S
server
Guest
message unavailable
K
Ken Taylor
Guest
"Tom Del Rosso" <tdnews01@att.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:fUyOc.156214$OB3.87465@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Ken
news:fUyOc.156214$OB3.87465@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
around the same timeframe. An 'Electronics Australia' project.
Ken
N
Nigel Heather
Guest
I agree that there is no guarantee about the internal characteristics of
similar diodes. But then this argument equally holds true for the first
diagram - if they all used 300 ohm resistors you couldn't gurantee that they
all glowed identically, just the same as if you powered all three through a
single 100 ohm resistor.
My answer to the original question is -- Yes that should work and yes the
resitor will need to be a third the value of the individual ones in the
first diagram. Yes the diodes might differ internally but in my opinion the
differences will be small and I doubt that you will notice them. Give it a
try.
Cheers,
Nigel
"si" <'blu_glo_uk@yahoo.com'> wrote in message
news:xOKOc.87$E25.0@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
similar diodes. But then this argument equally holds true for the first
diagram - if they all used 300 ohm resistors you couldn't gurantee that they
all glowed identically, just the same as if you powered all three through a
single 100 ohm resistor.
My answer to the original question is -- Yes that should work and yes the
resitor will need to be a third the value of the individual ones in the
first diagram. Yes the diodes might differ internally but in my opinion the
differences will be small and I doubt that you will notice them. Give it a
try.
Cheers,
Nigel
"si" <'blu_glo_uk@yahoo.com'> wrote in message
news:xOKOc.87$E25.0@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
W
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su
Guest
"Nigel Heather" <nigel@NOSPAM.the-heathers.nildram.co.uk> wrote in
message news:Z9CdnVEFk40J7pbcRVn-hg@nildram.net...
problem.
message news:Z9CdnVEFk40J7pbcRVn-hg@nildram.net...
But see my other followup about the negative temperature coefficient
problem.
B
Byron A Jeff
Guest
In article <8028c236.0407310039.45737ad0@posting.google.com>,
wylbur37 <wylbur37nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
rating of the LED albeit a small one. It serves the purpose of current
limitation in addition to dropping voltage.
because each LED will not draw exactly the same current. So some will be
dimmer than others.
The second thing is that the total current through the resistor will be a
factor of the current through each LED. So for your example the resistor
above would need to allow 60ma of current to flow through to feed the LEDs
downline. The problem is that if one LED blows out then that current will have
to be pushed through the other working LEDs, which can cause the others to
fail also.
A better way to do it is to bump the voltage up and put the LEDs in parallel
like this:
+V -> resistor -> LED1 -> LED2 -> LED3 -> GND
You treat the equation the same as a single LED except that you add the Vf
voltages of the LEDs. So for your example the total voltage of the LEDs
would be 10.8V. So the resistor you'd use with a 12V +V would be:
(12V - 10.8V) / .02A = 60 ohms.
But there are significant differences:
1) Each LED will draw the same current, so you'll get uniform brightness.
2) If a single LED (or the resistor) fails, then the whole string goes out
with only the single failed component, instead of going into cascade failure
due to increasing overload.
When doing a single resistor, that's the better way to handle it.
BTW, thanks for crossposting this message. There are many who don't understand
the concept. But I think I'll limit my replies to basics and misc, which are
appropriate.
BAJ
wylbur37 <wylbur37nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually you still need the resistor even when the voltage is at the
rating of the LED albeit a small one. It serves the purpose of current
limitation in addition to dropping voltage.
Right. It's the correct way to get uniform brightness among the set.
It serves the safety purpose, but then you get variability on the brightness
because each LED will not draw exactly the same current. So some will be
dimmer than others.
The second thing is that the total current through the resistor will be a
factor of the current through each LED. So for your example the resistor
above would need to allow 60ma of current to flow through to feed the LEDs
downline. The problem is that if one LED blows out then that current will have
to be pushed through the other working LEDs, which can cause the others to
fail also.
