "Ah, but the
>real world is a special case!"
This isn't a special case. The only thing special is if
your particular monitor size or dot pitch makes it
advantageous to use a different font rather than only a font
size change.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:vlm5k2h8qkvi796cncmm9c9ui6d5gmdg2n@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 02:07:09 GMT, "The poster formerly known
> as Colleyville Alan" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:i6s4k2dpbb9jnrimn1rg3rkbuuv4rodk5a@4ax.com. ..
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some people consider cleartype a cruel joke of a marketing
>>> tactic.
>>
>>I know they do. I have read these arguments before.
>>
>>>
>>>>I think that this is probably similar to the optical illusion of a bunch
>>>>of
>>>>black boxes on a white background that appear to have gray at the
>>>>intersections of the white lines; the gray disappears when you look
>>>>directly
>>>>at the intersections, but you can always see the gray if you are looking
>>>>somewhere other than directly at an intersection.
>>>
>>> It's not an illusion, that's what cleartype does,
>>
>>Yes it is an illusion - I get it with cleartype turned off. I got it on
>>my
>>CRT. With higher-contrast screens, the effect is more pronounced and in
>>areas with lots of single-spaced text it is more pronounced. Cleartype
>>seems to increase the effect somewhat as well, but is not the primary
>>cause.
>>
>>http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_herGrid/index.html
>
> You seem to be overlooking that it takes a special pattern
> to cause it, if it were present on text they'd just write
> "look at the text you're reading".
I'm not overlooking the fact that I get it with ClearType turned off. At
least with 96dpi having ClearType turned on it was easier to pick up the
characters. At 120dpi, the characters are sharper with ClearType turned
off. At 120dpi, Arial 10 looks like a bold font with ClearType turned off
and standard with it turned on. I got almost exactly the opposite sensation
with the font at 96dpi.
I also get that effect reading printed material and with my work computers
as well (and I've used about 10 different monitors over the last 16 years of
work). It may be influenced by the poor resolving power of my eyes. I had
radial keratotomy many years before lasers were perfected for eye surgery
and though it improved my distance vision, my ability to see detail in
close-up situations has never been the same. There are always ghost-like
edges to everything. But this effect is not very noticible unless I get
lots of typed text to read on a white background (like Usenet!).
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:47:58 GMT, "The poster formerly known
as Colleyville Alan" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>> You seem to be overlooking that it takes a special pattern
>> to cause it, if it were present on text they'd just write
>> "look at the text you're reading".
>
>I'm not overlooking the fact that I get it with ClearType turned off. At
>least with 96dpi having ClearType turned on it was easier to pick up the
>characters. At 120dpi, the characters are sharper with ClearType turned
>off. At 120dpi, Arial 10 looks like a bold font with ClearType turned off
>and standard with it turned on. I got almost exactly the opposite sensation
>with the font at 96dpi.
This indicates what I wrote, that it's not cleartype or not,
it's the font and it's size that needs adjusted.
>
>I also get that effect reading printed material and with my work computers
>as well (and I've used about 10 different monitors over the last 16 years of
>work). It may be influenced by the poor resolving power of my eyes. I had
>radial keratotomy many years before lasers were perfected for eye surgery
>and though it improved my distance vision, my ability to see detail in
>close-up situations has never been the same.
That could indeed be significant.
>There are always ghost-like
>edges to everything. But this effect is not very noticible unless I get
>lots of typed text to read on a white background (like Usenet!).
Well you could always use a news reader or browser that
allows adjusting colors of text and background.
ViewSonic VP930b - some more impressions 
Linear Mode
