or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays › A Salute To The Humble Direct View Tube TV.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Salute To The Humble Direct View Tube TV. - Page 9  

post #241 of 261
I feel as if I'm caught in a 'space/time continuum' Dr. Brown!

I guess that even with an implant directly to the brain, providing direct stimulation to the visual cortex, it's all for naught? Alas... I guess it's still analog!

Will there ever be true digital nirvana?
post #242 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by xrox
I won't argue about humans beieng digital or analog as I don't think it is a proper word to use for that context. Even your explanation is convoluted to say the least as now you are introducing the variable of time?

I agree with you that there is an argument that human perception is analog. But I think it is more complex than just analog.

I will go by what the definition of digital and analog are in the context of electronics. I won't post them as they are generally known. I think manufacturers have it right when they seperate the two for display nomenclature.

I just think they are right :)
Well think about the time component. Given unlimited time division there is no real device that is truly discrete. Its an ideal device that doesnt exist. Computer now are so fast we think of them as almost ideal devices but they arent. They are just very very fast.

The concept of instantly on or off doesnt exist, so if you run the time component down low enough the device is no longer functioning discretely.

Time factors are implict to all computer architecture. It cycles against a given amount of time. Only be specifying a time component, whereby the components can act discretely, are they functionally discrete.

Any switch example. ON - some amount of time - OFF

There is no such thing as perfectly discrete. Its discrete against x time interval. I dont think thats convoluted.

ss
post #243 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by Ratman
I feel as if I'm caught in a 'space/time continuum' Dr. Brown!

I guess that even with an implant directly to the brain, providing direct stimulation to the visual cortex, it's all for naught? Alas... I guess it's still analog!

Will there ever be true digital nirvana?
IMO analog input is vastly superior to digital input. Its just not as easily quantify and most importantly stored and transferred over vast distances. Because digital data is discrete and difficult to misinterpret. It transfers with much greater quality retention. But ultimately its just trying to mimic the much more complex and subtle anaolg source on which it is based.

The advantage thus far to digital is not outright superiority, its superiority in delivery. And that is a big deal.

Is a 2048p transfer of Friends better than sitting in the studio audience yourself given the same field of view? Not by a long shot.

Is that digital version superior to any bandwidth analog signal I can think of short of 35mm+ film delivered to your house. Yes it is.

ss
post #244 of 261
And... there's not a darned thing anyone can do about it.
The technological direction is what it is...
post #245 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Well think about the time component. Given unlimited time division there is no real device that is truly discrete. Its an ideal device that doesnt exist. Computer now are so fast we think of them as almost ideal devices but they arent. They are just very very fast.

The concept of instantly on or off doesnt exist, so if you run the time component down low enough the device is no longer functioning discretely.

Time factors are implict to all computer architecture. It cycles against a given amount of time. Only be specifying a time component, whereby the components can act discretely, are they functionally discrete.

Any switch example. ON - some amount of time - OFF

There is no such thing as perfectly discrete. Its discrete against x time interval. I dont think thats convoluted.

ss

I disagree.

Imagine I have a computer that consists of just a processor and a hard drive. Lets say the processor is somehow linked to the hard drive such that it can only process one cycle as the hard drive spins one sector. Let's also say I have to spin the hard drive manually--with my hand. Obviously, there is no time, x, that can be used as a measure of discreteness because I spin the hard drive at randomdly fluctuating speeds. However, as I spin the drive, the data is still being read discretely.

What happens if the restriction is removed from the processor and it is allowed to process any random number of cycles for each sector the hard drive is spun? The device breaks; it is no longer functional, it is neither continous nor discrete, not analog nor digital.

The point is, there IS such thing as perfectly discrete. A device is discrete against each unit of input data, not time. The reason time is often a variable is because it is easier and more useful to design machines/protocols that use time as part of a measure of one unit. In my example above, one unit is one sector on the hard drive and time never plays a role, but it is still discrete. Computers aren't considered discrete because they operate so fast, they are discrete because they operate on unconnected distinct units of input. In the case of computers, time is only used to describe how fast they process those units of input.
post #246 of 261
Digital deals with real numbers. analog can deal with irrational numbers. What is really needed is a system that can use imaginary numbers...oh I forgot! We already have the imaginary system here at the forum--it's what is used to make each person's own personal purchase seem to be the greatest in Picture Quality!
post #247 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by JVries
I disagree.

Imagine I have a computer that consists of just a processor and a hard drive. Lets say the processor is somehow linked to the hard drive such that it can only process one cycle as the hard drive spins one sector. Let's also say I have to spin the hard drive manually--with my hand. Obviously, there is no time, x, that can be used as a measure of discreteness because I spin the hard drive at randomdly fluctuating speeds. However, as I spin the drive, the data is still being read discretely.