Single resistor value divided by the number of LEDs across it.
Right. But see the caveat above.
A better way to do it is to bump the voltage up and put the LEDs in parallel
like this:
+V -> resistor -> LED1 -> LED2 -> LED3 -> GND
You treat the equation the same as a single LED except that you add the Vf
voltages of the LEDs. So for your example the total voltage of the LEDs
would be 10.8V. So the resistor you'd use with a 12V +V would be:
(12V - 10.8V) / .02A = 60 ohms.
But there are significant differences:
1) Each LED will draw the same current, so you'll get uniform brightness.
2) If a single LED (or the resistor) fails, then the whole string goes out
with only the single failed component, instead of going into cascade failure
due to increasing overload.
When doing a single resistor, that's the better way to handle it.
BTW, thanks for crossposting this message. There are many who don't understand
the concept. But I think I'll limit my replies to basics and misc, which are
appropriate.
BAJ
D
Don Bruder
Guest
In article <Sa0Pc.8484$Xn.5197@fed1read05>, columbotrek <me@cox.net>
wrote:
or glass, are *WAY* beyond my budget for this sort of tinkering. Besides
- Doing it myself is (A) Entertaining (B) Educational and (C) a fun
challenge. (Hmm... maybe C should read "both of the above?")
range is, like buying the IR-pass filter, way outside my budget, even
with the idea of going for the cheapest available.
of them are very IR sensitive. Others barely notice IR at all, while
still others are effectively totally blind to it. Depends on the maker
and the process they used. External pre-filtering obviously effects the
accuracy of that statement...
--
Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.
wrote:
HAH! Cheapest IR-pass filters I was able to find, whether gell, plastic,
or glass, are *WAY* beyond my budget for this sort of tinkering. Besides
- Doing it myself is (A) Entertaining (B) Educational and (C) a fun
challenge. (Hmm... maybe C should read "both of the above?")
Performance is secondary to price. A "real" illuminator with any kind of
range is, like buying the IR-pass filter, way outside my budget, even
with the idea of going for the cheapest available.
Replace "all" with "most", and I'll buy into that last statement. Some
of them are very IR sensitive. Others barely notice IR at all, while
still others are effectively totally blind to it. Depends on the maker
and the process they used. External pre-filtering obviously effects the
accuracy of that statement...
--
Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.
D
Diogenes
Guest
Ralph W. Phillips wrote:
Web Results 1 - 4 of 4 for "Advanced Programmable Interface Controller"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Advanced+Programmable+Interface+Controller%22&btnG=Google+Search
Howdy!
"relic" <nospam@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:nscPc.68615$SO5.10808@twister.socal.rr.com...
DeMoN LaG wrote:
"relic" <nospam@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in
newstbPc.68611$SO5.47788 @twister.socal.rr.com:
Go ogle. It's ACPI.
ACPI and APIC are two different things. Go ogle yourself.
There are 4 entries. NOTHING to do with System IRQ's is mentioned
in them. That would be ACPI.
Four? I get 54,200 on "Advanced Programmable Interface
Controller",
Web Results 1 - 4 of 4 for "Advanced Programmable Interface Controller"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Advanced+Programmable+Interface+Controller%22&btnG=Google+Search
R
relic
Guest
Ralph W. Phillips wrote:
While APIC allows IRQs beyond 16, I don't believe you can have APIC unless
ACPI is enabled. ACPI has been the BIOS configurable option I've seen on the
dozen or so post-APM motherboards I've setup recently (admittedly a limited
sample; ASUS, MSI, ABIT, Intel, and a couple of others), not APIC.
--
- relic -
Don't take life too seriously, You won't get out alive.
Howdy!
"relic" <nospam@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
news
Ralph Wade Phillips wrote:
Howdy!
"relic" <nospam@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:GtZOc.65170$SO5.55361@twister.socal.rr.com...
