"kony" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:58:50 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


Yeah,OK. I give in. You are right. I couldn't be more wrong if I tried. 35
years down the pan. Just as an experiment, I wiped goose grease all over
my
LCD monitor and guess what? YOU ARE RIGHT !!!!

The problem with goose grease is the high number of geese it
would take to treat all monitors. :-)


( that's for excited
emphasis, I'm not shouting at you ).

Ok, I never did think capitalizing as shouting worked very
well anyway, since the person has to read the text either
way for it to matter.

My picture is now so blurred that it
looks just like the real world when I don't have my specs on. Accuracy or
what ?!!! Have you thought of marketing this idea ? You could put it in
tubs
and sell it on the net as "Kony's patent image enhancing compound (blended
with REAL snake oil )"

I'm not the one who wants to end up with less than the
computer was designed to output. Yes the grease idea is
crazy and has no merit but it is the type of degradation
(albeit to a greater extent) causing your more lifelike
image. CRT manufacturers didn't aim for that, it was just
the result of the coating and thick glass. If LCD
manufacturers wanted this, they could put a thick diffuser
sheet on the front.



My next plan is to see if I can drop a couple of bits on the input to the
video card's DAC. That should increase the 'granularity' no end. This is
another idea that could be put forward to monitor manufacturers to help
them
in their goal of making the reproduced image anything but lifelike, and
better yet - *less* aesthetically pleasing !!

Boy, you're a lad ! All these wickedly good ideas ! If you don't market
them
yourself, *I'm* gonna, and get really rich. Then you'll be sorry ! ;-)

Ok!

Yeah, OK! Just messin' with ya! Really, I don't have a problem with my LCD
monitors. Both of them look just fine. But subjectively, a CRT picture just
has something that makes it a little more 'human' to my perception. I would
guess that it's the same as CD versus vinyl, where the vinyl has a 'warmer'
sound (oddly, Steve Wright was discussing exactly this on his BBC radio
programme today, and it was his opinion that CD sounded 'cold' compared to
vinyl). Another example might be programme material shot on video tape,
versus that shot on film stock. Outdoor scenes in particular always have a
flat, cold, unrealistic look to them, when shot on video, but I'm sure that
you would probably be able to apply your 'more accurate not lifelike'
analysis to these examples as well. Anyway, all of this is causing me to
lose the will to live now, and I'm done with it. I think we better just
settle on agreeing to differ ... Later

Arfa