Large LCD HDTV as a Computer Monitor? 143
An anonymous reader asks: "I have seen $2000 27"and $1400 23" HDTV LCD sets at Costco, and similarly priced smaller sets elsewhere. I asked a salesperson (elsewhere) if I could try one with my laptop's DVI, and was told that the TVs wouldn't work well. DVI and VGA inputs, 400-600:1 contrast ratio, fast refresh rates (for gaming?), and HDTV capability for other uses, why can't they work? The prices run from as above to very significantly more. Has anyone tried the inexpensive large LCD HDTVs, or the expensive ones, for their desktop? I want to reduce the clutter in my family room and upgrade to highdef? Is it time?"
Abit expensive? (Score:2, Informative)
why not just get a nice Samsung 19" TFT for 650+ Euro (abit more in $'s) you can that patch a tv signal into this?
I'd personally rather keep them both seperate (tv and pc monitor).
Re:Abit expensive? (Score:2)
A 27-inch screen versus a 19-inch?
No contest!
Resolution? (Score:1)
Re:Resolution? (Score:1)
Re:Resolution? (Score:1)
Re:Resolution? (Score:2, Informative)
Thus, at 1080 lines, you'd get 1920 columns (16x9 widescreen).
I think the biggest problem, though with using these things as nor
Re:Resolution? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Resolution? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Resolution? (Score:2)
Re:Resolution? (Score:2, Informative)
I purchasing IT equipment and albeit I'm not looking it up right now BUT I'm always turned off by the LCD TVs low native resolution when it comes to computer displays.
Most of them only have an 800 x 600 resolution or commonly 1024 x 768. On a 23" LCD screen (1024 x 768) it's going to look decent but not as great as it can be.
I'm not sure why the resolutions are so low but optimally I would say you should go for 1600 x 1200 resolution. These are out there but they're still up there
Re:Resolution? (Score:2)
HD resolution is 1920x1080 (or 1280x720, but I've never seen an HDTV that couldn't do at least 1080i). The aspect ratio on an HDTV is 16:9, aka letterbox, so the resolutions you're thinking of don't really apply.
For standard def TV it makes perfect sense to top out at 800x600, since SDTV has a resolution of only 700x525 (NTSC, PAL is 833x625, but then you have to deal with the 50Hz refresh, which drives me nuts. I'd rather have inconsistent color, thank you very much.)
Anyway, the
Re:Resolution? (Score:2)
That is the ultimate goal for many HD fanatics though - 1080 progressive.
"Yes, I've-a seen it, it's-a very nice-a!"
Seriously though, I understand the desire to own the best, but where do these folks think they're going to get 1080p con
Re:Resolution? (Score:2)
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I'm not sure where you got the 18.8Mbps from, as that's lower than what we consider "low but acceptable" quality for SD. It doesn't suprise me that someone would try and compress it that much. For reference, what we consider low quality for SD is MPEG2 or D
Re:Resolution? (Score:2)
Re:Resolution? (Score:2)
Interesting. That's not the limit of the standard, though, it's the limit of how much data can be transmitted in 6MHz of bandwidt
It's the resolution, silly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's the resolution, silly (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's the resolution, silly (Score:2)
Soon... (Score:1, Offtopic)
We just need a few more iterations of this process for it to become economical. So not now, but soon.
Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:1, Interesting)
Apple? Get real.
Re:Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:3, Informative)
Dell sells rebranded Samsung flat panels, and they kick ass. They have the best refresh rates (not the same term as in a conventional CRT, but rather, the amount of time it takes to light or darken an individual pixel), and fantastic contrast ratios. The Apple displays look great, but saying that the Dell displays look like shit puts you squarely in the Apple Fan-boy category.
Re:Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:1)
You know the old adage "a Jobs minion and his money are soon parted...."
Re:Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:2)
Apple 23" is $2000? Planar 20" for $1000 shipped. (Score:2)
A lot of LCD for your money. No fancy designs, just a straight OEM ship.
Buy two, and place them side by side. Ownage.