Ralph Wade Phillips wrote:
Howdy!
"Xolak the gladiatorial"
Nz7JuSXbBkqF@alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.blonde> wrote in
message
news:tW07o0X3HBYb413D7395X5em8OpZVDRL@alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.blonde...
Linda wrote:
15 is the highest IRQ number.
BWAHAHAHAHAAH!!! You fuckwitted, top-posting slut. I have IRQ's
up to 24.
One abbreviation for you - APIC .
APIC? *APIC* ??
Advanced Configuration and Power Interface
shakes head
Advanced Programmable Interface Controller. Yes, on
P4/Athlon boards there are typically 24 hardware interrupts if you
turn APIC on.
RwP
Go ogle. It's ACPI.
I know about ACPI. I'm talking about APIC. Two different
things.
Advanced Programmable Interface Controller. Why, the P4 at
my feet has one, installed, and therefore has 24 hardware IRQs.
ACPI is Advanced Configuration and Power Interface - not
quite the same thing.
While APIC allows IRQs beyond 16, I don't believe you can have APIC unless
ACPI is enabled. ACPI has been the BIOS configurable option I've seen on the
dozen or so post-APM motherboards I've setup recently (admittedly a limited
sample; ASUS, MSI, ABIT, Intel, and a couple of others), not APIC.
--
- relic -
Don't take life too seriously, You won't get out alive.
L
L.
Guest
As cheap as dual trace scopes are now days, why not buy one? If you're
hurting for cash, some older single trace scopes are DIRT cheap. You could
buy two, sometimes for $15 - $20 total.
L
"E. Rosten" <look@my.sig> wrote in message news:410E3C04.2050901@my.sig...
hurting for cash, some older single trace scopes are DIRT cheap. You could
buy two, sometimes for $15 - $20 total.
L
"E. Rosten" <look@my.sig> wrote in message news:410E3C04.2050901@my.sig...
B
Bob Myers
Guest
"Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QmxPc.547$gQ3.103@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
format) and/or refresh rate, then the vertical and horizontal
frequencies almost always change. No, there is nothing in the
sync rates that "denotes the resolution of the image", other than
the total number of lines per frame (and from this, and the
specific rates in question, the timing standard in use can usually
be identified). But no, since the analog video standard for PCs
does not include a true "blanking" or "display enable" signal
(nor anything from which these can readily be derived), you cannot
clearly identify the number of active lines per frame, which is
part of the pixel format description. You (or rather, your monitor)
are always basically guessing what standard timing is in use
(under the assumption that it IS in fact a standard timing).
which consists of, say, alternating vertical lines, then yes, you can
tell where the "pixels" were supposed to be. Anything beyond
that is just a guess; again, there is NO pixel-level timing information
guaranteed in the VGA interface. You cannot unambiguously
determine the pixel locations within the video signal for any and
all video content. The best you can do is to try to generate a
pixel sampling clock from what timing information you DO have
(generally, just by multiplying up the horizontal sync rate) and
taking your best guess at how it should align with the active video
period.
there's no way to distinguish pixels within, say, a flat white
field, or a single HORIZONTAL line, so there's really no
guarantee of "discrete" values. This is one of the problems which
has traditionally plagued analog interfaces for fixed-format
displays (such as LCDs), since those DO require accurate sampling
at the pixel times. There is a new analog video signal standard
in the works which is designed to address this (the VESA NAVI
standard), but since it's not published yet I can't go into the details
of it here.
If you really want to get into the details of all this (and I guarantee
you that they're a LOT less interesting than you might think..),
it's covered in chapters 6-9 of my book, "Display Interfaces:
Fundamentals & Standards," published by J. Wiley & Sons.
Bob M.
news:QmxPc.547$gQ3.103@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
Let's put it this way - if you're changing "resolution" (pixel"Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news
The scan frequencies do not necessarily change at all when you change
the
resolution.
