Sharp LC-37D90U

I have been looking all over for a monitor to use as both a computer monitor and tv. I have found the Westinghouse 37", and the Sharp 37"(d90U). Both these monitors have the same resolution(1920x1080). while calling about the Sharp, the representative told me i would only be able to view 1024x768 according to the pc and mac compatibility chart. I find this very hard to believe. so if anyone has had any experience with using either of these monitors with their mac can you please post your reults on how the work, the clarity, and also if you're able to compare them to one another or an apple cinema display. Thanks in advance....Any help is appreciated.

yea thats what i did look at and thats where it said
that it would only support 1256x 758(cant remember
exact resolution)for mac but PC would be supported to
the highest resolution.
The table in the manual shows how accurate their Mac information is, starting with their use of MAC instead of Mac. They list only 13", 16" and 19" Mac outputs. Macs haven't used those sizes since the last century. Macs are perfectly capable of sending the same signals as a PC. They list PC values from 640 x 480 to 1600 x 1200. Notice that none of them match the panel's native 1920 x 1080 resolution, so all of them have to be scaled, and will not give the full resolution of the screen, and may be a bit blurred by the scaling. If you are going to use this with a Mac, I would suggest skipping the computer input mode, and try to convince the set that you are feeding it a 1080p HD signal via a DVI to HDMI cable (if it won't accept HD TV through its DVI connector). You may need some software, such as switchResX
<http://www.madrau.com>
or DisplayConfigX <http://www.3dexpress.de> to set the Mac to 1920 x 1080 60Hz. The TV has a dot to dot mode (see pages 49 and 50) that should allow full use of the screen resolution.

Similar Messages

Unable to capture video from my Sharp VL-NZ155 camera

I noticed that is a pretty common statement around,
even so I couldn't find an answer to my dilemma.
I have the new Mac 24" (not that new anymore) with
Firewire 800 cable, and I have Premiere Pro CS4 installed.
I can control my Sharp VL-NZ155 from the capture
window, but I can't capture anything, download it to
the computer.
Any helpful tips?

This is it man... I've googled it and you're right,
it only turns up batteries, but... actually this is the
camera's model: VL-NZ155... It's a mini DV camera
that I bought back in 2003... There's a sticker on it
saying that it's a 10th anniversary Sharp model.

MSI GF ti 4200 - picture not sharp

Just bought a new MSI Gf4 Ti 4200 8X / 128 MB (MS-8894) .
Works fine but seems there are some problem with the graphic quality .....
The picture quality seems not as sharp as my ASUS GF 3 Ti 200. The MSI picture seems a bit blur compare to my ASUS which is christal clear. This picture refer to window desktop background.
Run 3D Mark and score 11,297 ... seems ok for a P4 2.66 machine......
Does anyone out there know what went wrong with my MSI graphic card ???

I dont know exactly what is your problem?
But if other OS is OK, this pretty much a driver issue.

HDMI output not working after 1.0.8.6067 update on sharp LCD TV's

Have three TV's two of which are Sharps Aquos and the other is a Samsung. After updating to 1.0.8.6067 the Playbook cannot detect the two Sharps(each different model #'s) . I have three different cables that worked fine before the update and all three cables still work perfectly with the Samsung TV. This issue has been giving me trouble from when i got the device. I even sent the unit back to RIM and of course it was no fault found. About a month ago it suddenly started to work on the Sharps. i've been using the playbook daily on these TV's without incident until the latest software update. It now only works on the Samsung. Obviously something is going on with the playbook HDMI software driver. RIM support was unable to get it working reliable during my 3 month support window. Of course it started to work on the last day of my support but the recent update has put me back to square one. Any suggestions?
Tony

I have not had any issue with any brand TV yet
I dont remember if I tried a sharp on not. I do know that teh several Samasung ones worked fine.
Click here to Backup the data on your BlackBerry Device! It's important, and FREE!
Click "Accept as Solution" if your problem is solved. To give thanks, click thumbs up
Click to search the Knowledge Base at BTSC and click to Read The Fabulous Manuals
BESAdmin's, please make a signature with your BES environment info.
SIM Free BlackBerry Unlocking FAQ
Follow me on Twitter @knottyrope
Want to thank me? Buy my KnottyRope App here
BES 12 and BES 5.0.4 with Exchange 2010 and SQL 2012 Hyper V

The Adressbar font looks very unsharp, i tried to edit the size and looked into the options but found nothing. it isnt sharp at all..

