|> | says...
|> |> | says...
|> |> |> What aspects of a DVI switch (KVM for example) would affect its ability
|> |> |> handle higher video modes such as 1920 x 1200 (when it can handle 1600
|> |> |> I'm curious why there are so many DVI switches that have a 1600 x 1200
|> |> |> and can't do 1920 x 1200.
|> |> |
|> |> | What refresh rate? Perhaps it needs Dual Link DVI (DVI-DL) to get
|> |> | the refresh rate you're looking for at 1920x1200.
|> |> 1920x1200 (WUXGA) is a single link format. Single link can go all the way
|> |> to 2098x1311 for odd formats. 2048x1152 (non-standard, but sensible)
|> |> would also be doable on single link. Dual link could go up to 2960x1850.
|> | At 60Hz, yes. By 85Hz single link is out of gas. That was my point
|> | ("what refresh rate?"). Do follow along.
|> I will push the refresh rate as low as I can make it work.
I don't need the refresh rate. I'm not doing fast action gaming. My use of
computers is programming, building Linux pseudo-distros, and managing some
web servers. While I would use 75 Hz refresh on a CRT to avoid flicker, I
don't need to do that on LCD. I have no need to run it even as high as 60 Hz.
24 Hz would be fine by me if I could find a monitor that would accept it.
|> The lowest monitor
|> found will go down to 48 Hz (from HP). If I stick to the literal WUXGA
|> then it's 60 Hz. For the computers outputting the 1920x1200, the vertical
|> isn't much of an issue.
| I don't think I'd care too much for 48Hz, though have never tried
| it. My laptop/24" monitor combination is restricted to 60Hz (at
| 1920x1200). I thought it was because this is a cheap monitor (which
| I suppose is true - single link).
At 48 Hz, the DVI clock rate can go lower, compared to 60 Hz, for the same
geometry (e.g. 1920x1200 on each). The clock rate for 1920x1200 at 60 Hz
could do 2048x1280 at 52.75 Hz. Or it could do 2560x1600 at 33.75 Hz. You
just need components (video driver, video card, KVM switch, monitor) that
don't insist the video mode match one of the named VESA standard modes.
|> The analog computers will be outputting some lower
|> resolution to be scaled up, and at the lowest refresh rate I can get (because
|> that gives me some more resolution on those).
| "Analog computers"? "Scaled up"? I don't understand the entire
Sorry for the confusion.
By "analog computers" I meant "The two computers I have here that output their
video in analog as RGB over a HD-15 connection" ... as opposed to the "digital
computers" which are "the (other) two computers I (will) have here that output
their video in digital as RGB over a DVI connection".
The computers that output video in analog won't be at 1920x1200. They may be
at 1440x900. I'll live with the upscaling artifacts. They are currently
running at 1200x960 into a 1280x1024 monitor. The catch is that the highest
number of video lines I can program into them is 1023. That and I cannot find
a newer video card that supports the software I use on those machines (maybe
in the near future the ATI Radeon ones will have enough info released I could
upgrade the software for).
Two new computers (one is built now, but I have not selected the video card
to go to 1920x1200 for it, yet, so it's limping along as a server for now at
a video geometry of 1152x864) will become my new primary graphical desktops.
The intention is to go with 1920x1200 but I'm open to doing 2048x1280 or even
2560x1600 if I can find a monitor that will do it at a slow enough speed to do
it over ONE DVI link channel. Some monitors will go down to 50 Hz or 48 Hz,
so it's just a matter of finding one with 2048x1280.
BTW, that's another of my common rants ... monitors that have LOW frequency
limits on vertical video frame rates that are higher than an existing standard
video frame rate (e.g. 23.976 Hz). They just need to have a clock that can
be adjusted to a lower rate and firmware that doesn't assume all video is at
a higher rate.
Have a look at the tech specs on THIS monitor:
It is intended for broadcast studio purposes, but can be used as a computer
display (as can so many TVs out there). It does support 23.976 Hz in the
3xBNC component inputs. But it doesn't support 23.976 Hz in the HD15/VGA
input. I don't see why it shouldn't, though. Apparently it can do the
component in either YPbPr or RGB, so I'm curious how well it would do if
I used a VGA to 3xBNC connector to feed the computer video that way.
I know that going FASTER is hard to do. It requires better clocks and faster
digital circuits. It requires analog amps with a higher bandpass. But why
is going _slower_
hard to do, too?
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
Click to see the full signature.