Turn Your Monitor Into an HDTV

orangerobot writes "ViewSonic has released an interesting new box that turns any VGA monitor into an HDTV video display with support for standards up to 1080i. At $399 it's a little on the pricey side, but according to the review from EnvyNews, the unit performs pretty well." Like the review, I can't figure out what the target market for this is, but it's still a cool device.

Comments

Encryption out the window

[Foxxz]

ok, i know it wont let you make digital copies, but its one step closer to recording hdtv

-foxxz

Re:Encryption out the window

[violent.ed]

ok, i know it wont let you make digital copies, but its one step closer to recording hdtv


You can allways point your digicam at the monitor #;)

Hmm

[blitzoid]

I would imagine that simply buying a HDTV would, in the end, be cheaper. HDTVs are just really big monitors IIRC. That's not to say this isn't cool, I just imagine it would be more economical to buy an HDTV and use it as your monitor :D

Re:Hmm

[sacherjj]

But if you already have a 1024x768 VGA capable LCD projector, this is a really cool option. Now, my only problem would be that I would have to watch TV live again. I haven't done that since November, with the exception of the Shuttle and recent Iraq events. Don't think I'll be spending the big bucks when HD TiVo comes out.

Re:Hmm

[The Clockwork Troll]

The best CRT-based consumer HDTV's are far less sophisticated than the best consumer monitors.

Consider that the best purpose-built HDTV's can only display 720 lines of video non-interlaced and 1080 lines interlaced, and even then only at a refresh rate of 60Hz.

What's on your desktop is a far better display device, it's just smaller, and mostly what you're paying for with HDTV's is size.

Re:Hmm

[timeOday]

At first I thought this was an HDTV capture device, which certainly would be useful. But reading the web page, I can't tell. It seems there may be no way to get the video stream into the computer itself, which make is sort of like a KVM switch without K or M.

Re:Hmm

[at_kernel_99]

I would imagine that simply buying a HDTV would, in the end, be cheaper. HDTVs are just really big monitors IIRC. That's not to say this isn't cool, I just imagine it would be more economical to buy an HDTV and use it as your monitor :D

Maybe I'm the guy that's missing something, but the cheapest HDTVs I saw at best buy are above $1300 US. Meanwhile, I bought a used 19" monitor a month ago for $55. If I must have HDTV, $455 seems cheap.

Re:Hmm

[Jeff DeMaagd]

You can use a TV input card with the Bt8x8 chipset and run dscaler (http://www.dscaler.com). At least you can tune to analog broadcasts this way, for the cost of maybe $50.

There are HDTV tuner/decoder cards that you can put in a computer that will scale to most native resolutions. I think one can be had for under $350.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm totally confused by this product.

if you already have a monitor...you probably have a pc hooked up to it as well.

buy a $150 WinTV-D pci card)...hook up a $15 antennae and you are now watching HDTV on your monitor.

Re:Hmm

[sdo1]

But if you already have a 1024x768 VGA capable LCD projector, this is a really cool option

How many 1024x768 projectors don't already have inputs for composite, s-video, and probably component?

I think this thing would be redundant for just about all projectors.

-S

Re:Hmm

[shepd]

>How many 1024x768 projectors don't already have inputs for composite, s-video, and probably component?

All of those are 525 lines of interlaced video (625 if you're in europe). Blech.

The problem with projectors is that unless they have CRT tubes in them (not likely unless you paid about $25k [or more] for it) you're not going to have interlaced support. If it does support it, it will be de-interlaced, and anyone who has a video capture card knows that isn't very good.

Re:Hmm

[The Real Chrisjc]

You insensitive clod!
If you had actually read the article, he did compare this device to normal TV tuner cards, and he said something to the effect that he often had problems with them, and scan artefacts etc. If you were to use your monitor like a full time television, you don't really want to have a PC running it! For starters, PCs make noise (lots of!), they go wrong (sometimes quite frequently) and they require turning off before you go to sleep. Yes, I know I could get a remote control for the pc and get it to shut itself down. But it's much quicker to have a device you can turn off instantly, and then the monitor goes in to standby. I have a lesser model, made by someone else, which just scan doubles and has a remote. It works better than any TV I've seen at what I paid for device (£150) + monitor (£100 off a friend). Oh, did I mention that a PC makes alot of noise as well?

Re:Hmm

[DavidBrown]

But the replacement bulbs for LCD projectors are expensive, especially considering that these bulbs don't have a particularly long lifetime.

Re:Hmm

[adagioforstrings]

The bulbs we use at work have a life of 2000 hrs. We've had the original projector bulb last for two years with pretty heavy usage (a couple hours a day), as well as moving the projector around a lot. They are expensive though, that's for sure. Still, the way I watch stuff (not much) it'd last me a couple years, and I'd love to have HDTV thru a projector.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

its possible to build a quiet pc ya know. i'm just sayin'.
no fans and superquiet harddrives (like the seagate barracuda v), man, my monitor buzz is louder than my pc. just FIY ,see.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Making your HDTV act like a monitor is a lot easier said than done. Even if you get it working, unless you're on a plasma ($$$) the resolutions are non-standard and games get very finicky. Basically, it's a pain in the butt.

Re:Hmm

[uberdood]

Blitzoid, your posting would be a bit more insightful if it mentioned the fact that practically ALL HDTVs one can buy at Circuit City/Best Buy/etc REQUIRE AN EXTERNAL HDTV SIGNAL BOX LIKE THE ONE IN THIS ARTICLE .

Use with a projector?

[slimsam1]

Could you potentially use this device with a projector? Might make a great (much cheaper) alternative to a giant HDTV.

Re:Use with a projector?

[slimsam1]

I just saw that this is actually recommended on the site.

Re:Use with a projector?

[questionlp]

A lot of projectors in the market now have DVI input, so you should be able to connect an HDTV "tuner" to the projector via DVI and have it project the image. The only problem is that most projectors use the 4:3 aspect ratio (there are some projectors that are native 16:9 or 16:10).

Re:Use with a projector?

[gatekeep]

You'd want to have a projector capable of displaying appropriately high resolutions. At that point, you may as well just get an HD Projector.

Taking a high def image and displaying it at 1024x768 wouldn't make much sense.

Re:Use with a projector?

[sacherjj]

Actually 1024x768 is as good or better than the resolution that consumer level HDTVs can resolve. Sure, they are scanning all the information for an HDTV broadcast, but the tube can't resolve all of that into a picture as of yet. To actually get full resolution, you need to spend serious money. So a 1024x768 projector will get you very close.

Re:Use with a projector?

[gatekeep]

A 1024x768 image and a full 1080i 1920x1080 image are pretty far apart.. Granted, this is an inexpensive solution that will get you better than standard definition quality, but it's not quite HDTV quality.

You can get a pretty good 34" HDTV set that'll show the full res for about $2000. And also, it's 16:9 aspect ratio. Much better bang for my buck in my mind that this thing for $400, and still having to buy a monitor (call it $200) for a total of $600 for what, a 19" 4:3 less than HDTV quality image? Of course there's less expensive HDTVs, smaller ones, and 4:3s as well. If non of those fit my price range I'd rather wait a year or so than fork over that kind of money for an inferior product.

Re:Use with a projector?

[vasqzr]

You'd have lots of fun replacing $500 projector bulbs every month...

Re:Use with a projector?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You can get a pretty good 34" HDTV set that'll show the full res for about $2000.

The best direct-view HDTV on the market is Sony's; I don't recall the model number, but I have the slightly older KD34-XBR2. It has the highest actual resolution of any direct-view tube in the consumer market. It resolves about 800 lines of vertical resolution. That's not too shabby: 800 lines out of 1080. Pro tubes in studio monitors can resolve 1000 lines, but they're ten times more expensive.

So you can get a really good 34" HDTV for about $2,000, but it won't show everything there is to see in the HD picture.

Re:Use with a projector?

[gatekeep]

It sounds like you're talking about the 34XBR800. List is $2499, but it can be found for much lower. I realize what you're saying, but it's still a heck of a lot better than a normal monitor will show, plus it's larger, and 16:9. To me, that's worth the price, and to those for whom it isn't, prices are dropping QUICKLY.

Re:Use with a projector?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well most bulbs are now around $250-$300, not cheap but better than $500. And a bulb will last about 2000 hours on most units (check the specs). When you calculate that out with average use, it should last you a couple of YEARS. Not bad for the enterainment value you get out of it...

Re:Use with a projector?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Yes, that's what I was talking about. Thanks for the clarification.

Don't misunderstand my point, though. I bought my KD34XB2 for $3,000 last summer, and I wouldn't go back for all the tea in China. Anybody who has any interest in watching sports or drama programming in HD and who has the wherewithal should make the investment.

Re:Use with a projector?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Uh, it's not needed. Most LCD and DLP projectors made in the last five years automatically take 1080i, 720p, 480p in component format, as well as a lot of computer resolutions. Just about all projectors now sold accept it HD scan rates.

The only caveat is that it would be scaled to the display's native resolution. My projector only has the standard 15 pin D-subs but I can input RGB or YUV color spaces.

Re:Use with a projector?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must watch a lot of TV. I just got a used XGA projector on Ebay for $600, and a similar Viewsonic device (2 generations back, no HDTV).
What looks good is that you don't need a PC anywhere near, and it has a remote, so it's almost like the real thing. My version tops out at 125 channels, unfortunately.

Re:Use with a projector?

[spike hay]

Could you potentially use this device with a projector? Might make a great (much cheaper) alternative to a giant HDTV.

Hmm. Why are all HDTVs so huge, with the exception of a few LCD displays? (BTW, the LCDs that I see at Best Buy still have ghosting) I either can get a gigantic and ridiculously expensive CRT, a fuzzy CRT projection tv with poorer image quality than an NTSC, or a big expensive plasma display that will wear out in 3 years.

Why can't I just get a 24" widescreen CRT HDTV? Why is that so difficult?

Re:Use with a projector?

[cbreaker]

I guess if you have satellite TV this is true. Unless you use Satellite, there's not many options as far as HDTV sources.

Any digital cable I've seen doesn't do HDTV, maybe some do but I've not seen any. The only thing available to me that's HDTV is my Xbox and a dish if I got one.

I think this is a cool little box and I really want one. It will let you play anything HDTV on a computer screen. This has a lot of value. And $300 is cheap IMO considering what it does.

When I purchase one I'll use it to play the Xbox on my spare 21" monitor.

Re:Use with a projector?

[dododge]

there's not many options as far as HDTV sources.

There's terrestrial, but obviously that depends on how close you are to the local broadcasters. I'm between two major markets and can generally get at least one digital signal from each of the networks. But of course most of them don't transmit HD all the time, and there are cases like FOX that won't do HD at all.

Any digital cable I've seen doesn't do HDTV, maybe some do but I've not seen any.

Comcast has rolled out HD on digital cable in the Baltimore/Washington area. As I understand it they offer HBO, Showtime, and a couple of the local affiliates in HD. A friend is due to get the box tomorrow and it'll be interesting to see how it looks.

Re:Use with a projector?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Unless you use Satellite, there's not many options as far as HDTV sources.

Rabbit ears, dude. Most places around the country have over-the-air HD.

Any digital cable I've seen doesn't do HDTV, maybe some do but I've not seen any.

If I remember right, Comcast, Adelphia, TWC, and AT&T are all deploying HD in the major markets; it should be in your town real soon.

Re:Use with a projector?

[cbreaker]

Unfortunately rabit ears will only get me one station of HTDV =(

It will be nice if the cable companies start doing HDTV.

Satellite is generally more expensive then cable, but if I were about to spend some big bucks on a decent HDTV setup, I'd also go for Satellite anyways, and get digital (surround)sound too.

HDTV?

[Little Grey]

I was under the impression that HDTV was much higher than 1280x1024. Closer actually to ~1920x1280 (or something along those lines) And how exactly will this work with ANY monitor? I have a VGA monitor in my basement that I'd be very surprised to see display 1280x1024 with the aid of this device

Re:HDTV?

[The Salamander]

1920 x 1080i (or 1280x720p if you go that way).