As i stated the adressbar looks very unsharp, and i tried to edit it or fix it in anyway, but nothing happens. in 3.6 and chrome it is sharp and i have no problems

Update the video display driver to the latest version.
You can try to disable hardware acceleration in Firefox 4.0:<br />
Tools > Options > Advanced : General: Browsing: [ ] "Use hardware acceleration when available"
You can also try to set only the <b>gfx.font_rendering.directwrite.enabled</b> pref to false on the about:config page.

Sharpness of Photos in Lightroom 5.3

Can anyone please provide an explanation as to why my pictures when edited in Lightroom 5.3 appear soft and seem to require too much sharpening for an acceptable screen view.    When pictures are subsequently made ready for printing from Lightoom 5.3, they then appear over-sharpened when previewed.          Lightroom 5.3 does not seem to show screen images at the same level of sharpness as the supplied RAW processing software supplied by Sony for my A7r camera.      Images loaded directly into Sony's own Raw processor (IMAGE DATA CONVERTER) look tack-sharp having been auto-edited with basic default presets within the programme.
I have invested in a high resolution monitor and this is kept regularly calibrated.       LR 5.3 knows it is dealing with RAW files from my Sony A7r because the Metadata transfers efficiently on import.
If I do any other photo work on my computer (WIN 8.1 64bit), all my pictures look acceptably sharp.     When loaded into LR 5.3, they always seem to require more sharpening to look the same.     Often the sharpness slider requires to be pushed to 100-120 in order for the picture to look correct........
Have I missed some important set-up procedure when installing LR 5.3?         How can I ensure that Sony RAW files look presentably sharp following basic standard preset importation (with the sharpness slider settling to about 25)
Some help with this vexing issue would be appreciated.
Many thanks in advance.

Your comments and those of others appreciated.
2 things to report since my last communication.
a)    I am now reasonably sure that the rendering of sharpened screen images within LR 5.3 do not display correctly when referenced with the amount of overall detail applied.       This is because images exported out of LR 5.3 and then viewed in a different photo viewer look so much better.
b)    By fortunate coincidence, I have now downloaded and installed LR 5.4 and my very first impression is that some improvement in the sharpening (detailing) facility has been incorporated.      I will work with this new version of the programme further before considering a further judgement.
Very best regards and thanks to all.
trshaner wrote:
Billtimepilot wrote:
Forgive my naivety but I feel I must make beg the question, 'why isn't the sharpening facility within LR 5.3 as efficient, effective and straightforward as it is in RAW processors such as SILKYPIX and SONY IMAGE DATA CONVERTER?           Within these programmes, the sharpening added to RAW files by basic default.......which I understand to be known as 'capture sharpening......is usually just right.
There could be a number of things going on that are affecting what you are seeing.The onscreen preview image inside the editing application may be using different scaling algorithms to make the image "fit" in the loupe window. If they are using the simpler and faster nearest-neighbor or bilinear algorithms they will appear sharper (i.e. LR Develop module preview), but on closer examination will also exhibit interpolation "jaggies." along straight edges. I also believe the editing applications you mentioned do not apply noise reduction to the preview image, which may also make the image look a bit sharper.
Run a quick test by applying Sharpening to a raw image at 1:1 view so that it appears cirtically sharp when viewed at 1:4 Zoom in the Library module. Next Export the image to 16bit TIFF, ProPhoto RGB profile with NO Image Sizing and NO Output Sharpening. Using the same raw file Export the image to 16bit TIFF, ProPhoto RGB profile, but with 1:4 Image Sizing (i.e. Long Edge = 1/4 raw file long edge in pixels) with Output Sharpening = Screen Standard. Next Compare the 1:4 resized TIFF export image at 1:1 view to the other two images at 1:4 view so they are equally sized. Let me know what you see.

