Better monitor quality instead of touchscreen on the AIOs

When I first saw the MSI all-in-ones, I fell in love with the design - not so much with the touchscreen gimmick though. As I'm doing some graphic design in my free time, I wish MSI would do the following:
- take the Wind Top AE2220 Pro/Hi-Fi, give it a full 22" monitor without touchscreen function.
- with the costs saved from omitting the touchscreen, you give it a WUXGA resolution (1920x1200 pixels) for the same price and a proper, good quality panel technology like MVA, PVA, IPS or S-IPS, as I somewhere read it only has a crappy TN+Film one.
- who had the idea to place the power jack to the far left on the backside? Whenever we want to add a USB device, microphone or headphones, we might plug out the cable by mistake and crash the PC. Place it somewhere in the center on the back.
- VGA is deprecated, add a DVI port instead.
Currently the MSI all-in-ones seem more like toys, they could be good iMac competitors and my next computer if the above mentioned things were changed.

Most MSI AIO machines are available without touch screens for a reduced price. I chose the 20" multi-touch version as a barebones system and outfitted it with a much faster processor, memory and hard drive than MSI does. For about the same total outlay, I built up a machine that's a cut above the standard MSI AIO in performance. Then there's the screen. I specifically wanted multi-touch, and I wanted one of the better touch technologies available. I believe I got that. What about the quality of the LCD monitor itself? It's not bad, but not as good as the Samsung professional series monitors I have on my desktop. I'm not sure I'd want to do any serious graphics design work on it primarily because of its ability to produce accurate colors. It's bright enough, just not an accurate color producer (no, I have not tried to calibrate it).
MSI AIO machines are not toys. However, they are competitively priced consumer grade machines, and not professional workstations. Part of being competitive is keeping the costs down. This can lead to less than optimal choices for the placement of connectors. I agree about the power jack. I suggest an inexpensive USB hub to keep your hands away from the power jack. The video input and output port choices seem a little odd to me. Mine has VGA and DVI inputs, not outputs. Luckily for me, I don't need either.
In general, I'm pleased with my MSI AIO. It consumes minimal power and is a good performer for the applications I use it for. My grandchildren enjoy the Microsoft Surface games I installed. I can edit photos just like I see on the iPad commercials.
Bye.

Similar Messages

Why is my samsung monitor quality is so poor after the lastest os update?

I recently updated my mac pro and the monitor qulity just turned very poor on me
all the options seems to be gone now
the text qulity is very poor
and the colour is also very poor.
everything was fine before the update what happened?

Hi julianju,
If you are having issues with the image quality on your external display after a recent OS update, you may find the following article helpful:
Apple computers: Troubleshooting issues with video on internal or external displays
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1573
Regards,
- Brenden

Can I modify the Export to... iTunes settings for better audio quality and compression?

I am working on some Music Videos to DJ at a party with, I notice that when I export them as .mov files with Final Cut HD Express, they have 320 kbps and 44.100 kHz in the audio compression settings. Once I export them in Quicktime 10.2, using the File / Export to... / iTunes drop down menu, the Second, (ipad, iphone 4, & AppleTV) setting (not using HD, so the Mac and PC tab is not an option.) The final exported file, that plays great in itunes, appletv, ipad, etc. has a reduced quality audio of Bit Rate of 159 kbps (instead of 320 kbps) and Sample Rate of 32.000 kHz (instead of 44.100 kHz). Is there anyway to change these preset settings somehow?
The Formats on the File / Export / menu are even less dinamic?
I also noticed that some of the Music videos I purchased from the itunes store some years ago, have a 256 Kbps and 44.100 kHz setting. Which is better quality than the ones exported from Quicktime 10.
I thought maybe with Quicktime 7 Pro, I could fine tune all the presets, but it got too complicated for me, might this be an option? What would the settings be?
Using Widescreen 853 x 480 at full quality .mov file.
thanks.