Pretty low, actually. And most current TVs don't display anywhere near 1920, more like 1440 or 1280.

Re:HDTV?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

And most current TVs don't display anywhere near 1920, more like 1440 or 1280.

That's not quite accurate, at least when it comes to direct-view HDTV's. Some HDTV's down-sample a 1080i signal to a 720p signal, but most of them actually display the full 1080i picture. The thing, though, is that the picture tube isn't capable of resolving a picture that fine. The best consumer picture tubes on the market can resolve about 800 lines of resolution; these sets cost $2,000-$4,000. The best professional tubes can resolve about 1,000 lines, but they cost, literally, ten times more.

So the TV tries to display the full 1920x1080 picture-- it scans all the pixels-- but the tube isn't capable of resolving it.

Re:HDTV?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish it was that high of a resolution. DVD's are 480 lines high. Most HDTV broadcasts are two seperate pictures of 540 lines high (interlaced). In the near (10 year) future, the FCC says most HDTV broadcast material will be 480 lines high. That's the bare minimum of digital TV that they're planning on broadcasters to convert to in 2006. ABC and ESPN are planning on transmitting HDTV at 720 lines, because sports are important to them. Watching Football or Basketball on the flickering 540 line high displays is painful. The problem with 720 lines high is that no one makes a rear-projection TV with that high of a resolution. All of them are limited to 540 lines.

I'm terribly disappointed with HDTV. I'm posting this on my 13 year-old 20" Sun monitor that's running at 1600x1200. We all know why DVD's are so sad. There just isn't enough capacity on the discs to store enough data, but there is no excuse for broadcast TV to be so terrible.

Re:HDTV?

[Anonymous Coward]

> more like 1440 or 1280

1280? You need to do some more study. No company makes a consumer rear-projection TV that has a resolution of more than 540 lines. No company currently has plans to offer a model with a resolution of greater than 540 lines. If you want more than 540 lines, you'll have to go to certain expensive CRT's or projection TV's.

Re:HDTV?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Most HDTV broadcasts are two seperate pictures of 540 lines high (interlaced).

That's not really how it works. A 1080i picture captures a full 1080 lines of spatial resolution, sacrificing temporal resolution in order to do it. Each frame is 1080 lines high; the fact that the frame is captured and drawn in fields doesn't change the spatial resolution.

Compare a 1080i picture to a 480p picture on the same, high-quality monitor, and you'll be able to see the difference. It's like night and day.

Watching Football or Basketball on the flickering 540 line high displays is painful.

Oh, no it's not. During the season I watched SEC football and some NFL playoff games on CBS in 1080i. It was very, very easy on the eyes. In fact, thanks to CBS's investment in gear and experienced production engineers, it looked a heck of a lot better than ABC's 720p Superbowl broadcast.

And did you watch the Grammys in 1080i? Wow. An amazing, reference-quality broadcast. Possibly the best program in terms of overall picture quality ever broadcast over the air.

Re:HDTV?

[Carpathius]

> No company makes a consumer rear-projection TV that has a resolution of more than 540 lines.

Huh? I didn't think this sounded right, so I took a look at the specs for a Mitsubishi 55411. They claim a horizontal resolution of 1200, and vertical scan rates of 480i, 480p, and 1080i.

So, at least Mitsubishi makes a rear projection television with a horizontal resolution of more than 540. And that's not the top of the line. I'd guess that other manufacturers are similar.

Re:HDTV?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're the person who watches the Grammys. I knew someone watched that, but never knew who.

Re:HDTV?

[Anonymous Coward]

> A 1080i picture captures a full 1080 lines of spatial resolution,

But only 540 lines are shown at any one time.

> sacrificing temporal resolution in order to do it.

It flashes-up two different 540 line high pictures, thus the horrible flickering. Those of us that have used high resolution monitors more than 10 years ago know just how horrible interlace pictures are. Single-pixel high horizontal lines are instant headache makers.

> ABC's 720p Superbowl broadcast.

Do you really have a TV that supports 720p? I seriously doubt that. None of the consumer RPTV's support 720. You were probably watching it downconverted to 1080i (540 lines high).

There is no competition between the 1080i (actually 540 lines high) and 720p. 720p is a little better on static pictures and much, much better on moving scenes.

Re:HDTV?

[Anonymous Coward]

> vertical scan rates of 480i, 480p, and 1080i.

1080i is 540 lines of resolution. 480p is 480 lines. No company makes consumer RPTV's with a resolution of more than 540 lines. You really need to get a clue before posting publicly.

Re:HDTV?

[Anonymous Coward]

But only 540 lines are shown at any one time.

I think for the people that don't know much about HDTV, and there are plenty from reading over some of the responses here, you should have more clearly explained that 1080i only uses 540 lines of resolution on the TV. In other words, your 1080i TV is only a 540 resolution monitor that happens to display a 540 line picture twice as often. A true 720 line rear-projection TV is something the market is still waiting on. It's something I'm waiting on before upgrading our TV's here at work.

Re:HDTV?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad the content providers HATE hdtv.

Where the hell are the HD DVD players? and the HDTV DVD movies? Because lucas and the others dont want you to have them.

You will never see a DVD player and content available in 1080i, they dont want you to have it.

Re:HDTV?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're on crack... We're going to see HD DVD before the end of the year. There won't be a lot of title available, but the hardware is coming shortly.

I imagine it will languish, titleless, until the rest of you jump to HD capable monitors. Hurry up already.

Re:HDTV?

[cheinonen]

However, no one currently is broadcasting a full 1920x1080i signal. The cameras and equipment used will get you around 1400-1500 x 1080i resolution, but not the full 1920 (I think HDNet might be the only channel that's full resolution). However, channels that use 720p do broadcast at full 1280x720p resolution, so you acually wind up with more pixels per second, not to mention far fewer motion and interlacing artifacts.

Re:HDTV?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

However, no one currently is broadcasting a full 1920x1080i signal.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You're thinking of certain MPEG-2 encoders that interpolate a 1920x1080 raster to 1440x1080 before encoding. This is the exception, not the rule.

Re:HDTV?

[AbRASiON]

Hang on........

If you are saying what I *THINK* you are saying, I might go home and polish my @#$%ing rifle!

That's a disgrace - the "standard" is 1920x1080i I'm SO fucking sick of audio / tv / dvd/ blah standards being messed with

If a TV has HDTV compliant sticker on it (and 3x the sticker price to boot of course) it damn well should display 1920x1080i as well as the "optional" ? 1280x720p (I think I'd prefer that one)

I know DVD's contain more information than a TV can display - 700 or so x 576 and MOST TV's don't display the FULL quality of a DVD - but we've all known that, and we've all known "if I get a HDTV and the right player, it SHOULD give me the full picture pixels"
but now I'm thinking "they" (marketers / hollywood?) - will be making "HD-DVD" with 1920x1080 data but my TV won't ACTUALLY display it all.

Please tell me I've misread you, or am I going to have even LESS faith in the standard groups and humans in general after getting your reply?

big sigh.....

Re:HDTV?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

1080i is 540 lines of resolution.

1080i is 540 line per field. There are two fields per frame. The projector or tube or whatever will draw the odd lines first, then the even lines. The projector or tube has to be able to draw all 1080 lines, just not all at once.

You really need to get a clue before posting publicly.

Right back atcha. You're completely off-base about this one.

Re:HDTV?

[AbRASiON]

Actually he's right.....

I recall reading an article where a fellow had "build" a contraption (bear in mind this is an old article) which allowed him to hook a DVD player up directly to a digital flat panel via DVI or some other such format.

It gave the full resolution width and height and was 100% digital image.

They banned the device because it was decoding the data and passing it out in a DATA format (or digital) rather than analog and was similar (in effect) to decss or some such and would enable piracy easier (perhaps it was even before Decss?)

It was in the UK if I recall......

They don't want "us" having too much quality in our lounge rooms - they need to control what we have or we can see their mistakes
we can copy their works easier if we have a high quality version of it (it's basically then a "master" in their eyes)

the list goes on.......

Re:HDTV?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

But only 540 lines are shown at any one time.

Wrong. Only 540 lines are drawn in each vertical refresh. All 1080 lines are shown at the same time. See, the device-- projector or tube or whatever-- draws the even lines. Then it leaves those lines alone, and it draws the even lines. Then it goes back and refreshes the odd lines, leaving the even lines alone. Lather, rinse, repeat.

720p is a little better on static pictures and much, much better on moving scenes.

Depending on your preferences, you might like 720p better because it's frame-based instead of field-based. (Most people can't tell the difference.) But 1080i has considerably higher spatial resolution. I really have no idea where you got this idea.

Re:HDTV?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The projector or tube has to be able to draw all 1080 lines, just not all at once.

Exactly. It doesn't do it all at once, thus there is horrible flicker. For those of us that had interlaced VGA monitors or Amigas, we know how bad it is.

The picture tube on one of the cheap hack 1080i displays only shows 540 pixels. Period. End of story.

> You're completely off-base about this one.

I'm not so get over it, and stop with the weak personal attacks. Do some research before wasting our time.

Re:HDTV?

[dododge]

If a TV has HDTV compliant sticker on it (and 3x the sticker price to boot of course) it damn well should display 1920x1080i

If the TV makers had their way they'd be marketing "high definition" sets that couldn't sync any of the high resolution formats. In fact I think one or two sets made it out the door that way before the folks responsible for HDTV standards put a stop to it.

Even so, you cannot buy any LCD or DLP projector today that has 1920x1080 resolution, unless perhaps you have $100K to spend and can supply a couple kilowatts of power. Various conspiracy theories suggest that this is fully intentional on the part of the projector makers (mainly TI and JVC in this case), and that they are only going to supply full resolution projectors for large-venue theaters.

Sony recently announced that they will have a consumer 1920x1080 projector (based on their implementation of LCOS) out within the year. Some folks at avsforum claim to have already seen working prototypes. Given a $3K price point, they could pretty much own the home theater projector market by this time next year. Unfortunately the expected price is more like $8K-$12K.

but now I'm thinking "they" (marketers / hollywood?) - will be making "HD-DVD" with 1920x1080 data but my TV won't ACTUALLY display it all

More likely the Hollywood folks will drag their heels for as long as possible on providing HD DVDs of any sort, and when they do come out they'll be extremely compressed with the lowest quality they can get away with. See the One Format Only campaign.

Re:HDTV?

[dododge]

which allowed him to hook a DVD player up directly to a digital flat panel via DVI or some other such format.

They banned the device because it was decoding the data and passing it out in a DATA format (or digital)

These folks sell SDI (serial digital interface) output modifications for DVD players. What this basically does is tap the output of the MPEG decoder and send it out as a purely digital data stream. You can then feed that into a scaler (with SDI input, of course) and produce whatever resolution you want.

The downside: it ain't cheap :-)

Still need external HDTV tuner....

[Anonymous Coward]

It still requires a external HDTV tuner, which will run you another 500$. Not that great a deal....

Re:Still need external HDTV tuner....

[The Clockwork Troll]

Actually the Zenith HDV420 is a decent standalone HDTV tuner which can be had for less than $400 mail order and probably even cheaper on eBay.

Re:Still need external HDTV tuner....

[Blademan007]

Very True. So the topis title is actually incorrect.

Re:Still need external HDTV tuner....

[Anonymous Coward]

You need a tuner for OTA or Satellite right?
OTOH, If you get ur HDTV from an HDcablebox or are using component for your progressive scan DVD player, you dont.

Re:Still need external HDTV tuner....

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could use GNU Radio and do it in software.

Re:Still need external HDTV tuner....

[Billy the Mountain]

It has a tuner. Read the article.

Re:Still need external HDTV tuner....

[Anonymous Coward]

it has a tv tuner which is different from an hdtv tuner. after reading comes reading comprehension

Re:Still need external HDTV tuner....

[pseudonymouse]

It has a tuner

It has an NTSC tuner, not an HDTV tuner. For $400 an HDTV tuner alone would have made the box worth buying... :(

Re:Still need external HDTV tuner....