What I said was they do not necessarily change, "there is nothing in the
sync rates that denote the resolution of the image" is what I meant by
that,
obviously you have to fit them into a frame so one or the other or both
must
vary for that to happen.
format) and/or refresh rate, then the vertical and horizontal
frequencies almost always change. No, there is nothing in the
sync rates that "denotes the resolution of the image", other than
the total number of lines per frame (and from this, and the
specific rates in question, the timing standard in use can usually
be identified). But no, since the analog video standard for PCs
does not include a true "blanking" or "display enable" signal
(nor anything from which these can readily be derived), you cannot
clearly identify the number of active lines per frame, which is
part of the pixel format description. You (or rather, your monitor)
are always basically guessing what standard timing is in use
(under the assumption that it IS in fact a standard timing).
No, there really aren't. IF you happen to be looking at an image
which consists of, say, alternating vertical lines, then yes, you can
tell where the "pixels" were supposed to be. Anything beyond
that is just a guess; again, there is NO pixel-level timing information
guaranteed in the VGA interface. You cannot unambiguously
determine the pixel locations within the video signal for any and
all video content. The best you can do is to try to generate a
pixel sampling clock from what timing information you DO have
(generally, just by multiplying up the horizontal sync rate) and
taking your best guess at how it should align with the active video
period.
Sure, but that's a specific (and very fortunate) case. Again,
there's no way to distinguish pixels within, say, a flat white
field, or a single HORIZONTAL line, so there's really no
guarantee of "discrete" values. This is one of the problems which
has traditionally plagued analog interfaces for fixed-format
displays (such as LCDs), since those DO require accurate sampling
at the pixel times. There is a new analog video signal standard
in the works which is designed to address this (the VESA NAVI
standard), but since it's not published yet I can't go into the details
of it here.
If you really want to get into the details of all this (and I guarantee
you that they're a LOT less interesting than you might think..
),it's covered in chapters 6-9 of my book, "Display Interfaces:
Fundamentals & Standards," published by J. Wiley & Sons.
Bob M.
C
croweflight
Guest
Don Bruder wrote:
glass to preserve the focus. Which is just what Sony does for their
night mode. The lever moves the high pass filter out of the way. But
now they also strap the aperture wide open when you place it in night
mode. So if you use it in the daylight with an IR low pass filter the
sensor saturates.
you just need something to keep occupied with. Like polishing old CDs.
which is why I suggested to remove the thing and replace it with clear
glass to preserve the focus. Which is just what Sony does for their
night mode. The lever moves the high pass filter out of the way. But
now they also strap the aperture wide open when you place it in night
mode. So if you use it in the daylight with an IR low pass filter the
sensor saturates.
E
E. Rosten
Guest
Mjolinor wrote:
cards, the image becomes fuzzy with a very high dot clock. This is
sometimes down to little ferrite beads on the output lines, which
slichtly low-pass filter the outpur signal. That means that even if the
DAC is outputting 1024 discrete values, what you see on the line is
certainly not that. You also get slewing in the DAC and any amplifiers
which may also reduce the bandwidth to below that of the dot clock.
Often the bad picture is caused by low-quality RAM instead.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (er258)(@)(eng.cam)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5/m
{moveto}d -1 r 230 350 m 0 1 179{1 index show 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}
for /s 15 d f pop 240 420 m 0 1 3 { 4 2 1 r sub -1 r show } for showpage
Not 1024 values. Take this example: with some older, cheaper video
cards, the image becomes fuzzy with a very high dot clock. This is
sometimes down to little ferrite beads on the output lines, which
slichtly low-pass filter the outpur signal. That means that even if the
DAC is outputting 1024 discrete values, what you see on the line is
certainly not that. You also get slewing in the DAC and any amplifiers
which may also reduce the bandwidth to below that of the dot clock.
Often the bad picture is caused by low-quality RAM instead.