I am working on some Music Videos to DJ at a party with, I notice that when I export them as .mov files with Final Cut HD Express, they have 320 kbps and 44.100 kHz in the audio compression settings. Once I export them in Quicktime 10.2, using the File / Export to... / iTunes drop down menu, the Second, (ipad, iphone 4, & AppleTV) setting (not using HD, so the Mac and PC tab is not an option.) The final exported file, that plays great in itunes, appletv, ipad, etc. has a reduced quality audio of Bit Rate of 159 kbps (instead of 320 kbps) and Sample Rate of 32.000 kHz (instead of 44.100 kHz). Is there anyway to change these preset settings somehow?
Your question basically has too facets. The first is the quality of the source audio in terms of sampling rate and data rate. Under normal circumstances you don't want to export the audio using a sample rate or per channel data rate that is lower than your original source if you are trying to maintain the quality as high as possible and, on the other hand, you don't want to use settings greater than the source values since they increase the final file size without improving the quality of the audio.
The second is the workflow. Since you indicate you are using FCE HD for editing, then using QT X to re-export the data seems somewhat redundant. While it has been many, many years since I last used FCE HD, if I remember correctly, you have both "Export QT Movie" and "Export using QT Conversion" options. The first option takes the audio and video format in which you are editing and merely copies the edited data in that format to a new MOV file container. On the other hand, the second option allows you export the edited data format directly to a user selected compression format using user selected options (but does assume the user knows how to best use these options). These are, BTW, the same export options available in QT 7 Pro.
I thought maybe with Quicktime 7 Pro, I could fine tune all the presets, but it got too complicated for me, might this be an option? What would the settings be?
What is so difficult here? If the source is DVD stereo quality (usually 48.0 KHz @ 192 Kbps then set your output for stereo 48.0 KHz @ 192 Kbps. If you wish to save a bit of file space, the you can use 48.0 KHz @ 160 Kbps but that is normally as low as I go. As to setting combinations in QT 7 Pro, once you set the sampling rate, the application becomes cuntextually adaptive and will only allow you to select data rates that are "standards" compliant and non-compliant ones are automatically greyed out. Rendering quality settings are self-explanatory. These are the basics if you are using a preset option like the "Movie to MPEG-4" export option. If using more complex options like the "Movie to QT Movie" option, then you will need to also consider how you plan to use your file to select the correct encoding strategy. For instance, a constant bit rate is good for optical media from the standpoint of providing a constant flow of data to the player. Unfortunately, this is not very efficient since it forces the quality to vary as it maintains the constant data rate. A variable but contarined data rate is also good for optical media or fast start online files but allows the data rate to vary between user selected data rate excursions and thus provides improved quality over the constant data rate strategy. The variable data rate allows the user to target a specific level of audio quality and will then allow the data rate to vary as needed to maintain a constant level of quality. This option is better suited for playback on a computer since the bit rate can vary greatly in magnitude. The average setting allows the user to target a specific average target data rate but allows it fluctuate as the encoder applies predictor-corrector adjustments. This option, like the constant data rate option, is good for average complexity content when creating a target file of predictable size but can somtimes have problems towards the end of the file if the content suddenly becomes more complex than predicted.
Using Widescreen 853 x 480 at full quality .mov file.
I would rarely recommend using the full quality slider setting. This is more of a redundancy setting forcing the encoder to recycle through certain encoding routines in an effort to improve quality without increasing the data rate. You would like do better to increase the video data rate limit and decrease the quality slider to something in the 50 to 80% range. You also indicate the files are 853x480. Such files are frequently the result of anamorphic widescreen MPEG-2 or DV source files. If so, I would normally recommend retaining this anamorphic strategy by encoding the H.264 video at the same 720x480 matrix dimensions and allowing the player to properly display the files at their targeted aspect ratio. This strategy will either allow for slightly better quality at the current video data rate setting or allow the user to retain the current level of quality using a slightly lower data rate which, in turn, means a slightly smaller final file size.