Re:Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:3, Funny)
Is that what your gf tells you? Can you do math? When was the last time you saw a shrink? I see the begining of a libido related problem.
When I watch a 16:9 format movie
1) on the Apple display, I see a 1920x1080 picture. That's 2,073,600 pixels.
2) on the Dell display , it would be a 1600x900 picture. That's 1,440,000 pixels.
That comes to 44% more pixels on the Apple display. Hardly comparable. Then of course, if you are pushing Dell, you gotta be smokin' some stuff, du [theregister.co.uk]
Re:Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:1)
Ahh! You have a foot fetish! That explains a lot.
It, however, doesn't explain how you missed out on the 16:9 format viewable area calculation. You are still smoking that Dell stuff, Dude.
Re:Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:1)
Poor reading and comprehension skillz, aye? Another child left behind, I'm afraid. Pity.
Re:Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:2)
I had thought something similar about the Apple displays until a guy at my work got one. I went to go look at it just to prove to my self that my 22" Mitsubishi 2060u was a way better monitor... I was blown away. I have never seen anywhere near such a beautiful picture. It was amazing. I just kept saying, "wow."
At any rate, $1050 is not between $750 and $1000 for future reference, so don't let the sales guys get you on that one next tim
Re:Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:1)
It would be nice if other monitor manufacturers would produce units with the same screen. Apple doesn't build the LCD screen, they just buy them from someone and put them in their monitor, just like the Dell or Gateway branded monitors.
I've been shopping around for a new LCD monitor. My Dell Inspiron 8500 laptop ha
Re:Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:3, Informative)
The Sony SDM-P232W/B [amazon.com] uses the same panel as the Apple Cinema 23HD (but with a different anti-glare coating, I've heard). It also costs more than the Apple one, but I believe it has multiple DVI inputs.
Re:Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:1)
Its a very nice monitor but 2k is a lot of money (Score:1)
I dont see why everyone hates the xbox and macs after all they can run linux
Re:Its a very nice monitor but 2k is a lot of mone (Score:2)
Re:Its a very nice monitor but 2k is a lot of mone (Score:4, Funny)
There's a Freudian slip you don't see every day. ;-)
Re:Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:2)
Usually Apple buys displays from Sony or Mitsubishi, these being in the upper echelons of display quality, certainly in the CRT space. I bet Sony has a great TFT display of equal quality to the Apple rebrand, and even with Sony's inflated pricing it'd be cheaper.
Re:Apple 23" is $2000 (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think the panel is made by Sony... I forget who does make it.
As a projection TV owner (Score:1, Redundant)
Now we have the 26" $2000mistake behind a couch displaying visuals for winamp and sometimes someone uses it for TV but we lost the rem
Re:As a projection TV owner (Score:2)
By the way, the size is perfect for the size of my apartment, so I'm not too worried about that.
Large LCD Screens as monitors (Score:4, Interesting)
I bought a large screen LCD for my company to use during such a software demo. We wanted to keep it in our development lab, figuring that a huge monitor would be a Good Thing.
The unfortunate reality is that, for reasons that remain mysterious to me, the maximum resolution when driven by a computer is only 1280 x 768. This means that you're not getting a massive, high resolution display; you're just getting really big pixels.
I spent some time searching, but couldn't find _any_ manufacturers whose large screens could be driven to 1080i HDTV resolution (1920 x 1080). Quite a disappointment.
At a recent AFCEA show, I saw a 3000 x 3000 pixel large screen flat panel display in the Matrox booth. They said it was a prototype display made by Toshiba. They said it would be available in about 1 year for $30K.
Is there someone out there with an EE type background that can explain why, with pixel addressability of 1920 x 1080 we're not seeing any LCDs that can be used at this resolution as computer monitors?
Re:Large LCD Screens as monitors (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, 1080i is interlaced, so your video card would have to output interlaced signal. Not worth it.
Summary: Save the HDTV for conference rooms and trade shows.
Re:Large LCD Screens as monitors (Score:5, Informative)
Or if you really have money to burn, you can get one from IBM [ibm.com] at a blistering 3840 x 2400 for a measly $8k plus a grand or so for a card to drive it.