It's called a low pass filter.There is an AtoD producing 1024 discrete voltage values and no
ammount "you can't see them" makes them something else. I am not saying you
do anything with them I am just saying that there lies the difference
between the two resolutions, in one there may be 800 and in the other, it is
probably faster (but not necessarily so) there are 1024 of them.
Maybe I will look at your book it would be interesting to learn about the
magic of a device that produces 1024 output voltages but miraculously when
they get to the end of the wire they are not there anymore.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (er258)(@)(eng.cam)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5/m
{moveto}d -1 r 230 350 m 0 1 179{1 index show 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}
for /s 15 d f pop 240 420 m 0 1 3 { 4 2 1 r sub -1 r show } for showpage
S
Stuart
Guest
Cleland Worthingspear-Bucklestat wrote:
contradicting what the poster was searching for. He said he searched for
Interface controller with that link being the top of the list while that
link relates to Interrupt controller.
Now fuck off and learn to read yourself, numbnuts!
Stuart
I pointed out that the link does in fact work and it was also
contradicting what the poster was searching for. He said he searched for
Interface controller with that link being the top of the list while that
link relates to Interrupt controller.
Now fuck off and learn to read yourself, numbnuts!
Stuart
J
JT
Guest
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 17:19:34 GMT, "relic" <nospam@relic211.cjb.net> wrote:
to depend on ACPI.
You came across as though APIC didn't exist, which it very much does. You
also came across as though APIC didn't have anything to do with IRQs and
sharing, which it very much does. You also said that there were only 4
google results and they had nothing to do with IRQs. That was just wrong.
JT
Depends heavily on the BIOS and what they have modified. APIC does not HaveJT wrote:
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 20:33:23 GMT, "relic" <nospam@relic211.cjb.net
wrote:
DeMoN LaG wrote:
"relic" <nospam@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in
news
Go ogle. It's ACPI.
ACPI and APIC are two different things. Go ogle yourself.
There are 4 entries. NOTHING to do with System IRQ's is mentioned
in them. That would be ACPI.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/IO-APIC.mspx#XSLTsection127121120120
Microsofts info on APIC. Google for "APIC interupt" and you won't
get all the noise of non-related links
I probably sounded like I'm trying to argue that it's /not/ APIC, it's that I
saw advice to the OP about using APIC. I believe the option in BIOS is ACPI,
not APIC; at least it is on the motherboards I've seen lately. You have to
enable ACPI to get APIC.
to depend on ACPI.
You came across as though APIC didn't exist, which it very much does. You
also came across as though APIC didn't have anything to do with IRQs and
sharing, which it very much does. You also said that there were only 4
google results and they had nothing to do with IRQs. That was just wrong.
JT
R
relic
Guest
JT wrote:
IRQs. It doesn't.
option the OP would most likely have seen was ACPI, not APIC.
Web Results 1 - 4 of 4 for "Advanced Programmable Interface Controller"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Advanced+Programmable+Interface+Controller%22&btnG=Google+Search
As you can see, it was just _correct_
--
- relic -
Don't take life too seriously, You won't get out alive.
I said, "Advanced Programmable Interface Controller" didn't in the context ofOn Mon, 02 Aug 2004 17:19:34 GMT, "relic" <nospam@relic211.cjb.net
wrote:
JT wrote:
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 20:33:23 GMT, "relic" <nospam@relic211.cjb.net
wrote:
DeMoN LaG wrote:
"relic" <nospam@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in
news
Go ogle. It's ACPI.
ACPI and APIC are two different things. Go ogle yourself.
There are 4 entries. NOTHING to do with System IRQ's is mentioned
in them. That would be ACPI.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/IO-APIC.mspx#XSLTsection127121120120
Microsofts info on APIC. Google for "APIC interupt" and you won't
get all the noise of non-related links
I probably sounded like I'm trying to argue that it's /not/ APIC,
it's that I saw advice to the OP about using APIC. I believe the
option in BIOS is ACPI, not APIC; at least it is on the motherboards
I've seen lately. You have to enable ACPI to get APIC.