[steve_bryan]

The article just says it has a tuner. If you check ViewSonic's web site you learn it is an NTSC tuner built in and allows you to connect an HDTV set top box to one of its inputs. For those keeping score that means that after paying $400 for this box you still have to buy an ATSC tuner (ie an HDTV set top box) in order to display HDTV on you computer monitor. Notice that this still does not allow for high resolution capture of the signal for later viewing.

If you have PC game capable machine then you could probably buy one HDTV tuner card from DVICO which will be carried by www.digitalconection.com for $159. This allows you to view HDTV and record te compressed digital video signal to your hard drive.

Makes sense

[Animats]

This makes sense for ViewSonic. They make good monitors, and they might want to expand into HDTV units.

But why not 1080p support?

"Reverse 3/2 pulldown" - yuck. Movies originated as 24FPS film, when encoded as HDTV, should be in 24FPS 1080p.

Re:Makes sense

[Twirlip of the Mists]

"Reverse 3/2 pulldown" - yuck. Movies originated as 24FPS film, when encoded as HDTV, should be in 24FPS 1080p.

Once you pass a 1080/30i signal through reverse 3:2 pulldown, it is a 1080/24p signal. Once you remove the extra frames that 3:2 adds, and resuffle the fields back into their original order, you end up with precisely what the camera recorded.

Re:Makes sense

[Tumbleweed]

And what 1080p content do you think you're going to find, anywhere on the planet? The only thing I know of is the original digital source for the new Star Wars movies, and there's nothing _released_ in that format - there certainly aren't any plans for broadcasting at that rate that I've heard of. Many are talking about broadcasting in 720p instead of 1080i (which is a good idea - a progressive pic is _much_ nicer than an interlaced one, even with a 'higher' resolution for the interlaced).

Re:Makes sense

[Babbster]

Actually, 1080p/24fps is the resolution that new digital masters of both new and older movies are using. For DVD, that master is then being downconverted into 480p MPEG2 video (for a while, and maybe even now but I don't look as close now, you could find the words "from high-definition digital master" on some DVDs). Take a look at this D-VHS site to see some movies that have been released at 1080i on D-VHS tapes - these movies are produced from 1080p masters, mainly because going directly from film to an interlaced format is unwise.

Re:Makes sense

[Tumbleweed]

Too bad they're not releasing them at 720p, but oh well.

The point is - there's no content available at 1080p, and likely won't be for the foreseeable future, so there's little point in people getting all worked-up over not having a 1080p-capable display, unless you work in video editing, that is.

Hopefully the new blu-ray DVD discs will allow a nice 1080p 24/30fps HD-DVD format.

Re:Makes sense

[captaineo]

When filmed content is broadcast in HD, does the MPEG stream actually take advantage of the "repeat field" flags to encode only 24 frames per second, like DVDs do? Or are the extra fields simply "burned in" to a regular 60 field per second MPEG stream?

One complication with these "inverse telecine" systems is that the field ordering might not be consistent between cuts. It will be consistent for a movie that is edited at 24fps and then telecine'd all at once, but lots of things are now shot on film, telecine'd shot-by-shot (with 3:2 pulldown), and THEN edited in a 60 field environment. So any cut is liable to break the 3:2 field ordering. (the video editors I have spoken to about this problem seem not to care, if they even understand the issue at all...)

Re:Makes sense

[Babbster]

You're right that there is no consumer content available at that resolution. I was only pointing out that the format is indeed in use. It's also worth nothing that there are people [riding the obsessively bleeding edge] out there who are "line doubling" (scaling is of course a better term) 1080i sources to 1080p for viewing on their ridiculously expensive home theater systems.

Re:Makes sense

[pyite69]

> Movies originated as 24FPS film, when encoded as HDTV, should be in
> 24FPS 1080p.

Actually this is a valid mode, and there are rumors of 1080p24 coming
on The West Wing.

Why convergence?

[Blaine Hilton]

I think I'm the only one on the whole planet that is not too excited over combing TV and computers. I think they are different and serve different purposes, and should stay different! I'm not a big TV person though and if I miss a show, OH WELL! Does anyone think the same way?

Re:Why convergence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Your in this boat alone. How does it feel to be an individual and the ONLY ONE with that specific thought? Must be special.

Re:Why convergence?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'm the only one on the whole planet that is not too excited over combing TV and computers.

I'm with you. I'd rather have something to comb on my bald head.

Re:Why convergence?

[cyb97]

A lot of work on your computer doesn't require your full attention or you just sit around and wait for something to head your way (that's when most people pull up serverlogs or similar and start watching people browsing p0rn) a little window with a TV-picture in it is pretty cool...
How ever this box more or less takes over your screen so it kinda defies my interest in combining TV&PC...

Re:Why convergence?

[chrisseaton]

I don't mean to sound snobby, but a few months ago I simply stopped watching TV.

I was very busy for a week, working almost all the time, so I couldn't watch any TV. At the end of the week I was surprised to find I didn't want to watch anymore.

Now I can't sit in front of the TV for more than five minutes or so of news without getting bored and thinking what a waste of time.

Re:Why convergence?

[Gortbusters.org]

How about if you have multiple computers and multiple monitors? One is your work station, you hack up your code, write your documents, and do all your e-mailing and slashdot posting.

The second is your media-computer, you have Winamp, XMMS, Windows Media player or whatever you want there. Your vast array of digital media can't be matched, but you're so tired of downloading poor quality Simpsons, Futurama, Dilbert, and dare I say it - VIP - episodes. Slap a tuner card in this bad boy (and did I mention it had a nice 24" flat screen monitor)? Before ya know it, you don't download those episodes anymore, you just watch them on that screen!

Re:Why convergence?

[Pharmboy]

I think I'm the only one on the whole planet that is not too excited over combing TV and computers. I think they are different and serve different purposes, and should stay different! I'm not a big TV person though and if I miss a show, OH WELL! Does anyone think the same way?

I used to think the same thing. Wouldn't buy a $50 card to even try it. Then I FOUND an old Pinnacle TV card in one of our random piles of cards, and installed it. Since I have cable modem at the home office, it was easy to setup. Now I don't know how I got along without it.

I use it mainly to watch (or listen) to news during the day while I work. Since news is 90% of what I watch anyway, it works great, allowed me to remove the tv from the office, save the power, and since it will run full screen, i can easily use the box for a tv only when the image is worthwhile. (seldom, but still there when I do)

The problem is most offices don't have cable or its a pain to setup. For a home office, however, its a good thing. I even leave the news on in the background while taking a break and playing a game of SC4 or AOM.

Its also WAY easier to record on the computer than with a vcr and makes it easy to mpeg and burn to cd. You can even edit out the commercials, etc. I haven't used a vcr in ages. I am almost ashamed to admit i have almost every South Park on cd. I get about 3 per cd :)

Re:Why convergence?

[kfg]

Your monitor is not your computer. It is merely the device to which it outputs video. In a similar manner what you look at when you think of watching TV is only the output device for the television signal.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of truely seperating the functions of a TV and using a seperate output device for display. Many flat panel and projection units do this already.

If you already *own* a high quality output display device and don't inherently need another why *pay* for another when all you need is a tuner? Not to mention paying, in various ways, for the space it takes up.

Throw in the fact that computers are now the technology of choice for manipulating video and you cut out another "middleman."

This is not to say that there are not perfectly good reasons for owning multiple devices, just to say that it's the owning of multiple devices that is begining to be the stance that demands some sort of extra justification. Not the other way around.

I'm already on record here as taking the position that having your computer be your refrigerator or toaster is just plain doofy, but your computer being your television, especially in an age where every day your television more and more becomes a computer (even with a hard drive)seems pretty reasonable.

Seperating the idea that your video display device is part of the *device itself* seems even more reasonable.

Consider it as the hardware version of Object Oriented, only with, ummmmmmmmm, objects.

KFG

Re:Why convergence?

[TheCrimsonUnbeliever]

I started that a couple of years ago - Like most people I would watch a few hours a day - Mainly when I went to bed - Would sit with the TV on for while - Sometimes even fall asleep with it on - Just for the company you know?

Then I thought: Why? - And stopped watching TV in the slightest - Suddenly I had so much more time - And did so much more with it - TV sucks your soul

Re:Why convergence?

[AbRASiON]

The issue is really, it would be damned nice if our HDTV images (1920x1080?) could be displayed properly on our monitor

AND our PC stuff could be displayed (1280x960 perhaps) properly on a HDTV system.

It would be good to make the 2 interchangable - could be handy for some things, could save costs as well with these things being interchangable (to an extent)
etc etc etc

instead of component cables, s-video cables, dvi cables, rca, coax and god knows what we should all be using one cable and one signal type - imagine the simplicity (sigh)

and it should be a digital signal too.

but hey - it would also be nice if all the railway tracks on earth were the same width, we all drove on the same side and all have the same power (110 or 240) but ......... we all know that ain't gonna happen :)

silly humans.

Re:Why convergence?

[evilviper]

Hmm, I have had a similar dillema, but I think I've resolved it.

You see, do not like to have multimedia on my PC. On my PC I do all sorts of things, and don't want to have to worry about if I have a good media player on the OS I happen to have installed, the drivers I have installed, etc. It's an incredible hassle to have multimedia on a PC. What makes it even worse is that you then have to get an expensive, high-power, high-heat system, which you are then always upgrading, etc.

Now, the problems with taking multimedia off your computer are numerous. You can have your CD player, VCD player, DVD player, CD recorder, DVD recorder, DVR (Tivo), and the rest as individual units, but not only are you spending a shitload more, but you don't have the advantages of having them all combined. With a computer as a multimedia center, I can copy one song off of dozens of CDs, and either make a new CD, or just play it (and millions of others) off the hard drive. With a computer, I can make a copy of my DVDs, and copy them to DVD or CD for backups. In the process, I can edit out the commercials that Disney and Fox force you to watch before you can watch the DVD. With a computer, I can use it as a Tivo, but then completely edit out the commercials, and record it at any quality I like, to a CD or DVD. What's more I can also download videos from other computers and either play or record them.

Admitedly, all this could be done is one Tivo-like device, but until the RIAA and MPAA let go of congress' balls, don't expect to see one. So there are clear advantages of a multimedia PC, but clear disadvantages to having multimedia on your PC. What to do?

The obvious answer is to have two PCs. On one, you do all your regular PC work. On the other, you have a TV-tuner, and TV-out, so you hook it up to your TV, and use it like a Tivo on steroids that doesn't talk back, doesn't require monthly fees, and doesn't even cost as much as a Tivo.

That is what I am trying to do right now. If I can get the TV-out working on my ATI All-In-Wonder 8500DV under Linux, I'll be ready to write a GUI for all the functions, ready to write some scripts to automate 99% of the things I have to do when working with multimedia on a PC, and ready to set my dedicated PC with my other video components and unplug the keyboard and mouse so I can do everything with my remote. After that, when HDTV ramps up, I can stick in a simple HDTV reciever card, and buy the HDTV output adapter for my video card. What makes this setup so very cool, is that it will be my entire multimedia system short the speakers and display. Once working, I can hook it up to a projector if I like, and go on the road with my 60+ inch personal theater that holds a month of video, and fits in a briefcase.

Then, I'm free to use a low-power, 200MHz system as my destop machine, which frees me an incredable ammount, and really opens me up to choose the options that make the best computer, rather than being a slave to Intel, and being locked in-to buying the fastest processor I can get my hands on.

I believe that this is not only a great option for myself, but I think people would be far happier if they too had this same multimedia/everything-else abstraction and seperation of computing.

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Bow down to the pimp juice, BITCH

What a Waste

[Sack]

Yeah that's exactly what I want...a 19" HDTV. If I'm spending $400 on a TV (not including tuner) then it damn well isn't going to be 19". Take that $400, and the cost of the tuner, and you're well on your way to a real HDTV that would actually provide some quality entertainment. That said, it is cool of course that this can be done. Synopsis - cool, yes; worthwile, hell no!

Re:What a Waste

[Babbster]

Having just purchased one of the cheapest HDTVs possible, you're just dead wrong. I paid $700 for a 27" direct-view HDTV (a Samsung) and I will still have to buy an HDTV tumor that will run me between $300 (for a PC HDTV tuner card) and $800 (for one of the nicer HDTV set-top boxes with satellite HDTV capability and all the outputs including DVI). If I had gone with something like the Viewsonic deal, I would have paid $300 less for the display and with a $500 set-top box I would have only been $100 over the cost of my (again, cheap) HDTV.