Re:Large LCD Screens as monitors (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, that's right, I saw $100,000 worth of equipment used to play Quake at 3840x2400. I cried tears of joy that day, not just for the beauty of the sight, but for the thought that dozens of people, in triumphant togetherness, were able to work so hard for so long
Re:Large LCD Screens as monitors (Score:1)
The 3849x2400 IBM T221 is only ~$3000 brand-new on eBay [ebay.com]. It is $4000 at tigerdirect [tigerdirect.com].
Re:Large LCD Screens as monitors (Score:1)
Re:Large LCD Screens as monitors (Score:2)
Re:Large LCD Screens as monitors (Score:1)
Uh... (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, if your laptop was whacked out and outputting the wrong voltages (or something, im no electronics major), you could damage the inputs. They might not notice even notice untill the future buyer brings it back.
Re:Uh... (Score:2, Informative)
Mordern display won't even attempt to display things outside their range and the inputs are protected from over/under-voltage similar to an RS-232 port (tough suckers they are; at least the true-to-spec ones are).
Re:Uh... (Score:2)
Re:Uh... (Score:3, Funny)
Uh...Thank you (Score:2)
Vertical
Re:Uh... (Score:1)
Standard TVs? (Score:2)
Any thoughts?
Re:Standard TVs? (Score:3, Informative)
Browsing the web, however, is a pain in the ass. Text is very hard to read, even with the font sizes cranked up.
Using a TV as monitor for playing media is a viable solution, however, especially if you have your hi-fi sound system in the proximity of your TV. It's much nicer to kick back and
Re:Standard TVs? (Score:2)
Do you have Teletext in the US? The text on that is very readable... I'd like the equivalent on the TV I suppose, just for the web. Also, what are games like on a TV like that?
Re:Standard TVs? (Score:2)
Re:Standard TVs? (Score:1)
In the US and places where they are proposing to implement HDTV, it willbe deliverd only over digital channels, because digital channels can use compression and cut the bandwidth requirement massively. Plus, of course, digital channels don
Re:Standard TVs? (Score:1)
Not true. While a digital signal may not be as susceptible to noise as an analog signal, the digital cable is sent using a 64-QAM (or similar) modulation scheme. This can most definately suffer from noise, which is why the modulation scheme is chosen based on the channel's SNR (as well as other reasons too). -dave
Re:Standard TVs? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Standard TVs? (Score:3, Interesting)
br/? Anyway, my first monitor was for the PC - just before that I had an Amiga which had a weird device called a TV modulator.
Re:Standard TVs? (Score:1)
Re:Standard TVs? (Score:1)
Whippersnappers! I'll show you ... (Score:1)
In *my* day, we only had paper to write our C code on, and no whitetape, so it had better be right the first time!
All this dynamic display stuff has been -terrible- on programming, I tell ya. One disappointment after the other...
short answer no. long answer hdtv (Score:1)
Re:Standard TVs? (Score:2)
With my 27" RCA... S-Video is beautiful for watching DVDs, web-browsing isn't bad. I think that this particular TV must support non-standard resolutions a little better though, or my video card is doing a better job than the last... at 800x600 or 1024x768 text still looks pretty good, the cursor is visible, and only things like small terminal fonts really give me problems (+1 fontsize on browser makes brows
Opposing design phillosophies (Score:5, Insightful)
Monitor: clearly defined, sharp, ability to invididually see a pixel.
Ipso facto: you're probably going to be disappointed trying to use a TV as a computer display.
-psy
My take on it, as an LCD HDTV owner (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically, I have an HDTV LCD rear projection 50". Its native resolution is 1280x720, but with a little overscan you have to cut that down to about 1200x680 (roughly). I believe this resolution is typically the same for DLP rear projections and LCOS. I suspect that LCD flat panels are the same. Some DLP TVs appeared to me to have a limited color depth and too much dithering was apparent. I don't think this is an inherent problem with the technology, however, as DLP projectors work quite well hooked up to computers.