What happens if the restriction is removed from the processor and it is allowed to process any random number of cycles for each sector the hard drive is spun? The device breaks; it is no longer functional, it is neither continous nor discrete, not analog nor digital.

The point is, there IS such thing as perfectly discrete. A device is discrete against each unit of input data, not time. The reason time is often a variable is because it is easier and more useful to design machines/protocols that use time as part of a measure of one unit. In my example above, one unit is one sector on the hard drive and time never plays a role, but it is still discrete. Computers aren't considered discrete because they operate so fast, they are discrete because they operate on unconnected distinct units of input. In the case of computers, time is only used to describe how fast they process those units of input.
Youve moved outside of the scope of the discussion. Discrete data without the ability to apply it is pointless. What is going on inside the processor is the key. The stream of data is digital. Hows its accessed is pointless. Just like I said you could build an analog operated DLP. The data could still be digital.

Youre confusing intent with application. Which is inherent to my point actually. Effectively the outcomes are quite similar.

ss
post #248 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Youve moved outside of the scope of the discussion.
No I didn't. You did. I am replying within the frame of context created by your remarks.

Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Well think about the time component. Given unlimited time division there is no real device that is truly discrete. Its an ideal device that doesnt exist. Computer now are so fast we think of them as almost ideal devices but they arent. They are just very very fast.
No frame of context pertaining to specific subject matter, just a very broad statement about the existence of discrete devices.

Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Time factors are implict to all computer architecture. It cycles against a given amount of time. Only be specifying a time component, whereby the components can act discretely, are they functionally discrete.
Scope of discussion: Importance of time on the discreteness of computer architecture.

Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
There is no such thing as perfectly discrete. Its discrete against x time interval. I dont think thats convoluted.
Another universal proposition with no specific context. I have already explained how this is wrong.

Back to your response:

Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Discrete data without the ability to apply it is pointless.
I never claimed the contrary. Which reminds me, I've noticed strawmen have an strong affinity for entering your posts.

Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
What is going on inside the processor is the key. The stream of data is digital. Hows its accessed is pointless. Just like I said you could build an analog operated DLP. The data could still be digital.

Youre confusing intent with application. Which is inherent to my point actually. Effectively the outcomes are quite similar.
My example may be unfinished, but I expected it to be sufficient to show that time is NOT a factor in determining a devices discreteness.

I said the processor in my example operates one cycle for one unit of input.

To finish connecting the dots for you, imagine I have a second hard drive in my original example that is linked to the processor in a similar fashion as the first. For each sector that is read from the first hard drive, the processor inverts the value and write it to the corresponding next sector the second hard drive. We now have a perfectly discrete/digital device--input, processing, and output. Which reaffirms my point, your claim is wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by JVries
Computers aren't considered discrete because they operate so fast, they are discrete because they operate on unconnected distinct units of input.
I hope you enjoyed attacking this statement as if it were the whole of my argument.

I can concede this statement is not entirely accurate. However, it is not my entire argument, it is merely a response to your claim that computers are so fast they are wrongly thought to be discrete. The rest of my argument holds and proves you are wrong; there are perfectly discrete devices.
post #249 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by JVries
No I didn't. You did. I am replying within the frame of context created by your remarks.



No frame of context pertaining to specific subject matter, just a very broad statement about the existence of discrete devices.



Scope of discussion: Importance of time on the discreteness of computer architecture.



Another universal proposition with no specific context. I have already explained how this is wrong.

Back to your response:



I never claimed the contrary. Which reminds me, I've noticed strawmen have an strong affinity for entering your posts.



My example may be unfinished, but I expected it to be sufficient to show that time is NOT a factor in determining a devices discreteness.

I said the processor in my example operates one cycle for one unit of input.

To finish connecting the dots for you, imagine I have a second hard drive in my original example that is linked to the processor in a similar fashion as the first. For each sector that is read from the first hard drive, the processor inverts the value and write it to the corresponding next sector the second hard drive. We now have a perfectly discrete/digital device--input, processing, and output. Which reaffirms my point, your claim is wrong.



I hope you enjoyed attacking this statement as if it were the whole of my argument.