CS4 NOT capable of sharp displays at all zoom levels

I must have been asleep, until now, and missed the significance and importance of what follows.
In post #11 here:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/375478?tstart=30
on 19 March 2009 Chris Cox (Adobe Photoshop Engineer - his title on the old forums) said this, in a discussion regarding sharpness in CS4:
"You can't have perfectly sharp images at all zoom levels.". Unfortunately, my experience with CS4 since its release late last year has repeatedly confirmed the correctness of this statement.
What makes this statement so disturbing is that it contradicts an overwhelming amount of the pre- and post-release promotional advertising of CS4 by Adobe, to the effect that the OpenGL features of CS4 enable it to display sharp images at all zoom levels and magnifications. What is surprising is that this assertion has been picked up and regurgitated in commentary by other, sometimes highly experienced, Ps users (some unconnected with, but also some directly connected with, Adobe). I relied upon these representations when making my decision to purchase the upgrade from CS3 to CS4. In fact, they were my principal reason for upgrading. Without them, I would not have upgraded. Set out in numbered paragraphs 1 to 6 below is a small selection only of this material.
1. Watch the video "Photoshop CS4: Buy or Die" by Deke McClelland (inducted into the Photoshop Hall of Fame, according to his bio) on the new features of CS4 in a pre-release commentary to be found here:
http://fyi.oreilly.com/2008/09/new-dekepod-deke-mcclelland-on.html
Notice what he says about zooming with Open GL: "every zoom level is a bicubically rendered thing of beauty". That, when viewed with the zooming demonstrated, can only be meant to convey that your image will be "sharp" at all zoom levels. I'm sure he believes it too - Deke is someone who is noted for his outspoken criticism of Photoshop when he believes it to be deserved. It would seem that he must not have experimented and tested to the extent that others posting in this forum have done so.
2. Here's another Adobe TV video from Deke McClelland:
http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1584v1021
In this video Deke discusses the "super smooth" and "very smooth" zooming of CS4 at all zoom levels achieved through the use of OpenGL. From the context of his comments about zooming to odd zoom levels like 33.33% and 52.37%, it is beyond doubt that Deke's use of the word "smooth" is intended to convey "sharp". At the conclusion of his discussion on this topic he says that, as a result of CS4's "smooth and accurate" as distinct from "choppy" (quoted words are his) rendering of images at odd zoom levels (example given in this instance was 46.67%), "I can actually soft proof sharpening as it will render for my output device".
3. In an article by Philip Andrews at photoshopsupport.com entitled 'What's New In Adobe Photoshop CS4 - Photoshop 11 - An overview of all the new features in Adobe Photoshop CS4',
see: http://www.photoshopsupport.com/photoshop-cs4/what-is-new-in-photoshop-cs4.html
under the heading 'GPU powered display', this text appears :
"Smooth Accurate Pan and Zoom functions – Unlike previous versions where certain magnification values produced less than optimal previews on screen, CS4 always presents your image crisply and accurately. Yes, this is irrespective of zoom and rotation settings and available right up to pixel level (3200%)." Now, it would be a brave soul indeed who might try to argue that "crisply and accurately" means anything other than "sharply", and certainly, not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination, could it be taken to mean "slightly blurry but smooth" - to use the further words of Chris Cox also contained in his post #11 mentioned in the initial link at the beginning of this post.
4. PhotoshopCAFE has several videos on the new features of CS4. One by Chris Smith here:
http://www.photoshopcafe.com/cs4/vid/CS4Video.htm
is entitled 'GPU Viewing Options". In it, Chris says, whilst demonstrating zooming an image of a guitar: "as I zoom out or as I zoom in, notice that it looks sharp at any resolution. It used to be in Photoshop we had to be at 25, 50 , 75 (he's wrong about 75) % to get the nice sharp preview but now it shows in every magnification".
5. Here's another statement about the sharpness of CS4 at odd zoom levels like 33.33%, but inferentially at all zoom levels. It occurs in an Adobe TV video (under the heading 'GPU Accererated Features', starting at 2 min 30 secs into the video) and is made by no less than Bryan O'Neil Hughes, Product Manager on the Photoshop team, found here:
http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1556v1686
After demonstrating zooming in and out of a bunch of documents on a desk, commenting about the type in the documents which is readily visible, he says : "everything is nice and clean and sharp".
6. Finally, consider the Ps CS4 pdf Help file itself (both the original released with 11.0 and the revised edition dated 30 March 2009 following upon the release of the 11.0.1 update). Under the heading 'Smoother panning and zooming' on page 5, it has this to say: "Gracefully navigate to any area of an image with smoother panning and zooming. Maintain clarity as you zoom to invididual pixels, and easily edit at the highest magnification with the new Pixel Grid." The use of the word "clarity" can only mean "sharpness" in this context. Additionally, the link towards the top of page 28 of the Help file (topic of Rotate View Tool) takes you to yet another video by Deke McClelland. Remember, this is Adobe itself telling you to watch this video. 5 minutes and 40 seconds into the video he says: "Every single zoom level is fluid and smooth, meaning that Photoshop displays all pixels properly in all views which ensures more accurate still, video and 3D images as well as better painting, text and shapes.". Not much doubt that he is here talking about sharpness.
So, as you may have concluded, I'm pretty upset about this situation. I have participated in another forum (which raised the lack of sharp rendering by CS4 on several occasions) trying to work with Adobe to overcome what I initially thought may have been only a problem with my aging (but nevertheless, just-complying) system or outdated drivers. But that exercise did not result in any sharpness issue fix, nor was one incorporated in the 11.0.1 update to CS4. And in this forum, I now read that quite a few, perhaps even many, others, with systems whose specifications not only match but well and truly exceed the minimum system requirements for OpenGL compliance with CS4, also continue to experience sharpness problems. It's no surprise, of course, given the admission we now have from Chris Cox. It seems that CS4 is incapable of producing the sharp displays at all zoom levels it was alleged to achieve. Furthermore, it is now abundently clear that, with respect to the issue of sharpness, it is irrelevant whether or not your system meets the advertised minimum OpenGL specifications required for CS4, because the OpenGl features of CS4 simply cannot produce the goods. What makes this state of affairs even more galling is that, unlike CS3 and earlier releases of Photoshop, CS4 with OpenGL activated does not even always produce sharp displays at 12.5, 25, and 50% magnifications (as one example only, see posts #4 and #13 in the initial link at the beginning of this post). It is no answer to say, and it is ridiculous to suggest (as some have done in this forum), that one should turn off OpenGL if one wishes to emulate the sharp display of images formerly available.