Depends heavily on the BIOS and what they have modified. APIC does
not Have to depend on ACPI.
You came across as though APIC didn't exist, which it very much does.
IRQs. It doesn't.
That was confusing as I wrote it and I admitted to that already. The BIOS
option the OP would most likely have seen was ACPI, not APIC.
Here it is, *4* google results that have nothing to do with IRQs:
Web Results 1 - 4 of 4 for "Advanced Programmable Interface Controller"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Advanced+Programmable+Interface+Controller%22&btnG=Google+Search
As you can see, it was just _correct_
--
- relic -
Don't take life too seriously, You won't get out alive.
T
Tom MacIntyre
Guest
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 21:11:19 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
Tom
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
Isn't there software readily available for creating facial images?I read in sci.electronics.design that Frank Bemelman <f.bemelmanx@xs4all
.invalid.nl> wrote (in <410fec77$0$36860$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
'OT: The youngest Thompson', on Tue, 3 Aug 2004:
Big deal. There are millions of (normal) pictures of children on the
net.
But IMHO, there should not be. You can e-mail your kidpix to your
friends, or, if you must, put them on an UNLINKED page on your web site
and e-mail the URL to your friends.
One more won't upset the paedophiles community.
No, but if that 'one more' happens to be the one that's appropriated,
the family of the victim may be significantly 'upset', even at just the
thought of the possibility.
Tom
J
Jim Thompson
Guest
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:02:28 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
Rose is a dead-ringer for her mother, hair, eyes, the whole package.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
Thanks for the compliment, but you know I'm ugly as sin, but Allison
Rose is a dead-ringer for her mother, hair, eyes, the whole package.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice
480)460-2350 | || E-mail Address at Website Fax
480)460-2142 | Brass Rat || http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
B
Barry Watzman
Guest
That's good advice IF there is room, but inside a laptop, there often isn't.
Don Bruder wrote:
Don Bruder wrote:
E
exxos
Guest
"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
newsfb0h0hiv6eoe3bsg0inrrb4ush9ph0j9k@4ax.com...
assuming you made a backup of the 2 folders first, you simply copy them
back, I do this all the time.
Chris
news
fb0h0hiv6eoe3bsg0inrrb4ush9ph0j9k@4ax.com...assuming you made a backup of the 2 folders first, you simply copy them
back, I do this all the time.
Chris
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice
| E-mail Address at Website Fax
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
B
Bob Myers
Guest
"Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7l2Qc.66$X32.13@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
information that identifies individual pixels within the video
signal (even though that may be a convenient way for the
video to be thought of in some cases), this has absolutely
NOTHING to do with "the signals that allowed the monitor
to 'know' and react to what was going on..." The only
change in the signal set that the monitor sees, recognizes,
and acts upon are the changes to the horizontal and vertical
sync timing, PERIOD. To bring up the notion of "discrete
pixels" in such a discussion is irrelevant, misleading, and
simply incorrect.
"single-pixel" details, the output of the ADC may NEVER
be at the nominal intended voltage level corresponding
to the ADC input, except for the briefest of instants during
transition.
Bob M.
news:7l2Qc.66$X32.13@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
Exactly. And since the monitor does NOT see any
information that identifies individual pixels within the video
signal (even though that may be a convenient way for the
video to be thought of in some cases), this has absolutely
NOTHING to do with "the signals that allowed the monitor
to 'know' and react to what was going on..." The only
change in the signal set that the monitor sees, recognizes,
and acts upon are the changes to the horizontal and vertical
sync timing, PERIOD. To bring up the notion of "discrete
pixels" in such a discussion is irrelevant, misleading, and
simply incorrect.
There's not even a need to examine it THAT fast; for
"single-pixel" details, the output of the ADC may NEVER
be at the nominal intended voltage level corresponding
to the ADC input, except for the briefest of instants during
transition.
Bob M.