I can concede this statement is not entirely accurate. However, it is not my entire argument, it is merely a response to your claim that computers are so fast they are wrongly thought to be discrete. The rest of my argument holds and proves you are wrong; there are perfectly discrete devices.
Its sounding to me like you are more into semantics than helpful data. The processor does indeed function against a discrete clock. How the data is accessed is pointless, digital data used to be stored on magnetic tape. What is processing the digital data is on a clock. If you run the input high enough(if allowed to) the processor will fail to function, you will exceed its cyclic rate and its discrete switcing capability. All switches have an inherent cylce rate, be they the finest microswitches known to man.

How the data is accessed is non-sequitor. Data access is at best tangential to the discussion. What difference does it make how the digital data is accessed unless you are also using that as a time limiting factor, of which there are many more unrelated and more important one could offer?

So since you seem to think it is cogent, lemme ask you more directly, how is how the digital data is accessed important to its inherent discreteness? The access type unless I am mistaken doesnt affect the nature of the data. And why this is important to any discussion we have ongoing or makes my statements incorrect, eludes me.

Perhaps you could explain.

Time is a function of discreteness unless you are limiting yourself to non-functional digital data sitting on a shalf wainting to be accessed. And what would be the point of discussing that?

ss
post #250 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Its sounding to me like you are more into semantics than helpful data. The processor does indeed function against a discrete clock. How the data is accessed is pointless, digital data used to be stored on magnetic tape. What is processing the digital data is on a clock. If you run the input high enough(if allowed to) the processor will fail to function, you will exceed its cyclic rate and its discrete switcing capability. All switches have an inherent cylce rate, be they the finest microswitches known to man.

How the data is accessed is non-sequitor. Data access is at best tangential to the discussion. What difference does it make how the digital data is accessed unless you are also using that as a time limiting factor, of which there are many more unrelated and more important one could offer?

So since you seem to think it is cogent, lemme ask you more directly, how is how the digital data is accessed important to its inherent discreteness? The access type unless I am mistaken doesnt affect the nature of the data. And why this is important to any discussion we have ongoing or makes my statements incorrect, eludes me.

Perhaps you could explain.

Time is a function of discreteness unless you are limiting yourself to non-functional digital data sitting on a shalf wainting to be accessed. And what would be the point of discussing that?

ss
You must have missed my post? My handle is "JVries." Read my last response. It answers the above questions.

I thought I had explained myself clearly enough already, but to save you the time of repeating the exact same questions in your next post, I will distill this down further for you--I give you the cliff notes version. You claim:

Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
There is no such thing as perfectly discrete. Its discrete against x time interval.
I gave you a counter-example of a perfectly discrete device where time does not play a factor. Therefore, you are wrong. No disputes about semantics and frankly, claiming such is a cop out.

Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
If you run the input high enough(if allowed to) the processor will fail to function, you will exceed its cyclic rate and its discrete switcing capability.
Thank you for stating the obvious. I have already pointed this out almost exactly in a previous post, but I'm just glad you were able to retain something.

Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Time is a function of discreteness unless you are limiting yourself to non-functional digital data sitting on a shalf wainting to be accessed.
Good. Then you agree that I am right and your claim is wrong. You now understand that time is not a neccessary factor in a devices discreteness and perfectly discrete devices do exist.

Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
I have definitely been wrong before and will be again...
I agree.
post #251 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by JVries
You must have missed my post? My handle is "JVries." Read my last response. It answers the above questions.

I thought I had explained myself clearly enough already, but to save you the time of repeating the exact same questions in your next post, I will distill this down further for you--I give you the cliff notes version. You claim:


I gave you a counter-example of a perfectly discrete device where time does not play a factor. Therefore, you are wrong. No disputes about semantics and frankly, claiming such is a cop out.


Thank you for stating the obvious. I have already pointed this out almost exactly in a previous post, but I'm just glad you were able to retain something.


Good. Then you agree that I am right and your claim is wrong. You now understand that time is not a neccessary factor in a devices discreteness and perfectly discrete devices do exist.


I agree.
Youre cute when you angry. To bad your point is still pointless.

Now I am seeing your "point." If you match the time of the input and the processor to each other you have created discreteness without a time factor. I dont think I every disputed EFFECTIVELY discrete devices exist, quite to the contrary. Care to quote me otherwise?

Your point is computers work when data and processor match - WOW, you figure that out all by yourself? My point was and has been if you drive the any switch past its cyclic rate it will no longer function discretely.

Scroll up and read -again.:p

Or better yet, lemme save you the scroll quote:

Quote:
The concept of instantly on or off doesnt exist, so if you run the time component down low enough the device is no longer functioning discretely.