At the VERY least, this box gives you the ability to connect your Xbox or Gamecube to your monitor and get the true 480p signals (for most Xbox games and many Gamecube games), and I'm sure there are gamers out there who would like to get that capability for $400 instead of spending $700 or more on an HDTV.

Now, all that being said, if you just want to use your computer monitor to watch HDTV, I recommend checking out the myHD card which you can put right into your current box (assuming it's over 400MHz) and start watching HDTV right off the bat. That card is running at $300 (as low as $250). Note that the following isn't an ad for this particular retailer (you can google and see if there are more - it's the cheapest I've found), but you can find this card at Digital Connection. It even has S-video and composite inputs with scaling to several resolutions allowing you to connect other sources. Frankly, it's a much better deal than the Viewsonic.

Re:What a Waste

[Babbster]

"tumor" in the first paragraph above is a Freudian slip that even slipped past two previews. ;)

Does it come with a relay?

[kasperd]

It would be a nice feature if it was equiped with a relay, so the power to the monitor could be turned off when you use the standby button on the remote control. Unfortunately the specs seems to indicate that is not the case.

Re:Does it come with a relay?

[mashie]

Handy for a monitor, maybe, but you really don't want that with a projector. They get hot, and like to run the fan before powering down.

Re:Does it come with a relay?

[gl4ss]

why wouldnt the monitor go to standby when the unit is turned to standby?

Re:Does it come with a relay?

[kasperd]

Handy for a monitor, maybe, but you really don't want that with a projector.

You would not be forced to use it. But the feature could of course be improved by a configurable delay from the standby button is pressed until the relay switches off. But does the projector turn on automatically when the relay switches on again?

Re:Does it come with a relay?

[kasperd]

why wouldnt the monitor go to standby when the unit is turned to standby?

Of course it would. But do you want two units wasting power in stand by mode, when you could do with just one?

Re:Does it come with a relay?

[gl4ss]

why would you don't have such relays in pc's then?

because the stand-by/sleep mode is supposed to be power-effective enough for that kind of relay arrangement to be pointless.

Re:Does it come with a relay?

[Sarcazmo]

They used to have the sort of setup you are talking about, notice how some mostly older power supplies have the female IDC connector in addition to the male power in? In many power supplies, that power connection was switched on and off along with the main power switch.

I haven't seen that option available with newer ATX power supplies, so it looks like you are correct in your assumption that it is assumed the monitor will power itself down enough on signal loss.

Uhm, do the math...

[Anonymous Coward]

The cheapest 19" monitor is about $150. Add the $399 to do this, and you're looking at $549 for a 19" TV. Add to that the fact that at that size, you wouldn't even notice a benefit from HDTV, and you start asking, WHY?!?!?!?!?!

Re:Uhm, do the math...

[ergo98]

Obviously this product isn't intending to supplant living room HDTV sets, but rather is a niche product for a niche purpose. Your contention that a 19" monitor is "too small" to show the differences between HDTV and NTSC seems flawed: You seem to presume that someone would put their 19" monitor in the middle of their living room and sit 12 feet away, rather than the more likely "guy sitting at his home office/computer desk watching HDTV". At close proximity there most certainly would be a difference between the two.

Of course I don't see why this product is getting attention, given that Hauppauge has had something similar for a while now.

Re:Uhm, do the math...

[stratjakt]

Add to that the fact that at that size, you wouldn't even notice a benefit from HDTV

Just like you dont notice the difference between gaming at 640x480 vs 1280x1024, right?

Re:Uhm, do the math...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hauppauge is a pos.

Re:Uhm, do the math...

[entrigant]

I dunno... I notice a benefit going from 800x600 to 1600x1200 on my 19" (18" vis) monitor. That's (READ: roughly) NTSC max res to HDTV max res. Heck, even progressive scan scaled DVD's using a software dvd player look better at 1600x1200 than 800x600... Now I probably won't be buying this box, but I do have to argue that regular NTSC or even PAL res isn't exactly the highest a 19" screen should aim for.

If only...

[Pointy_Hair]

If only this gadget had HD output as well... it might make it worth the price if you already had a STB. Low budget, hi-def PVR anyone?

Perfect Timing

[sx10]

Now we can all watch the Air Force burniniate Iraq in HDTV quality :-)

HD

[14ghz]

Actually, many HDTV recievers output VGA D-sub anyway. My $315 Samsung SIR-T150 has a VGA output that I've watched on a PC LCD monitor. And if you are interested in recording HD, check out the MDP-100 card. http://www.cellarcinemas.com/cgi-bin/store/HTDV-MY HD.html It only works with over-the-air, but you can record data streams right to your HDD with it. bob

Return of the .com era!

[ryants]

I can't figure out what the target market for this is, but it's still a cool device.

Sweet! Sounds like a return of the "dot Com" era! Happy days are here again! Buy stocks!

True, but...

[TheSHAD0W]

Most HDTVs don't do that great at displaying computer video.

I keep waiting for a video card designed only to do HDTV output, but no one seems to want to do it...

Re:True, but...

[gatekeep]

That's not entirely true. Using something like Powerstrip you can run your PC at HDTV resolutions. At that point, you're HDTV is really just a BIG, high resolution PC monitor.

Detailed information can be found on the AVS HTPC Forum

Re:True, but...

[The_Laughing_God]

Actually, what you need is an HDTV tuner card. There are several on the market, for the price of a top graphics card (that is to say, under $300) The computer I'm on now has a MyHD MDP-100 $260 from the Digital Connection, who also happen to offer the primary US tech support for the card, on bug report/support threads on the AVS forum (read the entire forum - there have been separate followup threads for each driver revision and they contain other support tips too. Especially check out the v1.55.2 driver thread. That driver allowed DVDs to be displayed in 1080i - something the DVD consortium has since declared to be forbidden. All other cards and DVD players display DVD in 480p)

The MyHD comes with VGA output with a passthrough cable for dual monitor or simultaneous computer/HDTV use, and a breakout cable that gives Component Video and s-video. it also offers your choice of stereo or Dolby outputs. I don't usually to use it in that mode however. I find that it's usually simpler and equally high quality to simply rout the video through my (decent but nothing special) graphics card.

I also own a Telemann tuner, but I can't look at the model number and outputs right now. It's in the basement, cabled through the floor to a Toshiba DLP-650 LCD projector (though it's a used 1999 model, I usually can't even imagine what better quality would look like. Maybe a tad blacker blacks -it's only 300:1 contrast ratio, unlike the newer models at 450-3000:1- but that's it!) There is at least a third major manufacturer, whose name eludes me at the moment, but all the model numbers and details are listed in the support thread I linked above, with more info in other threads

In short, the card you want is out there. I've run the LCD projector off the MyHD a junkbox celeron 466 and ATI Rage-something card, running Win98 and projecting onto a bare wall (that was my test rig) and the results were outstanding: a crystal clear 120"+ image for a total equipment cost much less than a hinky 60" rear projection screen on sale at Best Buy. I did later upgrade to a better machine (Athlon 1700XP, but it worked with a P-III 800, too), so I could do HDTV recording. HTDV VCRs, like D-VHS, cost several thousand by themselves, but with a card, all you need is a moderately powerful CPu and a decent sized HDD to sotre them on (I saw a 200GB for $160 after rebate on Fatwallet Hot Deals forum this week) You can compress/record the transport stream to DVD-R for archival storage, and still get DVD quality or better. (I compress to DVD the next day. I haven't tried doing it in real-time yet, but it should be possible)

As much as I hate to say it, if you're building your own Home Theater PC, I'd recommend an Intel processor over a AMD. Maybe the newer or better Athlon boards are rock stable for HTPC use, and set and forget for at least a week at a stretch, but this wasn't the case for myself or others on the AVS forum a year ago (As a workaround, I have it reboot at 5 am every day. ) In general, I readfewer Atlon complaints for HTPC, I almost never heard Intel problems - and the drop in Atlon issues may be due to a shift to Intel, which is the general advice of that board.

Err?

[foxtrot]

How do they do 1080i if they only support monitors up to 1280x1024? They're short 56 rows, by my count. And given that the HD footage I've seen that's 1080 lines tall is 1920 pixels wide, it's even worse off that direction.

Come on, folks, for $400, how hard would it have been to support a reasonable resolution?

Re:Err?

[Anonymous Coward]

1080i = downsampled. It's still much better than regular TV.

Most HD broadcasts are 920p

Re:Err?

[gatekeep]

"Most HD broadcasts are 920p"

Umm.. 920p doesn't even exist.

And it depends what you watch, there's a lot of 720p stuff out there, and there's a lot of 1080i.

Me? I want to see both at native resolution. Sure downsampling is better than standard def TV, but it's not HDTV either.

Re:Err?

[Babbster]

1) "True" HDTV is any resolution 1280x720p (progressive) or above, *including* 1920x1080i (interlaced).

2) Most OTA signals aren't reaching the full 1920x1080i, often settling for 1440x1080i (still considered HD).

3) Considering the number of scaling options this device is providing, $400 is a VERY reasonable price - much cheaper than the scalers the high-end home theater people are using to provide the output of similar resolutions.

Re:Err?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most LCD and plasma screens only go up to 1280x1024 anyways, this would be no different. Actually most HDTVs only support up to 800 lines, so any 1080i broadcasts will be scaled down on your TV too.

Besides, computer monitors have tubes that are superior to those used in TV sets. TV will look far better coming from this box than it would on your TV. The problem is you have to be able to stand sitting that much closer to your "TV".

Re:Err?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

And it depends what you watch, there's a lot of 720p stuff out there, and there's a lot of 1080i.

ABC is the only network that broadcasts in 720p. That's nothing to sneeze at, but NBC, CBS, PBS, HDNet, WB, HBO, and Showtime all broadcast 1080i. As a fraction of 1080i content, there's hardly any 720p content out there at all.

What's wrong with them

[ch-chuck]

Seems like ViewSonic would release a box that turns only ViewSonic monitors into HDTVs. Boggle. That's like Msft releasing software that runs on Linux. Come on ViewSonic! Get with the vendor lock-in program. Give KDS, Samtron, etc a kick in the shins like any smart business would do, consumer convience be damned.

Target Market

[Apostata]

Oh, I know a target market: digital video editors.

Trust me, I know some folks who will be very excited about this.

NOPE!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope

Well, this has got to be the worst review...

[MukiSamaEX]

This has got to be the worst review I've ever seen in my life. Let's run it down.

1. They're reviewing an HDTV converter. You might want to mention to folks that 1080i is a lot wider (19xx) than 1280 across.
2. The product got a decent review. What's wrong with this? Check out 3 'n 4.
3. It has a blue tint over the picture. No matter how subtle it is, tints over the picture is generally a pretty crappy problem on a $400 converter.
4. In the quality section, they not ONCE spoke about component quality. They went into S-Video and Composite ONLY (maybe RF too, I forget). Now who in the HELL would spend $400 on a converter and give a rat's patoot about component and s-video quality? Ati sells crap that converts those just fine for around $100.

That is all.

Re:Well, this has got to be the worst review...

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying Componet is always better than S-Video is a pretty much a myth that's been debunked many times.

Re:Well, this has got to be the worst review...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... on a technical level, I don't see how it COULDN'T be better.

S-Video : 1 signal for Brightness, 1 signal for color

Component : 1 signal for Brightness, 2 signals for color (brightness minus red, brightness minus blue)

I mean, at that point it comes down to cable quality if you really want to compare them. Where has this been "debunked?"

Re:Well, this has got to be the worst review...

[dododge]

This has got to be the worst review I've ever seen in my life.