Thanks, Andrew, for bringing this up. I have seen comments and questions in different forums from several CS4 users who have had doubts about the new OpenGL display functionality and how it affects apparent sharpness at different zoom levels. I think part of the interest/doubt has been created by the over-the-top hype that has been associated with the feature as you documented very well.
I have been curious about it myself and honestly I didn't notice it at first but then as I read people's comments I looked a little closer and there is indeed a difference at different zoom levels. After studying the situation a bit, here are some preliminary conclusions (and I look forward to comments and corrections):
The "old", non-OpenGL way of display was using nearest-neighbor interpolation.
I am using observation to come to this conclusion, using comparison of images down-sampled with nearest-neighbor and comparing them to what I see in PS with OpenGL turned off. They look similar, if not the same.
The "new", OpenGL way of display is using bilinear interpolation.
I am using observation as well as some inference: The PS OpenGL preferences have an option to "force" bilinear interpolation because some graphics cards need to be told to force the use of shaders to perform the required interpolation. This infers that the interpolation is bilinear.
Nothing is truly "accurate" at less than 100%, regardless of the interpolation used.
Thomas Knoll, Jeff Schewe, and others have been telling us that for a long time, particularly as a reason for not showing sharpening at less than 100% in ACR (We still want it though ). It is just the nature of the beast of re-sampling an image from discrete pixels to discrete pixels.
The "rule of thumb" commonly used for the "old", non-OpenGL display method to use 25%, 50%, etc. for "accurate" display was not really accurate.
Those zoom percentages just turned out to be less bad than some of the other percentages and provided a way to achieve a sort of standard for comparing things. Example: "If my output sharpening looks like "this" at 50% then it will look close to "that" in the actual print.
The "new", OpenGL interpolation is certainly different and arguably better than the old interpolation method.
This is mainly because the more sophisticated interpolation prevents drop-outs that occurred from the old nearest-neighbor approach (see my grid samples below). With nearest-neighbor, certain details that fall into "bad" areas of the interpolated image will be eliminated. With bilinear, those details will still be visible but with less sharpness than other details. Accuracy with both the nearest-neighbor and bilinear interpolations will vary with zoom percentage and where the detail falls within the image.
Since the OpenGL interpolation is different, users may need to develop new "rules of thumb" for zoom percentages they prefer when making certain judgements about an image (sharpening, for example).
Note that anything below 100% is still not "accurate", just as it was not "accurate" before.
As Andrew pointed out, the hype around the new OpenGL bilinear interpolation went a little overboard in a few cases and has probably led to some incorrect expectations from users.
The reason that some users seem to notice the sharpness differences with different zooms using OpenGL and some do not (or are not bothered by it) I believe is related to the different ways that users are accustomed to using Photoshop and the resolution/size of their monitors.
Those people who regularly work with images with fine details (pine tree needles, for example) and/or fine/extreme levels of sharpening are going to see the differences more than people who don't. To some extent, I see this similar to people who battle with moire: they are going to have this problem more frequently if they regularly shoot screen doors and people in fine-lined shirts. Resolution of the monitor used may also be a factor. The size of the monitor in itself is not a factor directly but it may influence how the user uses the zoom and that may in turn have an impact on whether they notice the difference in sharpness or not. CRT vs LCD may also play a role in noticeability.
The notion that the new OpenGL/bilinear interpolation is sharp except at integer zoom percentages is incorrect.
I mention this because I have seen at last one thread implying this and an Adobe employee participated who seemed to back it up. I do not believe this is correct. There are some integer zoom percentages that will appear less sharp than others. It doesn't have anything to do with integers - it has to do with the interaction of the interpolation, the size of the detail, and how that detail falls into the new, interpolated pixel grid.
Overall conclusion:
The bilinear interpolation used in the new OpenGL display is better than the old, non-OpenGL nearest-neighbor method but it is not perfect. I suspect actually, that there is no "perfect" way of "accurately" producing discrete pixels at less than 100%. It is just a matter of using more sophisticated interpolation techniques as computer processing power allows and adapting higher-resolution displays as that technology allows. When I think about it, that appears to be just what Adobe is doing.
Some sample comparisons:
I am attaching some sample comparisons of nearest-neighbor and bilinear interpolation. One is of a simple grid made up of 1 pixel wide lines. The other is of an image of a squirrel. You might find them interesting. In particular, check out the following:
Make sure you are viewing the Jpegs at 100%, otherwise you are applying interpolation onto interpolation.
Notice how in the grid, a 50% down-sample using nearest-neighbor produces no grid at all!
Notice how the 66.67% drops out some lines altogether in the nearest-neighbor version and these same lines appear less sharp than others in the bilinear version.
Notice how nearest-neighbor favors sharp edges. It isn't accurate but it's sharp.
On the squirrel image, note how the image is generally more consistent between zooms for the bilinear versions. There are differences in sharpness though at different zoom percentages for bilinear, though. I just didn't include enough samples to show that clearly here. You can see this yourself by comparing results of zooms a few percentages apart.
Well, I hope that was somewhat helpful. Comments and corrections are welcomed.