An "EDTV" plasma flat-panel TV is (IIRC) 768x480. That is clearly inadequate for use as a computer monitor. I think even the HDTV plasmas are commonly only 720 vertical lines. The few TVs that actually have 1080 lines of resolution are mostly CRT tubes (e.g. CRT RP).
The most important question is what the native resolution of these LCD flat panels is, and whether or not there is a computer-compatible connector that makes full use of it. For example, my TV I specifically got because it has both RGB (HD15) and DVI inputs, and I can get a resolution that maps directly to the pixels on the screen.
Unfortunately, this resolution (again, 1280x720) is not really adequate for full-time use as a computer monitor. It's great for the occasional web surfing, but I wouldn't want to do any real work on it.
In summary: If you can deal with the resolution, and there is a good connector on the TV (DVI is ideal, VGA is acceptable), then you will be fine. There's nothing particularly wrong with the attributes of these LCD TVs for use as computer monitors, in general, including color depth and pixel response times. (Once you start looking at other technologies like CRT RP, DLP, and Plasma, these other issues may become problematic.)
Re:My take on it, as an LCD HDTV owner (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHO P
Re:My take on it, as an LCD HDTV owner (Score:1)
Re:My take on it, as an LCD HDTV owner (Score:2)
The monitor I'm using right now (a tired old Viewsonic M90) has less than half the screen real-estate of your HDTV, yet can display almost twice as many pixels! I don't see anything on my screen that would look better on a big screen..
Broadcast and computer video have always been apples and oranges, despite their superficial similarity.
Re:My take on it, as an LCD HDTV owner (Score:1)
> But who would want to?
Got to agree with you there. You'll note I also called that resolution "not really adequate for full-time use as a computer monitor". At the same time, for some applications bigger is better. Particularly, this resolution is quite adequate for most 3D games, but you better turn on the best damn antialiasing your card can handle.
ops?! (Score:1)
Why? I use everyday to work 1280x720 (using it right now)... and I'm curious....
Re:ops?! (Score:1)
It depends entirely on (a) what kind of work you are doing, and (b) your style.
I do coding full-time, and I typically have 6 half-screen-height shells and 3 full-height editor windows open at a time, or maybe 4 editors and 4 shells. This gives me 600 lines of text on the screen at once. I'm running a dual-monitor setup with both monitors at 1600x1200. And yet, I could probably make good use of three monitors.
Re:ops?! (Score:1)
Nothing wrong with your way (or mine), but it is still personal preference.
Oh! the horror! the lack of money! (Score:1)
and I use tabs a lot, tabbed browser, tabbed IDE (KDevelop), tabbed terminal (konsole) or konsole + screen (better keyboard support, can detach. the day konsole can detach a terminal session, I won't use screen anymore!)
Re:My take on it, as an LCD HDTV owner (Score:1)
Re:My take on it, as an LCD HDTV owner (Score:1)
Re:My take on it, as an LCD HDTV owner (Score:1)
Re:My take on it, as an LCD HDTV owner (Score:1)
Second, don't LCD flat panels suffer the same amount as LCD rear projection? Obviously there are a ton of LCD monitors out there, so it doesn't seem to be impacting their perception as a viable technology for computer monitors.
Re:My take on it, as an LCD HDTV owner (Score:1)
Re:My take on it, as an LCD HDTV owner (Score:1)
Also, you get less of the "screen door effect" with a DLP than with an LCD projection because of the better fill percentage. This may let you get a bigger DLP screen for the same viewing distance.
So in many ways I think DLP has the potential to be a better technology. It is lacking right now (in my opinion) because I think most screens are a single chip solution with a color wheel, and that gave them perceptually less color depth despite the better contrast ratio. That and the cost was sig
Projector (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Projector (Score:2, Informative)
So up front the investment is great but the downside is the replacement of the parts, bulbs, color wheel, ballast, etc.
Re:Projector (Score:2)
Re:Projector (Score:1)
Then again the 2000 lumen system was $1649.00 compared to the 1K mark for the lesser.
Re:Projector (Score:2)
Video-Fu (Score:5, Funny)
When you can snatch the DVI adapter out of my hand, grasshopper, it will be time for you to upgrade.
