>> > --snip--
>> >
>> >>> The TV is an LG 47LH90 and and it is said to do 1080p. I looked for
>> >>> ghosting in 16:9 mode instead of Just Scan mode and strangely the
>> >>> shadows are there, but they're oriented top and bottom instead of left
>> >>> and right. I can take another photo if anyone
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Stroller
wrote:
>
> On 19 July 2011, at 20:41, Grant wrote:
>> ...
>> I found this:
>>
>> "We recommend using the Just Scan mode with 1080i and 1080p material,
>> which assures zero overscan and proper 1:1 pixel matching for this
>> 1080p display."
>>
>> http://re
On 19 July 2011, at 20:41, Grant wrote:
> ...
> I found this:
>
> "We recommend using the Just Scan mode with 1080i and 1080p material,
> which assures zero overscan and proper 1:1 pixel matching for this
> 1080p display."
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/lg-47lh90/4505-6482_7-33485570
On Tuesday 19 Jul 2011 20:41:08 Grant wrote:
> > --snip--
> >
> >>> The TV is an LG 47LH90 and and it is said to do 1080p. I looked for
> >>> ghosting in 16:9 mode instead of Just Scan mode and strangely the
> >>> shadows are there, but they're oriented top and bottom instead of left
> >>> and ri
> --snip--
>>> The TV is an LG 47LH90 and and it is said to do 1080p. I looked for
>>> ghosting in 16:9 mode instead of Just Scan mode and strangely the
>>> shadows are there, but they're oriented top and bottom instead of left
>>> and right. I can take another photo if anyone would like to see.
On 01/-10/37 11:59, Grant wrote:
--snip--
>> The TV is an LG 47LH90 and and it is said to do 1080p. I looked for
>> ghosting in 16:9 mode instead of Just Scan mode and strangely the
>> shadows are there, but they're oriented top and bottom instead of left
>> and right. I can take another photo if
>>> But at some point the 1s and 0s must be converted to some sort of an
>>> analog signal if only right behind the diode. A diode must be
>>> presented with a signal in some sort of analog form in order to
>>> illuminate, right? Digital is just a figment of our imagination after
>>> all.
>>
>> T
>> ...
>> But at some point the 1s and 0s must be converted to some sort of an
>> analog signal if only right behind the diode. A diode must be
>> presented with a signal in some sort of analog form in order to
>> illuminate, right? Digital is just a figment of our imagination after
>> all.
>
> T
On 17 July 2011, at 17:54, Grant wrote:
> ...
> But at some point the 1s and 0s must be converted to some sort of an
> analog signal if only right behind the diode. A diode must be
> presented with a signal in some sort of analog form in order to
> illuminate, right? Digital is just a figment of
>> I gave it a try but there was no change. I tried plugging the TV and
>> computer into a power strip and also into an isolation transformer.
>> Any other ideas?
>
> Late to the party, but what kind of display? What connection are you
> using to get from the card to the display? (i.e. I've got an
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Grant wrote:
> I gave it a try but there was no change. I tried plugging the TV and
> computer into a power strip and also into an isolation transformer.
> Any other ideas?
Late to the party, but what kind of display? What connection are you
using to get from the
>> >> >>> When I was using an Nvidia video card, I noticed a strange sort of
>> >> >>> fuzzy edge effect if I used nvidia-drivers. xf86-video-nouveau didn't
>> >> >>> have the same problem. Now I've switched to an ATI video card and
>> >> >>> unfortunately I have the same problem with xf86-video-
Grant [11-07-13 19:20]:
> >> >>> When I was using an Nvidia video card, I noticed a strange sort of
> >> >>> fuzzy edge effect if I used nvidia-drivers. xf86-video-nouveau didn't
> >> >>> have the same problem. Now I've switched to an ATI video card and
> >> >>> unfortunately I have the same pro
>> >>> When I was using an Nvidia video card, I noticed a strange sort of
>> >>> fuzzy edge effect if I used nvidia-drivers. xf86-video-nouveau didn't
>> >>> have the same problem. Now I've switched to an ATI video card and
>> >>> unfortunately I have the same problem with xf86-video-ati. I trie
Roger Mason [11-07-13 18:12]:
> meino.cra...@gmx.de writes:
>
> >
> > Hi Grant,
> >
> > another shot into an even much deeper dark ;)
> >
> > May be you have a problem here, which it is called "Brummschleife"
> > in german...sorry dont know the English equivalent...may be something
> > like
meino.cra...@gmx.de writes:
>
> Hi Grant,
>
> another shot into an even much deeper dark ;)
>
> May be you have a problem here, which it is called "Brummschleife"
> in german...sorry dont know the English equivalent...may be something
> like "buzzing loop"...but this looks more like a strange
Grant [11-07-13 03:13]:
> >>> When I was using an Nvidia video card, I noticed a strange sort of
> >>> fuzzy edge effect if I used nvidia-drivers. xf86-video-nouveau didn't
> >>> have the same problem. Now I've switched to an ATI video card and
> >>> unfortunately I have the same problem with xf
>>> When I was using an Nvidia video card, I noticed a strange sort of
>>> fuzzy edge effect if I used nvidia-drivers. xf86-video-nouveau didn't
>>> have the same problem. Now I've switched to an ATI video card and
>>> unfortunately I have the same problem with xf86-video-ati. I tried to
>>> ena
>> When I was using an Nvidia video card, I noticed a strange sort of
>> fuzzy edge effect if I used nvidia-drivers. xf86-video-nouveau didn't
>> have the same problem. Now I've switched to an ATI video card and
>> unfortunately I have the same problem with xf86-video-ati. I tried to
>> enable t
Grant [11-07-10 01:42]:
> When I was using an Nvidia video card, I noticed a strange sort of
> fuzzy edge effect if I used nvidia-drivers. xf86-video-nouveau didn't
> have the same problem. Now I've switched to an ATI video card and
> unfortunately I have the same problem with xf86-video-ati. I
20 matches
Mail list logo