Output quicktime movie choppy and less sharp than original

Goodmorning!
I am planning to make a stand alone movie of my footage that I can keep and watch on my iMac. My sequence was made on FCP 7 on 1920 x 1080 with Prores 422 codec.
I did a few tests with exporting to quicktime movie (standard settings), because I have read several times that converting this way results in more or less the same quality. When I compare the videoquality of the Quicktime movie with playing the footage on the timeline fullscreen (+view-external video-all frames+), I am very disappointed. Not only is the sharpness of the quicktime movie less than the original, the movie plays very choppy (not fluently at all) .
My question is: is that result to be expected? May I compare a quicktime movie with the original as described before?
Or maybe I should export the sequence in a more sophisticated way?
The quicktime outcome was about 30 seconds and resulted in a file of about 500 MB. My wish is that the size of the file will not be bigger.
I hope that you can help me. Thanks in advance.

Tom,
Three times "correct" to your three questions.
Opened the exported file in the QuickTime player, Movie Inspector said:
Structure: Apple ProRess 422 , 1920 x1080 (1888 x 1062) millions, 16-bit integer (little indian) Stereo 48000 khz
Bps: 25
Size: 561,7 MB
Speed: 118,53 Mbit/s
Current size: 1882 x 1058 pixels
If I run the sequence through JED deinterlacer, the movie gets a better flow. Of course the sharpness deminish a bit too.
I hope that you can help me.
Would export in H.264 be a better option?
Maybe the 25 Bps is too high? My Panasonic SD60 produces only 17 mb Mbps.