I would like to be able to size images by kilobytes instead of pixels--is this possible? I use I-Contact which requires a maximum of 70kb per image. For best quality I want to make the images as close to 70 as possible. Currently I choose a size of 300

I would like to be able to size images by kilobytes instead of pixels--is this possible? I use I-Contact which requires a maximum of 70kb per image. For best quality I want to make the images as close to 70 as possible. Currently I choose a size of 300 pixels on the shortest side but sometimes this gives me an image of slightly greater than 70kb and sometimes the image is just 30-40kb. Is there a way to be more precise in reaching but not exceeding 70 kb?

That is not a feature of iPhoto - suggest to Apple - iPhoto Menu ==> provide iPhoto feedback.
You can opnly resize using the available options and file size is not one of them
LN

Does the "new iPad" output better picture quality to an HDTV (via HDMI adapter) than the previous iPads? Or is it pretty much the same?

I'm currently using the iPad 2 to review photos and I also mirror it to an HDTV (via HDMI adapter). Does the "new iPad" output a better picture quality using the same connection method? This is mainly in reference to mirroring and not for watching movies/video.

Wundrbr3d-
I expect that video will be higher resolution since there is also a new HDMI adapter available for the iPad 3. I do not know if it is required for a lower resolution source, but probably is for higher resolution.
Fred

Controlling print quality from the touchscreen on the MG6320

Hello, I have a two-part question. I'm interested in controlling print quality from the touchscreen display.
1. Can I set print quality (i.e. - choose draft/fast mode) from the touchscreen display?
2, if I can and do set it there, will my selection apply to all future print jobs until I change the setting again, or will it just apply to the one print job in the queue at the time, etc?
I hope my questions are clear. Many thanks for your help.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Hi Ralp51,
The print quality of documents printed from your computer is controlled be the printer driver on the computer. The quality cannot be adjusted from the PIXMA MG6320 itself.
Did this answer your question? Please click the Accept as Solution button so that others may find the answer as well.

Preview low quality, how do I change the setting?

I am working with Adobe Premiere Pro CS4 with Windows Vista. The preview is showing in low quality. It makes it difficule to judge the quality of the footage. Is there a setting for this. I have looked in the preferences but didn't see anythig helpful.

Well, Jim there have been three users, IIRC, in the last year or so, where Auto performed better than with Highest. For me, Auto and Highest produce no noticeable difference (on my laptop's GeForce 8800m GTX, and do not even know about my Quadro FX-4500, as it's always been on Highest), and I would have assumed that Highest would always be the best - yet for 3 posters, it was not. Three is not a very large number, but if one considers the number of copies of PrPro sold, factor then by the number of people, who post here. Factor again by the number of posters with questions/problems with the quality of the display in Program Monitor. All of a sudden, 3 might take on statistical significance. I do not recall the video card from any of those posts - could have been the same, or more likely different. When I read the first response, that Auto had worked better, I dismissed it. As time went by and at least two others reported the same, I made a mental note of it - in some cases, it appears that Highest is NOT the best, hence my mention to try each and judge. Why would Auto do better than Highest? I have no clue, but would think that it might have something to do with the video card, its driver, or possibly individual settings in the driver's console, or maybe something like Hardware Acceleration in the OS.
So you can question all that you want. It could be that the posters lied, or became confused over which setting worked best for them, yet with 3, it seems a bit of a stretch.
To cover bases, I mentioned trying each to test, so in this case, the OP should be able to make that determination, with very little time lost - click, click, test.
If it's meaningful to you, perhaps spend the weekend pouring over the posts, say back 18 mos. and see exactly what the circumstances were, that yielded better results on Auto.
Happy reading,
Hunt
PS - I know that the threads were here, as PrE does not have a Program Monitor Quality setting - only Magnification

Why does 2 Airport Expresses connects to one another instead of connecting to the primary Airport Extreme For internet Connectivity ?