Time factors are implict to all computer architecture. It cycles against a given amount of time. Only be specifying a time component, whereby the components can act discretely, are they functionally discrete.
You are indeed fluent in straw man.

ss
post #252 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Youre cute when you angry.
That's mildly disturbing to read and it's unfortunate that you must resort to such comments. However, understandable, as I'm sure you know ( :rolleyes: )Argumentum ad Hominem is commonly used in a debate out of despair. Tsk tsk... Rest assured, I am not angry. Quite the opposite really. :)
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
I dont think I every disputed EFFECTIVELY discrete devices exist, quite to the contrary.
Uh uh.... careful, looks like you accidentally dropped another red herring. I never said you disputed the existence of EFFECTIVELY (actual, real) discrete devices. However, you did say that there are no perfectly discrete devices, that a device can only be discrete if measured against time. This is the point I am refuting. Understand yet?
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Care to quote me otherwise?
Sure. For the third time:
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
There is no such thing as perfectly discrete. Its discrete against x time interval.
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Well think about the time component. Given unlimited time division there is no real device that is truly discrete. Its an ideal device that doesnt exist.
These are your absolute statements. IMO, there is little room for misinterpretation here. However, I invite you to tell me your interpretation of these. Be careful not to play a game of semantics.
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Your point is computers work when data and processor match - WOW, you figure that out all by yourself?
No. I didn't figure it out all by myself... as I alluded to eariler, this is common knowledge. And that wasn't even my point (you love fish, don't you?). The point is that perfectly discrete devices exist; that time is not a necessary factor in determining a devices discreteness. I know the other readers are thinking I sure sound like a broken record, but I'll say it again if you still don't understand.
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
My point was and has been if you drive the any switch past its cyclic rate it will no longer function discretely.
And to this I say "cyclic rate" is a measurement of speed, not discreteness. But for arguments sake, lets run with your statement. If you push a switch past its cyclic rate, not only is it not functioning discretely, it is not functioning at all! So if that WAS, IS, and HAS BEEN your original point, you're STILL wrong. Hmm... this sounds familiar too... oh here it is:
Quote:
Originally posted by JVries
What happens if the restriction is removed from the processor and it is allowed to process any random number of cycles for each sector the hard drive is spun? The device breaks; it is no longer functional, it is neither continous nor discrete, not analog nor digital.
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
You are indeed fluent in straw man.
Very witty and original. Where did you get that? Certainly not my last post... :rolleyes:

As fun as it is, showing you your mistakes and teaching you how to carry a proper debate, I'm really just repeating myself. I recommend you read my posts again until you get it, it'll save you and I a lot of unnecessary typing.
post #253 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
Just like I said you could build an analog operated DLP. The data could still be digital.
ss
I don't think this is possible?

DLP:
- the light source intensity cannot be varied by voltage modulation, it has to be varied by discrete pulsed/time intervals which our eyes then integrate.

Plasma:
- same story, light cannot be varied by voltage modulation but rather by subfield (ADS) which is a discrete signal.


LCD
- light can be varied by voltage modultaion (polarizers respond to varied voltages, so it could by made to operate analog AND HAS infact been done!)


So how could you make a DLP operate in analog?
post #254 of 261
I heard once that an audio engineer produced a laser that could read an analog LP--it cost $100,000!
post #255 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by JVries
That's mildly disturbing to read and it's unfortunate that you must resort to such comments. However, understandable, as I'm sure you know ( :rolleyes: )Argumentum ad Hominem is commonly used in a debate out of despair. Tsk tsk... Rest assured, I am not angry. Quite the opposite really. :)

Uh uh.... careful, looks like you accidentally dropped another red herring. I never said you disputed the existence of EFFECTIVELY (actual, real) discrete devices. However, you did say that there are no perfectly discrete devices, that a device can only be discrete if measured against time. This is the point I am refuting. Understand yet?

Sure. For the third time:


These are your absolute statements. IMO, there is little room for misinterpretation here. However, I invite you to tell me your interpretation of these. Be careful not to play a game of semantics.

No. I didn't figure it out all by myself... as I alluded to eariler, this is common knowledge. And that wasn't even my point (you love fish, don't you?). The point is that perfectly discrete devices exist; that time is not a necessary factor in determining a devices discreteness. I know the other readers are thinking I sure sound like a broken record, but I'll say it again if you still don't understand.

And to this I say "cyclic rate" is a measurement of speed, not discreteness. But for arguments sake, lets run with your statement. If you push a switch past its cyclic rate, not only is it not functioning discretely, it is not functioning at all! So if that WAS, IS, and HAS BEEN your original point, you're STILL wrong. Hmm... this sounds familiar too... oh here it is:


Very witty and original. Where did you get that? Certainly not my last post... :rolleyes:

As fun as it is, showing you your mistakes and teaching you how to carry a proper debate, I'm really just repeating myself. I recommend you read my posts again until you get it, it'll save you and I a lot of unnecessary typing.
LOL. Still wrong.