Getting a Sharp AR-405 with AR-PB2A to print from Snow Leopard

I made this work, and thought I'd share (after not being able to, and going over these boards).
Maybe I can help someone else...
Backstory: This is $12,000 printer circa 1999/2000, and not so easily replaced off the shelf! The AR-PB2A is a networking box attached to the machine that allows it to use several protocols, and adds features. It has a parallel port as well.
I'd gotten a new MBP 2 months ago with OSX 10.5.6 (to start the move from OS9) and thought I'd die when it wouldn't print (but the gimp folks helped out). Sharp no longer supports this model, and judging by the printer list from Apple, they don't support this OS either. Last week, we added an imac, which came pre-loaded with Snow Leopard.
Imagine my horror on the "no appletalk" issue!
Long-term, printer-sharing isn't going to cut it. This printer may outlast a few system revisions yet.
After many restarts, and crashing the printer dozens of times, here's what works.
All you need is a PPD file that works from an earlier system.
This works for both 10.5.8--10.6.1 ... it may work on earlier OS X versions. It may help for other Sharp AR series printers of this vintage.
1. Go to the printer interface, and set the printer's IP number if it hasn't already been set. Refer to the AR-PB2A manual if you need to figure out how to get to the right panel and what I type below makes no sense:
A.If the printer is online, toggle the button to OFFLINE.Click the "MENU" button on the lower right. Navigate to TCP/IP settings.
B.Make sure the printer's IP number is set to your LAN network (ie 192.168.1.xx)
Pick that last number to be one not already used on your network/LAN.
C.Subnet Mask : 255.255.255.0
D.**Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1
E.Close the settings panels, and shut off the printer and let it sit a couple minutes, then restart.
** -ROUTER address actually. Not being a network guru, this alternative terminology stumped me for awhile
2.Print a NIC page (startup page with the network info on it). If it doesn't auto-print one on startup, go into the printer's panels and either set it to print or tell it to do so now. (Default PW for the "key operator" thing in case you're interested is 00000. If it's been changed, you'll need to know what it was changed to.)
My printer was never set to be on TCP/IP network, we only recently were able to migrate to DSL, router etc. (We left the appletalk settings intact, and the appletalk-capable machines still print to it fine.)
3. When the machine is up and running again, try to access it with a web browser. Just type in the IP # of the machine into your browser. It should bring up a web page. If not, check the IP to be sure it's correct. This will help verify that the printer is accessible.
If you are successful, you'll be presented with some settings pages. Here you can poke around and see all what you can change (including the IP#).
4. HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART:
The default PORT is 10001. CUPS wants to default to port 631. You can't set this printer's port to 631 (but you can set it between 10001 and 6xxxx). Just leave it. This port number will be shown at the bottom of the NIC printout page, under
"TCP/IP Connection Information
Port Number : 10001"
If you need or wish to change any settings via the web access pages, you'll need a PW. For this particular model, default is "sysadm". There is no place to input a user name, so other "default Sharp" pw's don't work Although, they may work for other sharp models.
5. Now the big fun:
System Prefs > Printers & Fax > click the + to add a new printer
Click the IP printer button at the top.
Drop down menu has three options:
Line Printer Daemon
Internet Printing Protocol
HP DirectJet - Socket
Select HP DIRECTJET-SOCKET
(the other two crashed my printer every time, causing it to be shut off and sometimes the settings completely redone)
In the first line, type in the IP of the printer followed with the port--
Here's my own example:
192.168.1.195:10001
If the port number is not there, it will not print.
(be sure to match the IP number to your network and what you set the printer to)
Leave the next line Blank.
The 3rd line down (Printer Name) starts out with the basic IP number. Give this printer a sensible name here.
Location line: Name it or leave it blank
Drop down menu at the bottom, go look for your PPD file. (if you can't find it now, you can reset it later). It should default to "Generic..."
This will bring up a dialog with a progress bar, you can wait for that to finish or click configure. Set the printer's options regarding memory, trays, duplex module etc.
Click "Add" at the bottom of the panel.
The printer should now show up in your Printers & Fax panel, and be available.
Try a test print.
Notes: I can't figure out how to rename a printer once it's been set up. If you don't set the name when you add the printer, you won't be able to later (although the unix folks might know the way around that). Otherwise, you'll end up with the IP# as the printer name. If you don't like this, delete and set it up again (naming the printer).
Presently, on this 10.5.8 machine, I have this printer set up to print via AppleTalk and as an IP printer (both are listed printers now). I can print to either one from this machine. But only the IP printer version (via HP JetDirect-Socket) works on the 10.6 machine.
I write this in hopes it helps someone else in some way. Maybe you too can save 10 hours, when it can be done in about 10 minutes (less if your printer is actually in the same room as your computer!) Who knew that "HP JetDirect" would work when the other two more "obvious" choices for a Sharp printer would crash it? Ha!
Now, we're off to get some ancient Epson LQ-570+ online. We've managed to get one to work on 10.5.8 ... and therefore, we are hopeful! Anyone remember PowerPrint LT and the dongles?? Mwah ha ha ha... yes the insanity continues....
--Ky