I have Netgear DG834G router only for dsl connectivity wifi connectivity to that router is off. i have connected netgear that provides adsl connectivity to the (Shakeel's Airport Extreme) Airport Extreme dual band Wireless N 5th generation via cat 5 cable so airport extreme is the main wifi device through which i get wifi signals at my home. now our house is big and i have installed the adsl netgear modem and airport extreme router at the same place in my room in the upper story but the signals are weak even in the upper story at the other end of the house so i have installed the new airport express dual band wireless N in the upper story (Kafeel's airport express) and it is connected to the primary airport extreme (Shakeel's Airport Extreme) wireless router in range extention mode it repeats the same ssid. Our ground floor has another airport express dual band wireless N the new one ( Lounge's airport express) signal was weak there so i installed another airport express (Lounge's Airport Express) their and configured it to extend the range of primary router airport extreme (Shakeel's Airport Extreme) in the upperstory with the same ssid. Now the problem i am facing that sometimes lounge's airport express connects to kafeel's airport express instead of connecting to the airport extreme and the signals in lounge are weak because all the devices are connected to kafeels airport express and does not connect to lounge air port express. but when lounge airport express is connected to primary router airport extreme then everything works fine devices connect to lounge airport express and signals are full. i have took pictures of the problem i am facing you will understand better by having a look at it. In normal working setup both the airport expresses are connected to airport extreme which is shown in this picture
The second picture shows when lounge airport express is connected to kafeels airport express and not the airport extreme (Shakeel's Airport Extreme) this is the problem.
isnt there a way to correct this so that they dont connect with each other and connect to the airport extreme ?

Lounge's AirPort Express must be located signficantly closer to Shakeel's AirPort Extreme than it is to Kafeel's AirPort Express, and there must be fewer obstructions in the signal path than the other possible connection.
The reason is that if you want Lounge's AirPort Express to connect to Shakeel's AirPort Extreme, it must receive a significantly stronger wireless signal from Shakeel's AirPort Extreme than it does from Kafeel's AirPort Express.

FCP DV Output to External Monitor Quality Problem

Hi there, I'm using Final Cut Pro HD from Final Cut Studio 2, and I'm having a problem with the quality of the image on my external monitor. I have checked all the settings etc... for external video and they all seem right, but when I play the video in my canvas the signal into my camera lcd and onto my ntsc monitor is not correct. It plays the video; however, it also has a constant stream of large grey squares flashing across the TV. I would say 50% of the output signal is my video, and then 50% of the screen is taken up by these large moving grey squares.
I have all my windows fit to screen, I've choosen the Apple FireWire NTSC option in the A/V settings, and I have the all frames checked in the View tab.
It seems like only half of the signal is making it's way from FCP to my camcorder. At first I thought it was my NTSC monitor, but when I saw that the grey squares are also showing up in my camcorder's lcd screen I figured that it must be a problem coming from FCP.
Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much!

You'd think so, but I'd try another anyway...
Another thing that might be amiss is the power management on your Mac. There is a PMU button on the motherboard of your machine you can reset. You need to unplug it from power first however. It's under the fan you can remove to add RAM...
Jerry

Image quality warning - can I shrink the photos

I have a 8x10 photo book that I'm trying to build using some old images of mine. The resolution on the old images is 1024 x 768 so iPhoto gives me the image quality resolution if I try to print 1 or 2 photos on a single page. Since I don't want fuzz images when I print the page I'd like to reduce the size of the images so they be okay when I print. iPhoto doesn't give you the option to reduce the size of the image. Can I through another application do some sort of workaround to get the images smaller with some sort of background to workaround this?
I wish iPhoto had a little more flexibility in this area.
MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.8)

iPhoto "books" require you image be 300 DPI (dots per inch).
Your Mac display is 72 dpi so your 1024X768 image would need to be made 4 times smaller in size. But this will still not get you 300 dpi and iPhoto will still display a warning no matter what.
GraphicConverter ($35) can change the dot per inch (it says ppi pixels per inch) in your image. It will also reduce it is size by a factor of 4 (very small image).
If you have the original images it would be better to scan them again and set the file to become 300 dpi. More work but larger prints in your book.

Poor quality TV programme downloads in the UK?