My definition of perfectly discrete device is one that is instantly on or off, only operating in on and off mode. Which is clearly stated in my post. Try reading again. There is in reality no such device. All known real devices operate between off and on. So again if you reduce the time interval low enough ALL real devices fail to be discrete. If you dont understand this, I cant explain it further.

Your example is if you match input with processing it operates discretely. You think? :p Your example has nothing to do with my post.

You, for one, are at least proud of your argumentative skills though. Hope that salves being wrong. ;)

ss
post #256 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by xrox
I don't think this is possible?

DLP:
- the light source intensity cannot be varied by voltage modulation, it has to be varied by discrete pulsed/time intervals which our eyes then integrate.

Plasma:
- same story, light cannot be varied by voltage modulation but rather by subfield (ADS) which is a discrete signal.


LCD
- light can be varied by voltage modultaion (polarizers respond to varied voltages, so it could by made to operate analog AND HAS infact been done!)


So how could you make a DLP operate in analog?
At the cycle rate that DLP operates you definitely could feed each micromirror an analog square way and it would function virtually identically to the digital version. This would be pointless and would create other problems(needles complication) but I cant see any reason it wouldnt be possible. The only way it might not be possible is the "digital" is implicit to the description of the tech itself. That might be a deal breaker, I dont know how the tech is actually defined. I might be wrong about that on the technicality but the point I was trying to make is the performance of the chips behavior fed proper analog would be virtually identical.

And the only reason for my even noting it is just to show that the advantages of digital are in the purity of the delivery not necessarily in the actual performance of the device. Because you are trying to keep the signal as pure to its origins as possible and it is now digital, the later the digital signal extends into the actual display, theoretically the better. And clearly DLP, LCD, LCoS were designed with digital signal in mind.

ss
post #257 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by subysouth
LOL. Still wrong.

My definition of perfectly discrete device is one that is instantly on or off, only operating in on and off mode. Which is clearly stated in my post. Try reading again. There is in reality no such device. All known real devices operate between off and on. So again if you reduce the time interval low enough ALL real devices fail to be discrete. If you dont understand this, I cant explain it further.

Your example is if you match input with processing it operates discretely. You think? :p Your example has nothing to do with my post.

You, for one, are at least proud of your argumentative skills though. Hope that salves being wrong. ;)

ss
Boy, oh boy... exactly the response I was expecting.

Which reminds me, did I mention I used to have a pet dog? Yeah, she was a light brown Chow Chow that we named Sparkles. Unfortunately, she is no longer with us. But I recall one weekend in her later years when I decided to try and teach her some new tricks. I borrowed books from the library, I asked advice of those with experience, I tried using rewards, I even brought over other trained dogs as an example. Try as I might, she just could not get any of it. All she would do was bark nonsense at me.

Anyways, the weekend came to an end and the responsibilities of work and life once again demanded my attention. And so, my mission had come to an end. I guess it was my fault for expecting too much. However, her miserable failure didn't stop her from trying to strut around with her head held high... ah, the shining example of ignorance. At least I and everyone else who witnessed her that weekend had a really good laugh. :p

And with that, I want to thank you, subysouth, for your valiant efforts at trying to understand and keep up... oh, how I miss Sparkles. Your correspondence these last few days has brought a smile to my face several times over. Keep fighting those strawmen!


Happy listening! Oh wait, almost forgot I'm not in the audio forums...

Happy viewing! :D


EDIT:
Quote:
My definition of perfectly discrete device is one that is instantly on or off, only operating in on and off mode.
Too bad this definition is completely wrong. Time and time again... good 'ol Sparkles.
post #258 of 261
I had a Cocker Spaniel that would sometimes watch TV and now have a cat that watches. They weren't trained to watch, have better vision than most humans--even though the dog could see very little color and their brains aren't that sophisticated compared to humans, but evidently they don't have any trouble with the dots or the resolution inadequacies. They take a naturalistic philosophy to their viewing habits, are content, and will simply quit watching if the content of the show isn't to their liking. It strikes me as curious that animals can take or leave TV, but some humans have real crises about their displays not being good enough..it makes you wonder who are the smarter creatures!
post #259 of 261
Santa's watching!
:D :D :D
post #260 of 261
Quote:
Originally posted by reality intrudes
Santa's watching!
:D :D :D
Hugs and kisses all day long:) .

ss
post #261 of 261
I'll even pet my cat!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays › A Salute To The Humble Direct View Tube TV.