Laptop on Floor Display (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a 42 inch Sony LCD RPTV (Score:5, Interesting)
I never had any luck using the DVI inputs on the TV with my video cards, I'd end up with horribly low resolutions or weird looking stretched screens. I finally went out and got an ATI video card and one of ATI's VGA to component video converters and that worked pretty well with Powerstrip to give me a resolution of 1280 by 680.
Again, it's not perfect, but it's not bad for light web surfing, playing games, etc.
I think I know why (Score:5, Insightful)
I talk about this in one of my letters columns [dansdata.com].
In brief: They will work, but only for suitably small values of "work", because they'll only accept DVI-HDTV input. That's a subset of regular DVI that only supports a few scan rates. If you can't goose your video card into outputting the resolution and frequency combinations the screen wants, you're out of luck.
Samsung 22" (Score:1)
At the moment we use a 15" Samsung which is fed by computer, analog sat tuner and digital sat tuner.
15" is OK for analog TV viewing. The idea behind a 22" wide XGA screen is that it will be good for DVB-S and DVD too. I also need more pixel real estate for work. 1024x768 DVB-S TV is awesome quality - real blacks and whites and sharp clean images.
When we want to watch movies on a big screen we go to a cinema... Or other half brings h
My setup (Score:4, Informative)
I personally have a HTPC (home theater PC) setup in my apartment. The display is a Samsung HLN4365W DLP set. Not the same as LCD, but it accepts the same types of input as a standard HDTV device: DVI, Component, etc.
My PC is a standard Windows XP box. Shuttle XPC SN45G case/mobo, Athlon 1800+, 512MB RAM, WinTV PVR, and a Radeon 9600 Pro.
My display's native resolution is 1280x720p. By default, my video card does not have this resolution enabled. An application called PowerStrip has been around for a good long while that excels at doing things like adjusting vertical/horizontal scan rates, resolutions, etc. in most video cards' firmware & drivers. Note that the display worked fine at 800x600, but then I wasn't making much good use of the widescreen aspect ratio and DVDs from the HTPC were letterboxed in the 8x6 area of the screen, which looked retarded.
So will your laptop work? It's not 100% clear that it will since your laptop probably has an integrated video chipset that PowerStrip may not support. Of course, you might just get lucky and it might work out of the box, too.
The agony of a non-HDTV! (Score:5, Informative)
Where I was extremely let down was in the quality of the TV display. I don't have an HDTV, just an older rear projection set. I have to enable the Windows Accessibility Options in order to even come close to reading the fonts on the screen. Really ugly Windows High Contrast Black (large fonts). Yuck.
When I called VIA to get the display driver specs versus typical TV specs I was told that 800x600 was the best resolution I could hope for. And that this sort of setup is primarily intended for watching videos. Any onscreen fonts are really pushing it.
Can't complain in that the whole setup was around $600 in all, but I am still amazed at how average TV screen resolution is so much poorer than what a home PC can put out. I guess HDTV would be a good step up for me, but then again I am not relishing shelling out $1500-2000 only 5-6 years after getting my current set.
[/rant]
Re:The agony of a non-HDTV! (Score:1)
Composite video is bad. Really bad. Very low bandwidth. Switch to S-Video out (if your ITX supports it), and you'll see a huge increase in video quality.
Re:The agony of a non-HDTV! (Score:2)
Re:The agony of a non-HDTV! (Score:2)
Do that, and use Component if AT ALL possible. Better yet, VGA. But S-video is noticable over composite, easily.
Hell, do this as a test; plug in to your television both the composite and the S-video, put on a video, and flip between the two.
Bear in mind also that going through the receiver is going to degrade your signal further; you won't notice on a 20 inch CRT, but you will on something like that.
Reso still sucks, but getting better (Score:2)
suggest a digi projector for half the cost, and wait for the LCD's to exceed the plasma's in quality, cost and lifetime...very soon...
Although the Apple 23" Cinema display is hard to not LOVE
Re:monitor setup (Score:2)