Hi,
I purchased a few episodes of spooks from the iTunes UK Store. I have to say it was a massive disappointment, the resolution looks way below normal PAL standards. It is also a disappointment that many of the programmes for sale that are aired on BBC HD are only available in SD and as before, at much lower quality than available watching on air.
Is this others experience too? I Would love to know what the actual resolution and compression is on these downloads.

The quality of encoding of iTunes Store material varies greatly.
The problem I feel is the diversity of the potential target playback device - things need to work on basic video ipods through iPod Touch/iPhone, computer and AppleTV with widely varying playback specs.
Ideally there would be several quality downloads available tailored to the output device of main use, with price inversely prorortional to quality/file size. perhaps there could be a nominal upgrade/downgarde fee for the other resolutions/quality or an option to buy a package.
The rentals are by and large quite good quality, but for purchases, to justify buying into a proprietary DRM video format for things you want to play for years to come, the quality:price ratio has to be good enough to make it a no-brainer to get the download rather than the DVD +/- converting the physical media.
There is also the fact that what we buy a DRM product which may become obsolete in a few years, and would have to buy products all over again. It may not be a problem, but there are no guarantees that these DRM files will be playable in years to come once the hardware it was designed for has been replaced.
Not sure about the US but as more TV Shows etc become available to buy, a large proprotion of comments at the UK store are complaints about pricing - the equivalent DVDs are often much cheaper; how many people are prepared to pay just for convenience especially if the quality might be poor?
Take as an example the first season of Bewitched - I'd love to have this for nostalgia as I quite enjoyed it as a child, but it costs nearly £43 and the equivalent DVD is £12 from Amazon.
I honestly could not imagine paying £43 for a TV Show season unless you were a pretty serious fan of that show, and in that case I bet you'd already have it on DVD.
The UK pricing structure seems to regard each show as though people 'must have' these shows with pricing to match - the main target audience to get decent sales should be broader, i.e. those who'd not be at all bothered if they didn't have the show to watch, but would probably buy three or four of such shows for the equivalent pricing of one currently.
I could buy the Bewitched DVD for £12 from Amazon, but I haven't watched a DVD for many months since having AppleTV. I could not be bothered converting a DVD of something like this to watch on AppleTV, but that will not make me spend silly money for the convenience of the download.
Yet again, pricing makes people who are prepared to pay for legal downloads feel it's not good value. The habitual illegal filesharers won't give a monkey's, nor will they be affected.
AC
Message was edited by: Alley_Cat

.swf file quality to dvd what is the magic path

This has always been a struggle trying to get .swf quality to the DVD and on web. I thought that when Adobe bought flash this will soon be a peace of cake. That has not been the case and I’m still trying to find the magic path. I have recently up graded from premiere 6 to premiere pro CSF to get upgrade of Encore 2.0 and what I thought was the silver bullet .swf import possible to premiere I thought this will cut down on the number of compressions and give the .swf quality on the DVD and much better web based quality as FLV files. The current movie which is by the way a deadline pay the bills type project publish fine as a .swf and has great screen qualities. It is my understanding that the new mpeg codecs that come with this upgrade are the choice for best DVD quality and web production when I import the .swf the movie export works fine for a while then windowsexporter.exe stops working and the process quits. So I guess maybe vista windows thing on my laptop so I up grade on my XP desktop and the program will not run at all and keeps crashing. So I find out file is probably to big to process so I split it down into smaller portion in flash and try to import the new smaller files and get error message file screen size to big when it is set to 720x480. I try sending directly to encore as suggested and get encode stopped unknown error. I can get an windows projector .exe file to process thank goodness that is keeping client happy for now but need to go on line and to dvd soon with much better quality than I get when I can get the movie to process in AVI which is really bad quality and not acceptable to deliver. Thanks in advance for any help deadline May 12 DVD in clients hands so this is chrunch time I need a fix or work around.

I don't think I understand what you mean by "SWF file quality" in relation to Encore.
Are you authoring to DVD? All video in the DVD-Video format is compressed to MPEG-2. If you're using SWF (FLV, really) for you source video, then you are starting with a highly-compressed format to begin with and it will be re-compressed to MPEG-2 when the DVD is built.
If you're not trying to use FLV for your source video, can you please explain the problem?