A quick search over at avsforum produces some detailed reviews. The general verdict from several owners is that it's not a very good scaler or deinterlacer. Not really surprising considering the low price ("low" relative to good scalers and deinterlacers :-)

gimme anything cheaper

[panck]

I've been trying to find a cheap way of using my 19-inch samsung monitor as an HD display so I can make use of the progressive scan output from my GameCube without buying a HDTV. (plus then my gf could watch tv while I play games). One of my friends had a Dreamcast a few years back and he had an adapter for VGA output straight from the dreamcast, the quality on a monitor was so much better...I wish the gamecube could do that.

Unfortunately there's nothing out there that's both cheap and does what I want. The device mentioned in the article seems like it does what I want (disclaimer: IHNRTA - I have not read the article) but that's even more expensive that the other things I've seen which might work. Somewhere I saw a $99-200 device for turning component video into VGA output, but that's stilll more $$ that I want to spend.

Does anyone know of a solution that would cost less than $99 for this? VGA or BNC input actually, as my monitor has both.

Re:gimme anything cheaper

[Xiphas]

The problem with the Dreamcast VGA box was that it only worked for a select few games.

Even if the game did claim to support VGA output, some of the games looked horrible at the higher resolution, such as Capcom vs. SNK and Grandia 2.

The Gamecube can output to a monitor, check out this box from Lik-Sang. I haven't tried it myself, but I have heard that the VGA output on the Gamecube is better than on the Dreamcast.

Re:gimme anything cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

Look here

Re:gimme anything cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you said 99 but this guy has one (for GC and XBox only NOT for DVDs) for 165 and free shipping open box.

http://store.yahoo.com/hometheaterworld/xopboxsp in st.html

Re:gimme anything cheaper

[panck]

Uhh... that device doesn't use the higher-quality progressive scan output from the GameCube, it merely uses the normal output. The point is that I want to get the HD quality progressive scan which the GameCube is capable of (yes only with certain games) viewable on a monitor, not a HDTV.

Re:gimme anything cheaper

[panck]

nice, that's perfect.

how shady is that site though?

One of the sure signs you are a nerd

[Kasmiur]

Your computer monitor is larger than your TV. I imagine there are quite a few people here who have a 21 inch monitor and only a little 13 inch tv. Probably even a 5.1 sound system there too.

Re:One of the sure signs you are a nerd

[ddriver]

Hey man, I don't even own a TV. Got DSL though.

Re:One of the sure signs you are a nerd

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I don't even have a TV. My monitor's a 17 inch LCD that includes a coax jack, composite input, and S-Video input. Not to mention analog VGA and DVI input.

Re:One of the sure signs you are a nerd

[Beatbyte]

actually its 6.1 and 21".. lol ... i just try to convince myself it gets work done more efficiently

Re:One of the sure signs you are a nerd

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh crud, does this mean I can't deny it anymore? The only time I watch TV on my 13" is when I'm tired of sitting in my computer chair...

Actually I'm getting really sick of sitting in front of a computer screen all day. Now I try hard to turn the f%$&ing thing off and shut the office door by dinner time every day (unless I'm playing NWN...).

Truth is though, a 5.1 sound system really makes a smaller screen useable. I would love a 42" plasma, but 20" does just fine.

This product is kinda silly though. I dont think I would notice HD as opposed to my standard tv signal on a 20" screen. Let alone that it costs the same as a nice 30" TV. I'd take the 30" anyday over HD.

Re:One of the sure signs you are a nerd

[Kjella]

Does my PC *being* my TV count? I got a TV card and a 19" monitor, that's all I had for a year. Now I'm back with a 32" TV but I often watch stuff on the PC anyway... old habit

Kjella

Re:One of the sure signs you are a nerd

[pseudonymouse]

I have a 20" monitor, and a tiny TV set. I don't really have room for more than one large display box, and the computer display is what I spend most of my time looking at. I never use the TV anymore, though, mostly because about 1-2 years ago I got a ViewSonic VB50 HRTV box (an older, cheaper version of this N6 thing, without HDTV input...NTSC only). The picture is so much better on a Samsung monitor, it's amazing. No scanlines or flicker with a higher sync rate and 1024x768 display resolution.

When I actually want to watch TV and work on the computer at the same time, I use a laptop. I have a TV card in the computer, but the ViewSonic box turns out to be a much better picture quality and easier to deal with.

Re:One of the sure signs you are a nerd

[linzeal]

Same here, TV sucks the life out of me. Lost 30 lbs over a period of 3 years without one.

Re:One of the sure signs you are a nerd

[Mr2cents]

I have bought a 21 inch monitor, it was the best investment I ever made. Don't spend your money on a high end computer; it will be outdated by the time the drivers are stable. The monitor on the other hand can be used for more than one 'generation'. I also bought a cheap tv card. Result: Very clear tv-images, with a screen that is as large as most tv's (I measured it, it is exactly as large as my sister's TV).

The next PC I buy will cost 500 euros. At the same time I will buy a terrabyte of hard-disk space to store recorded movies and mp3's (turning my current PC into a massive file server).

Re:One of the sure signs you are a nerd

[MonkeyBoy]

Doh! Guilty as charged. If anything though, I'm more geeky.

23" on the Mac, 20" VGA monitor hooked up to one of Viewsonic's older, cheaper NTSC-to-VGA A/V boxes. Both are hooked up to the dual-headed GF4Ti, just hardly ever use the 20" for anything else (it's, uh, an olllllld Viewsonic whose guns are pretty poorly aligned).

what??

[updog]

That headline is very misleading. This box does not turn your TV or monitor into an HDTV as it implies. Look at the input and output capability:

TV/Video input compatibility
480i, 480p, 576p, 720p, 1080i

RGB output capability
640x480, 800x600, 852x480, 1024x768, 1280x720, 1280s768, 1280x1024

Clearly, This takes up to a 1080i HD input and displays up to 1280x1024.

Re:what??

[Anonymous Coward]

Virtually all current HDTVs take 1080i in and output 720p.

So 1280x720 would really be your ideal resolution to watch this at.

Re:what??

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. The newer Toshibas (which I wouldn't otherwise recommend) will display 1080i. They'll take 480p, 720p or 1080i on this input.

Re:what??

[Babbster]

I'll say it again because so many seem to be out of the loop on this: 1280x720 (progressive) is HDTV. Often, home theater people even prefer viewing their 1080i signals at 720p for the more film-like picture.

Re:what??

[dfj225]

Yea...what is really damaging is that for you to get a true HDTV signal you still need a HDTV signal decoder, which can set you back about $1000.

Re:what??

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Virtually all current HDTVs take 1080i in and output 720p.

You have this backwards. Most HDTV's take either 1080i or 720p and display 1080i. Some low-end rear-projection units do it the other way around, but those are pretty rare.

Re:what??

[Anonymous Coward]

So they take a non-interlaced signal and display it interlaced?

I'm supposed to dish out thousands of dollars for that kind of nonsensical bullshit?! Perhaps I should emphasize this: INTERLACED IS BAD.

HDTV needs to go the way of the Dodo. And, eventually, it will.

i might buy

[Anonymous Coward]

i often feel like surfing while watching tv and vice versa. i have a cable internet which means, cable connection is readily available next to my computer. so this is an ideal device. the only thing missing in my opinion is PIP feature. it would be nice, if i can surf and watch tv too at the same time without crashing my computer or overloading my poor 500 MHz cpu (also i prefer external device with no driver requirements such as this, so i can use any OS, hardware combination).

Target audience

[nougatmachine]

The target audience would seem to be people who have Xbox or Gamecube consoles and want to play games in progressive scan format, which is rather superior to plain ole TV, but don't have an expensive HDTV. Of course, it is still expensive - but not quite as much so as a huge TV.

DVI anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

This box should also have a DVI output.

Even 32" is too small...

[rockmuelle]

After investing in a reciever, antenna and subscriptions for HD content, I've decided to give up on HD for now and sell it all. 1080i on a 32" 4x3 TV was just underwhelming.

I can't even imagine why I'd want to use my 15" or 21" VGA monitors.

-Chris

Re:Even 32" is too small...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldnt consider anything 4x3 to be a "real" hdtv.

Yay!

[Wireless Joe]

Just what I want, a 14" HDTV. The picture will be extra sharp, and I only have to sit 6" away from the screen to appreciate it.

Nothing new.

[SageMadHatter]

They are called up-converters and they have existed for years now. Here is a listing of them:

http://www.dvdirect.com/Prods/TVO/default.htm

Mad Hatter

Students?

[Fastolfe]

Dorm rooms can be tiny. It's not unreasonable at all to consider using your computer monitor as your television in this situation.

For kids too.

But no, now that I'm out of school, I much prefer them separate.

Hmmm

[The Bungi]

Very few comments in this story... what? Is something else going on?

*grin*

Re:Hmmm

[Sloppy]

Yep. LinkSys was bought out by Cisco, some people are saying there's going to be PlayStation 3, and Dell's about to offer easy computer recycling. I think people are still a little shocked from it all.

One Word - Xbox

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be a great solution for Xbox owners wanting to do 1080 but not wanting to buy an HDTV television. There are alot of people trying to get VGA working on the Xbox, this is more expensive, but would do the true 1080i.

Re:One Word - Xbox

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does microsoft stubbornly refuse to release a VGA converter for xbox? Dreamcast had one, and the games looked great at 640x480.

Yeah, we get it Bill, it's not a PC. I understand. Now let me hook it up to a nice cheap 200$ monitor already.

Re:One Word - Xbox

[RatBastard]

First you want a VGA output. Then you'll want a mouse and keyboard! And we all know where that leads! The dead rising from the grave! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes-- Riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, people installing Linux on their Xboxes, mass hysteria!

Re: 1080p

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sony Professional format '24p' is 1080p, but HDTV is either 1080i or 720p - 1080p is just too much bandwidth to broadcast.

You should check out

[Dstrct0]

The ATI Tv-Tuner card! I helped a friend set one up a couple years ago, and they're pretty nice. IIRC you can have the TV feed running on your desktop (this was on win98, I don't know what support is like for other OSes), and still do other stuff at the same time. Doesn't hurt your processor much, because the card handles most (if not all) of the TV related stuff.

Is anyone doing the following...

[Asprin]

How about instead of getting a traditional large screen TV, I buy one of those ever-less-expensive LCD computer projectors (which has full A/V in/out ports)? Are any of you using a setup like this at home instead of a normal large screen TV? Whaddayathinkofit?

We use one (a Viewsonic LCD projector) at our church to watch movies with our youth group, and the picture quality is pretty amazing. We can make that thing 12 feet diagonal and it's like being in the theater. Combine one of those with this gadget, and HDTV is still way overpriced, but now it's overpriced and HUGE!

Re:Is anyone doing the following...

[Lumpy]

I do and I'll tell you one thing.... It's blocky.
Data projectors have poor line doublers and video circuitry. they do NTSC only very marginally.

this "might" make it better, but I suggest buying a real projector and never getting a HDTV.

I'm going projector only except for the 9 inch in the kitchen, the 19 in the bedroom and the 19 hanging over the bar in the basement.

Re:Is anyone doing the following...

[David Leppik]

How about instead of getting a traditional large screen TV, I buy one of those ever-less-expensive LCD computer projectors (which has full A/V in/out ports)? Are any of you using a setup like this at home instead of a normal large screen TV?

My dad did this, a few years after I got a projection TV. The TV is several years behind technologically (and it was several important years) so it's much dimmer and slightly lower-res than the computer projector. In my mind they are comparable, but the one that's designed for home theater has a much wider display angle-- I get an 80 inch display, whereas an InFocus I borrowed from work did about 50 inches. If you have a large room, that's not an issue, but my living room is small. (That's one advantage of a ceiling-mounted projector: I couldn't fit any other big-screen TV!)

These days, the computer and TV projectors share a lot of parts. They all come with 2000-hour bulbs (they actually have a 2000-hour shut-down timer so they won't explode.) That's several years of viewing for how I watch. Both display DVDs well.

Video Games + Component Video + Monitor =

[Phoenixhunter]

https://www.dcpuraty.com/store/Product_Details.asp ?ProductCode=9A62 http://www.audioauthority.com/aacconsumers/9a62det c.html

I still like the software effort better...