I made this work, and thought I'd share (after not being able to, and going over these boards).
Maybe I can help someone else...
Backstory: This is $12,000 printer circa 1999/2000, and not so easily replaced off the shelf! The AR-PB2A is a networking box attached to the machine that allows it to use several protocols, and adds features. It has a parallel port as well.
I'd gotten a new MBP 2 months ago with OSX 10.5.6 (to start the move from OS9) and thought I'd die when it wouldn't print (but the gimp folks helped out). Sharp no longer supports this model, and judging by the printer list from Apple, they don't support this OS either. Last week, we added an imac, which came pre-loaded with Snow Leopard.
Imagine my horror on the "no appletalk" issue!
Long-term, printer-sharing isn't going to cut it. This printer may outlast a few system revisions yet.
After many restarts, and crashing the printer dozens of times, here's what works.
All you need is a PPD file that works from an earlier system.
This works for both 10.5.8--10.6.1 ... it may work on earlier OS X versions. It may help for other Sharp AR series printers of this vintage.
1. Go to the printer interface, and set the printer's IP number if it hasn't already been set. Refer to the AR-PB2A manual if you need to figure out how to get to the right panel and what I type below makes no sense:
A.If the printer is online, toggle the button to OFFLINE.Click the "MENU" button on the lower right. Navigate to TCP/IP settings.
B.Make sure the printer's IP number is set to your LAN network (ie 192.168.1.xx)
Pick that last number to be one not already used on your network/LAN.
C.Subnet Mask : 255.255.255.0
D.**Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1
E.Close the settings panels, and shut off the printer and let it sit a couple minutes, then restart.
** -ROUTER address actually. Not being a network guru, this alternative terminology stumped me for awhile
2.Print a NIC page (startup page with the network info on it). If it doesn't auto-print one on startup, go into the printer's panels and either set it to print or tell it to do so now. (Default PW for the "key operator" thing in case you're interested is 00000. If it's been changed, you'll need to know what it was changed to.)
My printer was never set to be on TCP/IP network, we only recently were able to migrate to DSL, router etc. (We left the appletalk settings intact, and the appletalk-capable machines still print to it fine.)
3. When the machine is up and running again, try to access it with a web browser. Just type in the IP # of the machine into your browser. It should bring up a web page. If not, check the IP to be sure it's correct. This will help verify that the printer is accessible.
If you are successful, you'll be presented with some settings pages. Here you can poke around and see all what you can change (including the IP#).
4. HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART:
The default PORT is 10001. CUPS wants to default to port 631. You can't set this printer's port to 631 (but you can set it between 10001 and 6xxxx). Just leave it. This port number will be shown at the bottom of the NIC printout page, under
"TCP/IP Connection Information
Port Number : 10001"
If you need or wish to change any settings via the web access pages, you'll need a PW. For this particular model, default is "sysadm". There is no place to input a user name, so other "default Sharp" pw's don't work Although, they may work for other sharp models.
5. Now the big fun:
System Prefs > Printers & Fax > click the + to add a new printer
Click the IP printer button at the top.
Drop down menu has three options:
Line Printer Daemon
Internet Printing Protocol
HP DirectJet - Socket
Select HP DIRECTJET-SOCKET
(the other two crashed my printer every time, causing it to be shut off and sometimes the settings completely redone)
In the first line, type in the IP of the printer followed with the port--
Here's my own example:
192.168.1.195:10001
If the port number is not there, it will not print.
(be sure to match the IP number to your network and what you set the printer to)
Leave the next line Blank.
The 3rd line down (Printer Name) starts out with the basic IP number. Give this printer a sensible name here.
Location line: Name it or leave it blank
Drop down menu at the bottom, go look for your PPD file. (if you can't find it now, you can reset it later). It should default to "Generic..."
This will bring up a dialog with a progress bar, you can wait for that to finish or click configure. Set the printer's options regarding memory, trays, duplex module etc.
Click "Add" at the bottom of the panel.
The printer should now show up in your Printers & Fax panel, and be available.
Try a test print.
Notes: I can't figure out how to rename a printer once it's been set up. If you don't set the name when you add the printer, you won't be able to later (although the unix folks might know the way around that). Otherwise, you'll end up with the IP# as the printer name. If you don't like this, delete and set it up again (naming the printer).
Presently, on this 10.5.8 machine, I have this printer set up to print via AppleTalk and as an IP printer (both are listed printers now). I can print to either one from this machine. But only the IP printer version (via HP JetDirect-Socket) works on the 10.6 machine.
I write this in hopes it helps someone else in some way. Maybe you too can save 10 hours, when it can be done in about 10 minutes (less if your printer is actually in the same room as your computer!) Who knew that "HP JetDirect" would work when the other two more "obvious" choices for a Sharp printer would crash it? Ha!
Now, we're off to get some ancient Epson LQ-570+ online. We've managed to get one to work on 10.5.8 ... and therefore, we are hopeful! Anyone remember PowerPrint LT and the dongles?? Mwah ha ha ha... yes the insanity continues....
--Ky

What cable/adapter do I need to connect my MacBook Pro to a Sharp Aquos TV?

What cable/adapter do I need to connect my MacBook Pro to a Sharp Aquos TV?
I want to watch videos on youtube or read articles on my laptop, and I want a cable/adapter that will hook up the Macbook to the TV and display the webpage that is on the laptop.

Of course it doesn't. But you can buy an adaptor from HDMI to the Mini-DisplayPort port on the computer.