Monitor quality for LR4?

Has anyone described the effects of monitor quality on using LR4 to edit color photos? What effect
is this likely to have on quality?
Thank you,
Hersch Pilloff
[email protected]

I think this is an excellent point that many monitors may have problems at
low brightness values. Since human vision is adaptive and the eye tends to
evaluate colors relative to what is the whitest white and the eye sees very
similar brightnesses if the white sources have quite different temperatures
as long as they are physically well separated.
Are there any other examples you can describe? I have a background in
laser physics
and quantum optics but this seems to have a strong physiological
orientation and I have only an elementary knowledge of this.
Thanks,
Hersch Pilloff
[email protected]
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Victoria Bampton

Better video quality on my old G3 than my new iMac?!?!

How is this possible???
The visual quality of my new 17 inch 2 duo iMac 1.83 is horrendous. The screen detail and colors look like they're stuck in thousands instead of millions. Even though the resolution says otherwise (1440x900 millions).
As a test, I played the same exact divx video file on my old G3 pismo powerbook and on the new iMac using my VLC player.
And despite the iMacs supposedly superior 3D card, screen resolution, intel-processor, and every other improvement over the past 7 years since I bought my G3 powerbook, the video image on the iMac is flat-out HORRIBLE!
On the old powerbook, every shade and color of the video is there. Crystal clear. On the new iMac, it's as if nothing but the 3 primary colors are available.
Is this because of the intel processor's need to borrow ram for video? I have 512MBs installed. Do I have to install a ton more just to get the same visual quality of my G3 powerbook?
Am I crazy? Is my iMac defective? Or are the new intel-chips that lame when it comes to VRAM?
Thanks in adavance.

I've discovered what the problem is with my new 17inch Duo 2 iMac...
DON'T EVER BUY A COMPUTER WITH A "GMA" GRAPHICS SETUP!
I'm not talking about 3D gaming, or iphoto, or even Youtube for goodness sakes. I am talking about the basic of basics! The desktop! The menu text! The color and contrast of the screen!
Just turning the iMac on without a single program running, and the machine looks like it's running on a thousand, even 256 colors, at best!
When I first saw how awful the display quality was, I was positive the iMac was defective. But after a couple hours of google research, I came to learn that this was what PC users have always referred to as "the curse of the shared VRAM". Something Apple users have never had to deal with... until now.
I've already ordered a 1GB chip to replace one of the two 256 chips that came with the iMac. But if I can't even get the basic screen quality comparable to a G3 powerbook that I bought nearly 7 years ago, I am going to raise the biggest stink with my beloved Apple Corp. until they take this **** thing back and exchange it for an Intel model with ACCEPTABLE display hardware.
BUYERS BE WARNED: DON'T BUY ANYTHING WITH THE WORDS "GMA 950" INVOLVED, NOT UNLESS YOU DON'T MIND STARING AT A SCREEN THAT'LL HURT YOUR EYES UNTIL YOU GO BLIND.

Realtek vs. Via Vinyl, which is better sound quality

I downloaded the Via Vinyl Codec in an attempt to fix the Internet noise sound talked about in this https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=75995.0 post and all is well since. Tiresmoke, or anyone else using Via Vinyl, what do you think of the sound quality. I think there seems to be a little less bass response, nothing major, but a little different. Also, the EQ is set up a little different. What is your take on it? Can you think of a reason why MSI went with Realtek on Sound if Via has their own solution built into the southbridge? It is widely held as better quality? Also, what about the actual realtek audio chip on the motherboard? What is it doing if you are using Vinyl besides collecting dust? Any idea on which uses more CPU time? I know this is a lot of questions, but I'm curious.

Thanks for the reply Tiresmoke. I guess no one else is giving the Via Vinyl a shot. Given that the Realtek is a separate add-in solution on the motherboard, one would think it would be better to warrant its existence. However, in this crazy silicon world, who knows.

Better monitor quality instead of touchscreen on the AIOs

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for