[Ben1234]

HDTV on a computer monitor for $399 seems like it defeats the purpose. A good analog signal looks great on a VGA monitor. HDTV really only shines when the image is on a big screen. But if you really want to put HDTV on your computer monitor I would check out the gnu Radio project which has been mentioned here numerous times and try HD for a little effort rather than $399.

Part of HDTV is DTV

[Mundocani]

Why so much bashing about 1080i and whether or not that is worth it on a 19" monitor? Everyone seems to be forgetting that there are other resolutions which will benefit, and that the whole thing is still digital TV, which is far better looking than off-air or even digital cable. Even 1080i looks great scaled to fit a 1280x1024 monitor (my DILA projector does exactly that). Other than the price (which shouldn't be more than $200 really), I think this box has a place as a low-end digital TV receiver.

$50

[Suppafly]

These will be great when they cost $50 or so. Until then, it is more of a novelty, I can't really see anyone wanting to cough up the money for one of these. Use with a projector seems like a decent idea, but even then, most projectors don't support the same aspect ratios. You can by a hdtv that is bigger than your monitor (unless you have a huge monitor) for less than you can by this converter.

Re:$50

[entrigant]

You can find a hdtv for $400?! Just where on earth can you find that! Hell even 30" HDTV's are still > $1000 everywhere I've looked.

Re:$50

[Suppafly]

well by the time you've bought a $400 adapter and an a 30" monitor, you've might as well bought the 30" tv.

VGA instead of DVI?

[toph42]

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out why this thing is going to market with only and analog video out...

Wouldn't anybody geek enough to buy this be geek enough to have full digital displays?

I guess I'm with the reviewer, too. Do they know who their market is?

Re:VGA instead of DVI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital DVI has DRM.

No, unit sucks for theater use according to review

[SuperKendall]

I had the same thought - I really want to get a projector that works well with computers and A/V input like HDTV.

First of all, I was thinking that since it had a tuner built in it could process over the air HDTV signals. Nope! The article claimed it was silly to think so, but the that would have been a great feature.

But that's not even that bad, you can still buy a tuner... no, thing thing that did it for me was darkening of scenes, and much much worse a "slight blue think on all output that could not be removed". If the colors are off, what's the point of putting this in a home theater?

Also, it seemed to have problems using higher HDTV resolutions when running Dragon's Lair 3-D on the XBox.

To be fair, the unit was not meant for home theater - it was meant to provide a very simple solution for letting you see TV and video signals on you desktop computer. It does that OK (though even then the blue tint would annoy me).

Better to waitfor HDTV projectors to come down in price... sigh.

Not true HDTV quality.

[gatekeep]

According to the article, this thing's maximum resolution is 1280x1024.

1080i HDTV is 1920 x 1080.
720p HDTV is 1280 x 720

So this thing, while capable of displaying 720p can't display the more commong 1080i standard natively. It'll display the image, but what you'll see isn't the full 1080i resolution.

Re:Not true HDTV quality.

[Anonymous Coward]

1080i ~= 720p though.

I'd much rather have a progressively scanned video than a 'higher resolution' interlaced one.

Many HDTVs display 1080i as 720p

Re:Not true HDTV quality.

[gatekeep]

I'd rather have 720p too.. but in many cases (NBC, ABC) they're broadcasting 1080i. I'd rather see that in the best possible light than downconvert it.

Re:Not true HDTV quality.

[coolmacdude]

ABC broadcasts only 720p. (the only network station that does so)

Re:Not true HDTV quality.

[gatekeep]

Oops, I meant CBS.. but yeah, HDNet, ESPN, Discovery, HBO, etc.. all 1080i.

Flaws in design...

[indiigo]

That's not to say that the N6 doesn't have some problems of its own. Most notable among them was that, try as I might, I could not activate the PIP function. When I attempted to change the PIP settings in the menus, the cursor would not allow me to select them. The terse user manual proved to be no help, and the ViewSonic Web site was sorely lacking in information. However, I've hit upon a possible explanation. It appears that the N6 shares the same form factor and remote as its little brother, the NextVision N5. In the N5's specifications, it indicates that while there is a PIP button on the remote and PIP controls in the menu, they are not selectable options. Could it be that ViewSonic failed to enable this function on the N6? If so, it is a rather serious mistake on ViewSonic's part, since PIP is one of the new, exclusive features of the N6 model.

Another problem was a slight tint to all of the inputs, as if someone had put a light blue film over the screen.

Sorry. SONY learned this lesson, oh, in the first 5 minutes of it's consumer startup. You don't make consumer home devices that work "partially," etc. People don't want to upgrade firmware on their home entertainment devices, period. As a techie, I tend to agree. Guess it's N7 or bust.

Last Version

[HBergeron]

I have version 5 of this little box ($100) used it to turn an old 17incher into the bedroom tv. Performs very well with number of nice features (sleep timer, allows the hook-up of a game system.)

I really have to wonder what makes this new model so much more expensive. Are there licensing fees? I know you need better chips for hdtv decoding, but $300 worth of additional silicon in otherwise the same box??? doesn't seem likely. Of course if they did charge $150-$200 they'd be undercutting everyone else with their $500 hdtv decoder boxes.

Another possible solution - XBlaster

[SuperKendall]

I forgot to mention that if all you wanted to do was convert HDTV inputs for use with a monitor, another cheaper device called the XBlaster does that (the review mentioned it, I've not used it myself).

Given that you're still downgrading the highest HDTV resolutions, I think an HDTV projector would still be better. Anyone know where you can get a good quality, "cheap" ($2k) HDTV projector that can also accept VGA input?

Re:Another possible solution - XBlaster

[gatekeep]

Are you dead set on a projector? At $2000 you could get a really nice direct view tube, something like Sony's 34XBR800, and use a VGA->Component video transcoder for the PC stuff.

Almost perfect.

[Anderlan]

If this had a tuner in it, it would be a great way to buy a hdtv thats cheaper, and *higher real resolution* than most HDTVs, albeit in most cases smaller. I wonder how huge monitor prices compare to HDTVs at the same size and same res...

But, since this doesnt include a tuner, it might be cheaper just to have a pc and a tuner. I don't know.

I have a similar device

[Anonymous Coward]

Only mine is made by AVerKey (or AVerMedia [I forget which]). It came in handy during college where I could use my crt for a TV instead of lugging a TV in to an already small dorm room and a much smaller car. I still occasionally use it at the office when working late. Beats using another PCI slot and contending with CPU and driver weirdness.

Why not just buy...

[ikewillis]

the $199 WinTV-D card or the $299 WinTV-HD card which has a built-in Dolby Digital decoder? Both of these will let you not only view HDTV, but record it to disk as well.

Re:Why not just buy...

[Anonymous Coward]

They both suck ass in terms of app and driver support.
Get the MyHD card instead.

Re:Why not just buy...

[Majik Sznak]

These do not let you view the HD output from, say, your XBox or Gamecube on your monitor.

$200 keydigital.com device does the job

[Anonymous Coward]

www.keydigital.com - they have component to VGA adapters in the ~$200 range. They seem to have gotten good reviews in the past. You need a Sync-on-green monitor (or search google on how to make any monitor SOG compatable.)

the two drawbacks

[Hollins]

I want to do the same. You could get a big, high resolution display from a small box. I find there are two drawbacks to this scheme:

1. Brightness. Projectors have come a long way, but don't expect to be able to watch football on a Sunday afternoon without drawing the shades.
2. Bulb life. The bulbs in these things only last for a thousand hours or so, then cost hundreds of dollars to replace. I don't know of any that can be user-serviced, but I might be mistaken. This is fine if they're used for a few powerpoint presentations a week, but it doesn't work so well for a home TV.

Re:the two drawbacks

[Zzootnik]

I suppose if you're gonna have drawbacks, then you might as well do it on the cheap side...at least for those of us who don't feel like spending a hundred bucks on new bulbs every other month...

Wish I could find the direct link to it, but this is appropriate anyway...There's a site (free) giving plans and general specs for building your own projector out of a small tv or computer monitor...It basically consists of 2 cardboard/wooden boxes overlapped to allow focusing, with a monitor at one side, and a fresnel lens at the other... Their Pics look pretty great...

SO--Use a slightly bigger monitor (17 inch maybe?) , then pump up the brightness on it, build the little wooden box and invert the whole contraption (the image turns out upside down through the fresnel lens~~see optics 101) and you have a hd projector! (Assuming you can get the signal into the computer in the first place.)

YES--you're still going to have the whole brightness issue, from what I've read, but there's not much to do about that one...Even commercial ones almost require a dimmed room for optimal viewing. And what was the ambient light level in the last movie theatre you stepped into?

Doh...Here...found a similar link...http://bigscreentv.20m.com/index.html

Same principals, but not much of the background info...still interesting...And quite cheap.

Re:the two drawbacks

[Jafafa Hots]

Thanks for the info! That looks like a fun project. I wonder if this could be done with an LCD screen - probably the backlight isn't strong enough...

Re:the two drawbacks

[iamhassi]

1. Brightness:

---Brightness isn't that bad. Ok so you can't watch it with the sun shining directly on the projector screen, but I can't watch TV that way either so it doesn't matter. They use a LCD projector in my CS classes, and it's easily viewable with all the bright fluorescent lights on, but I won't lie, it does look better with the lights off. Also the projector is a older Epson model (probably 3 or 4 years old?), so I'm sure the newer ones look much, much better.

2. Bulb Life:

Most decent projectors have a 2,000 hr life, while good ones have up to 4,000 hrs. This doesn't sound like a lot, but according to several sources (here's one) the average US family watches about 4 hours of TV daily, or 28 hrs a week. Sounds like a whole lot, almost 1,500 hrs a year, so the bulb will need replacing every 16 months or longer.

This sounds very costly, but considering the fact that just a 47" projection TVs cost $1500+ it would be several years before the price of a inexpensive eBay-purchased LCD projector would equal anywhere near the cost of even a 47" TV, much less 60", while the size would be much larger.

I've also noticed that most of the bulbs aren't so amazing, most are 100-200 watts, easily attainable using inexpensive bulbs purchased at Wal-Mart. While the real bulbs are quite different than standard bulbs, I'm sure there would be a way to hack the projector to use a less expensive bulb. Perhaps those bright white automotive bulbs may work? I believe those are 70 watts, so two should provide around 1300-1500 lumens, not bad. I also feel white LEDs may be a reasonable alternative in the next few years: they've already doubled their power within the last 5 years while the price is 1/10th.

3. Other options?

---slashdot did a story not long ago about the "build your own 100" TV!" internet scams that just put a magnifying glass in front of a standard TV. While that probably wouldn't work so well, a LCD projector is pretty much just that, a tiny LCD in front of a projector, and this site has instructions on how to build your own. Seems legit.

Turned my HDTV into a Monitor for half the cost.

[Anonymous Coward]

ATI's Radeons support HDTV output via a $30 dongle. I picked up the 9500 non-pro (RED) video card for $160 from GoogleGear and now enjoy a really big monitor at 60Hz. DVDs are awesome!

Re: 1080p

[dirty]

IIRC 1080p is at either 24fps or 30fps, while 1080i is at 60 *fields* per second, which are 1/2 the vertical resolution of a frame. So 1080p at 30fps requires the same bandwith as 1080i. 1080p at 24fps would require 1/6th less bandwith. IMHO all film material should be broadcast at 24fps progressive. That's how it was captured in the first place, that's how it should be shown.

Planar makes a Video-EX, too

[yroJJory]

I can see the target market. I am awaiting a very similar box from Planar today, which takes a composite video or S-Video signal and converts it to VGA. Unfortunately, the Video-Ex only reaches 1024x768, but it's only $100.

What's the point? Well, I work in Post Production Audio for films and I've replaced all the noisy, heat-generating, power-sucking CRTs from my studio and replaced them with 17" LCDs. But, the LCDs on the market that allow a video source are not nearly as nice as the Planar PL171M displays I just bought and are generally more expensive. So, I opted for the Video-Ex and will be using a third Planar PL171M for my video playback.

I would have bought the ViewSonic had the price been more reasonable.

Not True

[flimflam]

The thing is that you can't judge these things based on the specs alone.

