Originally Posted by GlenC
As for the AGNG, if memory serves me, it totally illuminates the full raster even if the image doesn't fill the raster.
I think that certianly makes sense. In my case, I believe I was using an "Image" which does fill the entire raster, so perhaps that is why I did not notice a difference in raster "size", or any differences at the edge of the raster with AGNG=0 vs. AGNG=2.
Originally Posted by GlenC
Every adjustment can come into play during a major re-configuration, size, phase, linearity, position and on and on and on.
The settings of the magnetic rings on the neck of the tube can also affect centering.
Excellent post Glen(in it's entirety) ! And, I don't think the first quote above concerning how "every adjustment can come into play" can be stressed enough for those who may not be completely familiar with such "issues", and also the importance of writing down the factory adjusted values before you change anything, in case you need to go back to it ...
Having went through this on another set/model of DV-CRT I own, which was extremely poorly aligned at the factory in this regard -- and, given that on that set, after much time and effort I was able to make significant improvements from the factory settings, I am certianly very aware of everything you've said ... I would not want to add up the time I spent with deflection issues on that particular set .. However, given the set was an inexpenisve model, seeing the results of the improvements made was quite "satisfiying" ...
Anyhow -- Concerning my Sony DA-4 Chassis set(KD34XBR960) - On my particular set -- a few things I've noticed which I think are along those lines follow :
While HCNT=38 (the factory adjusted value) centers raster horizontally on my set, HCNT=40 offers slightly(very slighly) improved horizontal linearity. As another example, change "SLIN" value, and I(and I expect everyone else who changes it) will need to adjust HSIZ as well for proper aspect ratio.
As another example, the value used for VPOS effects geometry(SCRL doesn't) : perhaps most visably to an extent somewhat similar(but still "different") to the effects of "PPHA", and perhaps in a slightly "different" way, somewhat similar to the effects of VANG/LANG, and also I believe the "straightness" of horizontal lines are effected slightly by VPOS as well. I have in fact spent a bit of time trying to see if I can find a value for VPOS that makes things "better" than the factory value(as a similar adjustment on another model set made for quite an improvement) -- enough time to say with confidence the factory value of 26 is best ....
On my set, I suspect the permalloy assemblies(magnets - i.e. "chevron magnets") placed on the back of the tube in various places at the factory may also be a factor concerning "geometry" issues, particluarly perhaps why I expect It may be difficult to improve upon the factory adjusted SM values concerning a couple of "small" distortions, given the alignment in this regard already performed at the factory.
Luckily, however -- On my particular set, although I have spent a bit of time improving, or trying to improve geometry issues(various small "distortions", lets say), and I have been able to achieve some improvement while making sure I haven't made anything "worse" -- more improvement probably really isn't necessary, nor do I feel motivated to spend much more time on it.
Thankfully for the most part it seems they did a fairly good job with alignment of this set at the factory, perhaps especially in regards to deflection, or "geometry". Concerning effects of Earth's magnetic field, perhaps it is beneficial to some very small degree that I'm only a few hundred miles West of the plant in Eastern PA where the set was assembled, as I believe the effects of the Earth's magnetic field should be extremely similar, and, my set does face west(not because I planned it that way, just by luck I suppose), which I believe I had read is how the set is to be placed for alignment ....
For instance : Vertical Linearity(as evidenced by "measuring" the distance between horizontal lines with a cross hatch pattern up) was/is right on the money from the factory. And most thankfully, there are no "bends" in horizontal lines which are "generally" noticable, nor is there much more than a 1/16" or so difference along any Horizontal line in a cross-hatch pattern as measured from say, the bezel as a reference point. Circles in the AVIA 16x9 circle hatch pattern are circles ---- although, with HCNT=38(factory adjusted "default" value on my set) the small right circles are slightly wider than tall, and the small left circles are very slightly taller than wide - not noticable by looking at them really -- but noticable via measurement - They're perfect circles with HCNT=40, and yes, that inprovement in Horizontal linearity (Note: also evidenced by measuring the distance between vertical lines "across the screen" in cross hatch pattern and comparing any differences in different portions of screen)includes using all factory set values being used other than HCNT=40....
On my set(only relevant to my set of course, although perhaps it may be of some small value for folks) --- To quickly summarize What I have done regarding geometry+overscan which has involved changes+improvement (of course, I don't keep any changes that don't offer any improvments) has been :
#1) Reducing overscan to about 4.5%(it was about 8% from the factory - yikes)
#2). changing S-correction parameter slightly -- "SLIN=6" from "SLIN=5" factory value - which not only slightly improved the "straightness" of vertical lines, but also improved horizontal Linearity, as you might imagine.
3). Adjusted Blanking shutters(horizontal+vertical) slightly.
4). For proper AR to result for "zoom" mode, ASPT needed to be changed from factory value of "43" to "52". The factory default value of "43" results in "squished" circles(wider than they are tall, although proper AR/proper circles occur in say "full" or "normal" mode), including with all "factory" settings used elsewhere ..... I did find that rather odd, surely folks would rather have more of the top/bottom "cropped off" in "zoom mode" rather than to view programming(including letterboxed 16x9 programs) with distorted aspect ratio ..... As I do not believe it has been mentioned on this thread, I'm am curious if others have ran into this as well ....
I haven't settled yet on "HCNT=40"(slightly improved horizontal linearity) or "HCNT=38"(centers raster), as I haven't yet spent the time to detirmine whether or not HCNT=40 makes anything else "worse", and, I can't really see a difference just "looking at the screen" -- However, with overscan at around 4.5%, I can currently use either value for HCNT while keeping proper centering or causing any problems "on the edges" of the visable frame without changing anything else other than HPOS and RBLK/LBLK.
That was probably more than anyone wanted to know, Sorry!