I need a concrete answer as to if I would see a difference in image quality on a 1600x900 60fps LCD 20 inch monitor if I switched that monitor from VGA input to DVI input?
I have searched everywhere and it all seems to be bias, even from seemingly reliable sources; VGA is old, therefore it is bad. Some people see the difference, some don't. I have been using VGA and honestly think it looks crisp and detailed, no artifacts, blurryness, or distortion that people seem to bring up with VGA. Some others have mentioned motion blur and shadowing.
So I turn to you /g/, will I see a difference? My monitor didn't come with a DVI cable so I'd have to buy one separately.
On monitors I've used, the difference depends on if the panel is any good.
On a shit monitor you probably won't notice, but a decent one you likely will, I definitely have.
It might be less of an issue on low resolutions but anything 1080+ I would always go digital.
Do you read at all? I do not have a DVI cable yet and am wondering (eg. DO NOT HAVE A FUCKING DVI CABLE TO TEST WITH) if I would see a difference.
I'm a "if it works it works" kinda guy, and all this hate on VGA just seems to apply to higher resolution and people with confirmation bias because VGA is old now.
Get the fuck out of my thread, you're the useless one.
if you're using a high quality, reasonably short (say <5m) VGA cable, then you'd be unlikely to notice a difference
a low quality DVI cable beats a low quality VGA cable though, simply because the image is digital (if you get a picture, it's perfect. vga varies)
Really don't know anything about that monitor, so I really can't say whether it will make a difference.
As you said, if it works it works, and it sounds like it's working for you. But a DVI cable is what, less than $5? might as well try it, but it's hardly a pressing matter if you don't think there's anything wrong with VGA.
mainly I've heard reports of image being sharper, text being clearer and more crisp, as well as higher resolution support.
This wouldn't be a problem if everyone had this experience, but it seems to vary from person to person so I'm very confused.
$5 is cheap, you're right, but I've been scammed before buying cheap cables and wasn't sure if that was the price range, I was thinking more like $20 just to be safe. Do you think I'd have issues with a low quality DVI cable, or is every cable the same? (Doesn't apply to the different versions of DVI such as DVI-I, DVI-D, etc)
>I need a concrete answer as to if I would see a difference in image quality
the problem is that you want an objective answer for something that is subjective
IS there a difference? yes
will YOU notice the difference? only you could say
the only way to know if YOU can tell using YOUR monitor and cable is to get a dvi cable and try it
either way the difference should be minimal, if you have any half-decent VGA cable
Any DVI will do. It's a digital cable, so it'll be fine. Like how a $3 HDMI cable is as good as a $400 one. For that monitor just get whatever digital DVI cable they have for cheapest.
Worry about the -X suffixes when using high end or high resolution monitors (>fullHD)
What I've noticed most on monitors I've compared VGA and DVI on are, sharper lines (text especially) and less washed out colours. And it was immediately noticeable.
Do you notice background noise on dark areas, like waves shifting in a direction? Do dark points leave any shadow on the surrounding white areas? Is text blurred or smeared, especially horizontally?
If so, DVI will solve those problems.
VGA standard has no problem with your resolution.
But the quality of the ADC in the VGA monitors today gets shit on since they know most HDMI and don't want to spend more than needed on a dead standard.
If you had a high-end CRT you'd understand but it seems you don't so that's why I'm telling you all this.
Take a look at this sad thing:
Then look at this:
Notice any difference
It's 2014. A DVI from monoprice costs $4.31. Spend the fiver, plug it in, see for your fucking self and maybe, just maybe, learn something for once in your sad, pathetic, worthless life. Faggot.
>I was thinking more like $20 just to be safe.
So you're one of the fuckin retards that think gold contacts make a difference, go then and get scammed you dork, /g/ can't help you.
No, but when you buy cheap cables and get screwed, you are hesitant to buy cheap cables again, even if it makes no difference because experience shapes your reality. I said nothing about gold contacts.
>bring a DVI cable from home to work to connect my 2nd monitor instead of using the shitty fuzzy VGA cable they gave me
>all their machines have DVI ports with less pins than my standard DVI cable
>mfw have to use shitty fuzzy 60hz VGA connection on my 2nd monitor
Whoever wrote that is a retard, pretty sure single link dvi-i can do 1920x1080. it just has the extra pins for the conversion to analog if needed. >>45317365
>STILL using VGA..
>time to kill yourself.
1600*1200 is a typical No screen/noGPU driver detected setting in Win7 though.
I used to go 1600*1200 before I had my drivers installed, and since my monitor supports correct ratio settings it doesn't stretch the image.
I saw a difference running VGA compared to DVI. The image isn't as clear and moves a tiny bit. If you have a premium (thick, with ferrite cores) VGA cable and it's short, the difference probably won't be noticeable. If you have a shitty VGA cable, you should definitely replace it with DVI.
VGA is analog.
DVI is digital.
VGA has ghosting, because it's analog.
VGA has thick cables, because it's analog.
DVI doesn't have ghosting, because it's digital.
DVI either works or doesn't, because it's digital.
DVI supports high quality extension cable solutions, because it's digital.
Such as fiber optic cable extensions like these:
http://www.ophit.com/products/product_view.asp?boardid=1&num=7&ptitle=DVI fiber optic 4ch : DDL
Quantum3D uses these DVI extenders for aviation simulators that cost tens of thousands of dollars.