A few differences are that the phosphors on a TV (HD or otherwise) are different than those on a computer monitor. They will display the colors of a video image properly (if it's a decent monitor), plus the decay rate is slower so that a TV monitor at 60 Hz is watchable, whereas a computer monitor at 60 Hz will give you a headache fast.

And yes, you do pay for size as well.

It's funny, but I deal with production-grade (as in film/video production) monitors a lot, and I'm so used to the prices that I find it hard to believe that people find a $300 box expensive. We've got little 6in. LCD HD monitors for $4,000, and a big CRT (like in the 30" range) is easily $30,000.

Or use DScaler and Brooktree based card

[sdo1]

Or you can download the open source GPL'd DScaler and use (according to the FAQ) "Almost any card (and that means A LOT) based of former Brooktree (now Conexant) chips including bt848/878/879".

There is also a section in the FAQ called "Can I use any vga card as a display device?" which answers the other half of the question.

I do this in my computer room and it works quite nicely...

-S

Re:Or use DScaler and Brooktree based card

[AGTiny]

Um, those bt8x8 chips are not ATSC tuners. You could upconvert a 480i analog NTSC source with DScaler but it won't look any better.

Almost seems pointless....

[dfj225]

The website for the device mentions watching TV and DVD on your monitor with this device. That seems illogical for 2 reasons. First, DVD only has 480 lines of resolution, not 1080 so you are really not getting anything more out of your DVD with this device. Second, you still need a HDTV decoder for the HDTV signal. These boxes run about $1000 right now. I don't think anyone is willing to pay that much money just to watch HDTV on their monitor. Chances are, if they are going to spend that kind of money on TV, they must be serious about things and will most likely go for a HDTV ready projection screen and the HDTV decoder box.

I did this...

[wikthemighty]

At the time I was living in the dorms, I had an ATI 3DXpression+ board with the ATI-TV addon card.

In one corner of my room I had my computer with a SEGA Genesis and cable hooked up to it, which worked great.

I really miss that card's ability to scan closed captioning for keywords (and alerting me) as well as the nifty 'video desktop' (which put TV as my background pic when I minimized the TV viewer. Could be very distracting at times...)

question about using monitor for television

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not use a flat panel monitor as a tv? How well will that work?

I ask because I'm lusting after one of those slim little flat panel TVs, and flat panel computur monitors seem to be the same thing for less.

There must be a reason why this won't do the job, or people would already be doing it.

Really like projectors!!!

[SuperKendall]

I'm pretty set on the projector. I really like that when not in use, the projector is not taking up much room... I can also make the image pretty large. I know that seems contradictory, but really it makes sense!

Thanks for the thought though, perhaps I'll shake loose the projector dream and just settle for a Sony like you mentioned in the meantime.

The only other issue is that I don't like VGA transcoders much, but it has been a while since I used one... perhaps I'll look into that again. Know of a good transcoder for VGA -> HDTV resolutions?

Re:Really like projectors!!!

[gatekeep]

Well, if you use something like powerstrip to put out an HDTV resolution signal from your video card, the transcoder isn't really converting the resolution. It just sits there and converts the signal from VGA to component. It's a somewhat simpler solution.

For information on specific transcoders, I'd recommend checking out the AVS HTPC Forum.

I haven't actually set up an HTPC yet, as my HDTV is on order.. but I've seen em in action and I can tell you, it does work and it does look quite nice. In fact, you can even play quake in HD :) With good HT speakers, a 10" subwoofer, and a big HD image it's pretty damn cool.

ATSC Tuner

[nedron]

Several people have claimed that you need an external digital tuner with this box, but it in fact INCLUDES a built in ATSC tuner. Which means that you don't need anything else other than the monitor and a pair of good rabit ears to get local digital TV transmissions on the monitor. These could include high def transmissions as well (DTV != HDTV).

Most external Digital Receivers cost in the area of $400 and up, so the cost off this unit is actually pretty reasonable. A perfect match for my 24" 16:10 Sony Trinitron monitor.

-David

Re:ATSC Tuner

[sstidman]

You might want to double-check the specs...this does not have an ATSC tuner.

Re:ATSC Tuner

[Collin]

It doesn't include a HDTV tuner. The tuner is a normal NTSC tuner. The only thing high definition about this is that it will take hi-def formats as INPUT.

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/video_box_next vi sionn6.htm#specs

If it were an actual HDTV tuner at this price it would be flying off the shelves.

BTW, another usage for this line of boxes from Viewsonic is simply to convert video sources into VGA format. At my church, I setup a video projector up front displaying input from a Belkin Cat5-to-VGA receiver. In the back, I setup the media computer and a DVD+VCR. The DVD+VCR video outputs go into a Viewsonic VB50 (an earlier version of the N6 box of this thread), which converters the video to VGA. The computer and Viewsonic output go to a VGA switch box, which goes to the Belkin VGA-to-Cat5 sender. The Cat5 sender allows all the sources to be concentrated in the back, with only a single long Cat5 cable running to the front to the projector. Obviously, it's easier and cheaper to get long Cat5 cables than long Video or S-Video cables, which would probably need amplification to make it through the long cable run.

This is not an HDTV Tuner

[sstidman]

Unless I am missing something, this will not turn your monitor into an HDTV. This thing does not have an ATSC tuner. It only has an NTSC tuner (VHF & UHF). If you want HDTV, you will have to buy a separate HDTV tuner and hook it up to this box. Note the line which reads:

With a built-in NTSC TV tuner and multiple video connections for extras like a DVD player, digital camera, VCR, HDTV set-top box ...

In the review listed in the post, they used an XBox to generate an HDTV signal.

Re:This is not an HDTV Tuner

[ProfanityHead]

Yup: "With a built-in NTSC TV"

Built in! Get it!

Re:This is not an HDTV Tuner

[Anonymous Coward]

I have Time Warner Cable in NYC. They provide a HD cable box at no extra cost (same as regular DTV cable box) which has component outputs you can connect to your hdtv ready tv/monitor or the N6. An external hd tuner is not always necessary.

Cheap LCD TV

[Anonymous Coward]

A little off topic, but is anyone buying the $900 15" LCD TVs? You can combine a non-HDTV version of this ViewSonic thing with a $150 15" LCD monitor & for $250 you're there.

Not to nitpick or anything

[pyite69]

> Some HDTV's down-sample a 1080i signal to a 720p signal,

Actually, 720p > 1080i. HDTV's generally support the lower quality
picture, which is 1080i - if they even bother to accept a 720p signal.

And for that matter they generally show 1080i at 540p anyway, unless
you are ready to spend extra. There is a Panasonic that can do real 720p
for $2500 or so, which is the best bargain I have seen.

Mark

Re:Not to nitpick or anything

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Actually, 720p > 1080i.

By what metric? Resolution? No, a 1080i picture has more spatial resolution than a 720p picture. A 720p signal has more temporal resolution, in terms of more complete frames per second, but less spatial resolution.

Bandwidth? No, a 1080i signal requires more bandwidth than a 720p signal. A 1080i signal includes one 1920x1080 frame (or two 1920x540 fields) thirty times per second. That's 62,208,000 pixels per second. A 720p signal includes one 1280x720 frame sixty times per second. That's 55,296,000 pixels per second.

Now, 720p does require the picture tube to do more work per unit time, but that has to do with the speed at which the gun has to scan to draw sixty progressive frames per second. It's more expensive to build a tube that can scan at 60 progressive frames per second than one that can scan 60 interlaced fields per second, so most consumer sets upconvert 720p to 1080i for display.

And for that matter they generally show 1080i at 540p anyway, unless you are ready to spend extra.

I certainly am not familiar with every set, but I've never seen one that downconverts 1080i to 540p. Maybe the very low-end ones do.

Re:Not to nitpick or anything

[Anonymous Coward]

> There is a Panasonic that can do real 720p
for $2500 or so

Does anyone have a model #? I work for a shop that sales Panasonic TV's, and the only 720p Panasonic TV's that I know of are the low quality DLP's. They are the PT-52DL10 and the PT-52DL52 (I just had a test on that in a Panny class). As far as I know, there isn't a Panasonic rear projection CRT that supports 720p. I hope I'm wrong, because I could buy one with an employee discount!

Re:Not to nitpick or anything

[dododge]

By what metric? Resolution?

Horizontal sync rate, which seems to be a pretty critical measurement as far as monitor circuitry is concerned.

Re:Not to nitpick or anything

[dododge]

I certainly am not familiar with every set, but I've never seen one that downconverts 1080i to 540p. Maybe the very low-end ones do.

At least some sets take the 1080i, treat it as 540p, drop the top and bottom 30 lines to get 480p, and then display that. I know the Sony W400Q (circa 1998) does this, and I've heard that some plasma screens work the same way.

I think some rear projectors a few years ago were based around displaying 540p. I don't know what the current sets are doing, but I wouldn't be surprised if the LCOS/LCD/DLP-based ones were playing games with the image.

Re:Not to nitpick or anything

[Twirlip of the Mists]

At least some sets take the 1080i, treat it as 540p, drop the top and bottom 30 lines to get 480p, and then display that.

Well, yeah, but those can't really be called HDTV's, can they? They're HDTV-compatible, but they're not HDTV.

Cinema display?

[ethank]

what is the best solution for using the full HDTV resolution of an Apple Cinema display? An HDTV tuner with DVI output? Are there any cards available with OSX support for this?

Please help :)

I've got an InFocus XGA projector for home theater

[mfh]

I've got an InFocus LP330 XGA DLP projector that does VGA up to 1024x768 and S-Video, composite (NTSC and PAL).

I've been looking for something that will support higher resolutions in the future. But for now, the image quality from a panasonic DVD audio/video player is good enough for me. I live in a 2bd apartment, and project my image onto a bare wall. At night, with dolby digital surround, it's just like being in a theater. With a good pair of headphones on, it's a private screening room.

It's rated at only 650 ANSI lumens (newer projectors have up to 2000!!) so at night it's perfect but during the day it's not terribly bright. Getting a projection screen will help immensely, I don't have one because of my living situation right now.

Getting a high-res converter box (with HDTV, progressive, whatever) to transfer converted XGA signals to this projector would be awesome.

Spend a little more, get one that really works

[presearch]

If you really want what this article implies, but doesn't deliver, get a Samsung SIR-T165.
It'll receive both traditional and HD over-the-air broadcasts, has S-video, component,
DB15 VGA, DVI, and FireWire out. You can find 'em on eBay for a little over $500.
It's got some quirks, but at least it can turn your computer monitor into a real HDTV.

so what does this do again?

[Lumpy]

My Sony HDTV tuner ALREADY does this. and has done it for 2 years....

Almost ALL HDTV tuners have a VGA connection in the back, most HDTV projectors use this.

Oh and my tuner cost $399.00 back in Feb of 2002.

so what is the news again?

Re:so what does this do again?

[Anonymous Coward]

can an HDTV STB/tuner transcode component to VGA?

I want one..

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Like the review, I can't figure out what the target market for this is, but it's still a cool device. "

I'd like to watch some stuff on HDTV, Law and Order, Enterprise, etc. But HDTV's still run >$1.000. If, for $400, I can turn my spare computer into an HDTV, I think it'd be worth it until HDTV is more wide-spread.

Is it a mass market item? No. But those of us that are short on money and space and don't want to replace our existing system would find it quite useful. If I can make a home-brew PVR out of it, then that's icing.

Re:I want one..

[BrianRoach]

Get a RCA DTC-100. It's a DirecTV and off-air HD receiver with a standard 15 pin VGA output on the back. New they're about $500, but you can pick them up used on Ebay.

- Roach

Re:I want one..

[Anonvmous Coward]

I hadn't considered something like that. Do they make other HDTV recievers with VGA out? I have a spare monitor...

Re:I want one..

[BrianRoach]

Off the top of my head, I know Sony and Samsung both have DirecTV/HD receivers that do. Other than that, you'd need to look at the various models available.

- Roach

Composite video input (almost OT)

[Majik Sznak]

This reminds me of my current problem... :) I'm looking for a cheap way of getting HD output from my XBox to my projector.

Does anybody know of a solution (Under $150 USD) that will let me do this?