Problem connecting MacBook to a Sharp video projector

One of the great things I like about Macs is the easy way they (usually) connect to a video projector. Unlike a lot of my friends who run PCs with Windows I never had any problems whatsoever connecting my MacBook to a projector at the university and start my presentations.
Until today that is.
I tried to connect my MacBook with Apple's mini-DVI to VGA adapter to a Sharp ("Notevision") video projector and although the MacBook had the projector (even with its correct name "PG-M20X" and available resolution settings) listed under "Displays" immediately, I couldn't get the projector to show any more than "no signal" whatever input source I chose...
What did I do wrong? Or is it the projector that is somehow "incompatible"?! Please help!
MacBook Mac OS X (10.4.9) Core Duo 2GHz, July 2006
MacBook Mac OS X (10.4.9) Core Duo 2GHz, July 2006

Maybe this could help as well:
After we tried several things with the MacBook (reboot, "detect displays" etc.), we successfully connected a Powerbook (15", FireWire 800, late 2003) to the projector, using Apple's DVI-VGA Adapter.
So that did work out fine, but the MacBook didn't work on the projector. The cable that came with the projector was a VGA--DVI-A cable: there were only a few pins on the DVI-end of it going into the DVI-Connector on the projector. Could it have something to do with that? But why didn't the Powerbook have any problems connecting to the projector then?
MacBook Mac OS X (10.4.9) Core Duo 2GHz, July 2006

Mac mini DVI to HDMI with Sharp Aquos 46' LCD TV

Hi,
I currently use my 2008 Mac mini on my Sharp LC-46X20 TV using the DVI to VGA adaptor and the TVs VGA input. I currently have the resolution set at 1280 x 768 at 75hz. The picture on the whole is fine, filling the screen perfectly. However, the text is not as sharp as I would like, looking slightly blurry and jagged around the edges, poor in comparison to my iMac.
I have been toying with the idea of getting a DVI to HDMI adaptor and connecting my mac mini to the TV this way.If so will this picture fill the screen AND solve my text problems? I have heard different stories, with some people having a nightmare and some people getting it to work fine.
Was hoping someone would point me in the right direction before I spent any cash on the DVI to HDMI adaptor.
Thanks
David

Just to update this:
Got my DVI to HDMI cable today!
Plugged it in, booted her up and was presented with a perfect 1080p HDMI signal without having to alter any display settings.
Fantastic!
In my display menu I have 10 resolutions to play with with , 3 of which are full 1080p, one is specifically for PAL tv in the UK.
Couldn't be happier!
Hope this thread helps anybody who is having any connecting woes between their mac mini and their sharp TV
Thanks
David

HT4241 Does dvi to HDMI adapter works on mid 2007 iMac? Some how my iMac detect the sharp tv but the tv screen is black.

Does dvi to HDMI adapter works on mid 2007 iMac? Some how my iMac detect the sharp tv but the tv screen is black.

you need mini dvi to hdmi cable
http://store.apple.com/us/product/M9321G/B/apple-mini-dvi-to-dvi-adapter?fnode=5 1
and
http://store.apple.com/us/product/HA835ZM/A/belkin-hdmi-to-dvi-d-cable-2-m66-ft? fnode=51

Hooking Mac Mini 1.83ghz to Sharp LCD TV

I have a Mac Mini 1.83 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo that I'm trying to hook up to a Sharp Aquos 32" LCD TV model LC-32GA5U. I've hooked the Mac Mini up to the TV using the DVI port on the back with a DVI/DVI cable, DVI/VGA cable with the DVI adapter to the Mac Mini, and a DVI/HDMI cable to a HDMI router, all of which have come up with a black screen, except the DVI/HDMI option. That started with the usual light gray screen and then it went to black.
The Mini starts up fine, I hear the drive turning, the front light comes on and I hear the start up chime. I hooked the Mac Mini to a 15" Dell LCD flat screen monitor with a DVI/DVI cable and it worked fine. I was able to run through the initial setup procedures without any problems, so I know it's not an issue with the graphics output or the cable.
If anyone has any ideas, they would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for you time.

I would stick with using a DVI-to-DVI cable per the user manual, page 32, which says to use INPUT 5 (DVI) to connect a PC. Make sure you have a DVI-D cable and not a DVI-I cable. Select INPUT 5 by pressing the INPUT button on the Sharp remote and then press MENU to see if there are any options that need to be set for INPUT 5.

MacBook Mini-DVI to Sharp projector

HELP !
Need to connect new Apple MacBook Mini-DVI output - as shown in this link: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1562
to Sharp projector XR-11XC with supplied RGB Cable as shown on pps 23 & 57 in this link:
http://www.sharpusa.com/files/proman_XGMB55X_XR10XR20.pdf
Can you advise which Apple adapter I need?
THX !!!

http://store.apple.com/us/product/M9320G/A

Sharp LC-37D90U

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for