I think the target market is pretty obvious

[adamthornton]

17 inch LCD monitor--$400
This box--$400

Total--$800

17 inch LCD TV at Best Buy--$1200

This certainly looks like a much cheaper way of getting an LCD TV than actually buying one.

That doesn't sound right at all...

[Nazmun]

"Bandwidth? No, a 1080i signal requires more bandwidth than a 720p signal. A 1080i signal includes one 1920x1080 frame (or two 1920x540 fields) thirty times per second. That's 62,208,000 pixels per second. A 720p signal includes one 1280x720 frame sixty times per second. That's 55,296,000 pixels per second."

I thought the whole point of interlaced is that it updates half the lines at one time. So why would the signal send more data then the TV needs?

IF thats true then there really are few benefits with this interlaced technology except the tv/monitor making cheapness. Also i believe that monitors can display over 1600X1200 PROGRESSIVE (all monitors are progressive as interlaced just sucks for computers and most things) so why can't they at least make 27 inch models that are somewhat affordable?

Re:That doesn't sound right at all...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I thought the whole point of interlaced is that it updates half the lines at one time. So why would the signal send more data then the TV needs?

I'm confused. Here's how the signal looks: the TV gets 540 lines in 1/60th of a second, then 540 more lines in the other 60th of a second. Each of those lines contains 1920 pixels. The TV draws the first set of lines on the odd lines of the picture tube, and the second set of lines on the even lines of the tube. After 2/60ths (or 1/30th) of a second, the screen is displaying a 1920x1080 frame, with a total of 2,073,600 pixels. In total, after one second, 62.2 million pixels have been drawn in 30 frames.

A 720p signal works slightly differently. The TV gets 720 lines in 1/60th of a second; each of those lines contains 1280 pixels. The TV draws all 720 lines, from top to bottom. After 1/60th of a second, the TV gets another set of 720 lines and it draws those. After 1/30th of a second, the TV has drawn two complete 720p frames, or a total of 1,843,200 pixels. After one second, 55.3 million pixels have been drawn in 60 frames.

There's the difference: 1080i displays 30 high-resolution frames per second with the motion artifacts inherent in interlaced scanning, and 720p displays 60 lower-resolution frames per second with no motion artifacts.

Some people prefer 720p, some prefer 1080i, but 1080i is definitely a higher-spatial-resolution format.

IF thats true then there really are few benefits with this interlaced technology except the tv/monitor making cheapness.

More importantly, it's a matter of bandwidth. Not in terms of bits per second, but in terms of megahertz. You can squeeze a 1080i signal into a 6 MHz frequency band. You can't get a 1080/24p signal into the same band.

She can do what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I must be tired. I could have sworn the title said:

"Turn your Mother into an HDTV"

*sigh*
It's nice to dream.

Mea culpa

[nedron]

You're right, for whatever reason I read NTSC as ATSC. D'OH!

Rolling my eyes...

[fendel]

Oh brother. Why does the "TV is a waste of time" crowd even bother reading TV-related threads?

Oh, right. To preach their gospel to us poor, misguided TV-watching dimwits.

even better :)

[timothy]

At least, if you're not offended by entering WalMart ;) -- some Walmarts (though not all, as I found out when I tried to buy one today) are carrying a Microtek brand 18" SXGA LCD monitor for just under $400. That's a decent price, though I do not know how the quality is ....

timothy

Here is my take..

[Rudy Rodarte]

I just dropped quite a bit of change on my new TV, so lets see...
Rudy's TVs: 37", 20", 20"
Rudy's monitors: 17", 15", 15"(Laptop)
No Thanks. I'll get one of those projectors for now.

Unless...

[BrianRoach]

Unless you really want to use NTSC sources, it's really not worth it. Audio Authority (Component to RGB Video Converter
) and other companies have component output to VGA converters for less than $200. Even if you wanted to hook up multiple sources, you could buy a 4 way component switch and a converter for less than this thing's $400 price tag.

- Roach

Re:Unless...

[Anonymous Coward]

It says it supports 480p but has no mention of 720p or 1080i. if it only works with 480p, it's pretty limited.

sortof on topic -- lamp life on projectors ...

[timothy]

the idea of using one of these convertors in combination with a projector seems like the best way to watch television. However: what turns me off about projectors is the cost of replacing lamps.

Most lamps seem to have a rated life somewhat under 2000 hours (1500, 1700, 1800 ...) with some at or over 2000, but the longer life bulbs are generally both more expensive anyhow and only available for quite pricey projectors.

Now for *television* per se, I guess the per-hour cost is still OK. But what if I also want to use a projected image as my main monitor? (No, I have no tried this, but I have considered it -- haven't tried, because I don't have a projector of any sort ;))

Are there any truly long-life bulbs? I wonder if ultra-high-output LEDs will ever be bright enough for that role, or if some other type of lamp will be long lasting enough that by the time it's worth replacing the bulb, it's also worth replacing the whole thing.

(For the cost of a bulb assembly right now, you can buy a small LCD panel that should last a lot longer ... sure, it's different, but it's still an interesting comparison.)

timothy

Re:sortof on topic -- lamp life on projectors ...

[Mr.Phil]

Sorry Tim, that's wrong.

Most projectors for home video now baseline at more than 2000 hour bulbs. The Infocus X1 I just purchased has a 3000 hour bulb and replacement bulbs run $299 US on Infocus's webpage. That comes out to less than 10 cents an hour of use.

You could do what I've taken to doing. I put my pocket change in a "piggy" bank that I have in the projection room whenever I start up the projector. That's sure to provide me with more than enough money to replace the bulb when needed.

It's just a scaler people

[Kagato]

Settle down. It's just a video scaler with a built in tuner. If you wanted your monitor to display component HDTV signals you could just buy a Component to VGA transcoder for $150.

I'm not sure exactly what the purpose of it is. You still need a Digital TV turner. A PC digital TV turner already has all the features this thing has. At best I could see it as a good utility box for hooking up large scale VGA monitors to Set Top Boxes that don't have VGA out. Many of the boxes the cable company rents do not have VGA out. It also could be helpful to legagy LCD projectors that can't handle Component Video and have subpar results with the mentioned transcoder.

That being said the title is very misleading.

I think I don't need HDTV...

[civad]

..because I already have my WSTV (Wide Screen TV)..I am referring to my 21" monitor that is bigger, wider than my tiny 15" TV!!!

I don't

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm blind you insensitive clod!

Advertisement

[telstar]

So this is today's hidden advertisement?

Conexant NOOOOOOO

[poot_rootbeer]

The worst winmodem I ever had the misfortune to use was based on a Conexant chipset. (I really shouldn't have expected much from a 56K modem that cost $7 after rebate.)

If their video chipsets are of similar quality, I'll be running in the opposite direction of any product that uses them.

Re:Conexant NOOOOOOO

[Trepalium]

They're pretty much the only video tuner manufacturer out there. I don't think the chipset has evolved much since Conexant bought them, though.

plasma

[14ghz]

Or... your TV is just an overgrown computer monitor and you need a computer to watch it :-) (50" 1280x768 plasma panel with HTPC) bob

In Australia, try this box instead

[funwithstuff]

This old review at Dan's Data talks about a similar tuner/decoder that outputs VGA signals, but you'll need a monitor that can handle the output. None of this namby-pamby downscaling, but full-fat 1080i HDTV. When someone's transmitting something worth watching, that is. And right about now, it's not looking very interesting.

Anyway, the review's fun, with plenty of acronyms, pics of back-panel ports, and serial port update instructions. Enjoy.

Is this the box I'm looking for?

[Krellan]

I posted a while ago about looking for a HDTV VGA box. Is this the box I'm looking for?

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=49939&cid=5036 735


I have doubts, because this unit doesn't support all HDTV resolutions. Also, the specs page said it only has an NTSC tuner! Does it receive HDTV off the air? If it requires an external tuner to decode HDTV, then this box seems nearly worthless.

Does anyone have this box? Is it a true HDTV tuner, or is it a waste of money?

What this will come down to...

[ndnet]

With the advent of HDTV, with truly decent resolution, everything that needs a screen will go to one box.

Think about it. The Dreamcast had the ability, with a simple box, to output VGA. TV tuners make cable/antenna TV on your PC viable. On the other hand, WebTV and Tivo have interfaces that would benefit from HDTV resolution.

What we really need is a ETHERNET-STYLE Video bus. Choose a device (no matter what room), choose a screen, and go.

Confused

[elmos_dog]

Im a little confused at this one also. If you get a Zenith HDTV receiver it outputs VGA. Maybe this has a tad more inputs then the zenith. When these puppies get down to 100$ then itll be worth every penny.

Stay away

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are serious about HDTV stay away from anything that does not support 1080i or 720p natively.

Upconverters are EXPENSIVE.

[pcwhalen]

Over $400, anyway. My TiVo puts out 480i to my 65 inch Sony projection screen, which is an HDTV. I will buy one of these to protect the investment in my TiVo, which will scale up to 1080i. Modded to 360+hrs and lifetime service for $250. Worth it to me.

Huh?

[Overzeetop]

Most multi-sync monitors will already sync to HDTV. My 5 year old, 15", $99 KDS monitor will sync to 720p just fine. It takes a bit of fiddling to get the aspect ratio correct (vertical size against the lower stop), but I get a 16:9 picture and it looks pretty darned good. It just requires a cable to feed the component signal to the rgb lines of the HD15 input connector.

The advantage to this box is that it will transcode component to RGBHV, as well as tune NTSC and allow source switching via remote. Not something I'd pay $400 for. Of course, I did turn my "free" 15" Dell LCD into a TV with their less expensive NTSC unit (~$80) so I could have a TV in my bookcase.

Target market

[Drakino]

Plenty of larger VGA monitors exist, like the consumer level Gateway Destination screens from a few years ago. I own a 27inch one currently, and this device would work well for a few things. Component to VGA adaptors already run $150-$200, and by what I see in the specs, this device will convert component as well. It also has a built in scaler, so right there the device looks worth the money. Internal PCI cards to allow component inputs and that have a scaler run $900.

So the target market for this is the growing HTPC market. Sure, it takes the PC out of the loop, but for most that shoudn't be a problem for this price.

Computer video not equal to TV video

[ChrisCampbell47]

Three points:

• The specs for the Viewsonic box mention:

  Resolution Refresh Rate (Integrated or progressive scan)

  Uh, the "i" stands for interlaced. Getting that wrong betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how "real" video (not PC video) works; hopefully this is a tech writer goof and not exposing basic video incompetence on the part of the designers.

  Here's a [tortured] analogy:

  computer video is to "TV" video
  as
  a 64 kbps MP3 is to vinyl played on a high-end analog audio system.

• Don't fall into the trap of thinking that your computer monitor (ostensibly higher resolution) can display video better than your TV. There are color gamut issues, as well as screen phosphor differences.
• Just to give you a healthy respect for the sheer magnitude of information bandwidth carried in a high-quality (SD, not HD) video signal, the uncompressed digital video standard (601) is 270 Mbps, and that's only using 10 bit quantization (digital audio uses 16-24 bit).

"Real" video guys cringe at computer video. Gamut, color accuracy and aberrations, frame interlacing, human optical models, it's all a whole lot more complicated than pixel grids and color bit depth.

Target market? I know what one part may be!

[Kymermosst]

For those people that have an InFocus or similar 1024x768+ projector. Turn your projector into a decent projection HDTV, for a nice big screen.

That's what I'd do with it, anyway.

Sniff Sniff

[Joey7F]

That smell you are noticing in is the refreshing scent of Astroturf.

Looks cool though, and if hdtv can propagate quicker, I'm all in favor of it!

--Joey

This box is not an HD Tuner

[chafey]

I accidently bought the prior version (NV5) because I thought it would was an HD tuner. This is not the case, it only tunes NTSC signals which means it is simply upconverting the low res standard definition signal to whatever the output resolution is. I really can't think of any reason to buy this thing.

540p is standard

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=382 8

540p seems to be the order of the day. So sez the ISF.

Re:540p is standard

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.audiovideoforum.com/forum/showthread.ph p?threadid=159

I think I meant this link!

1080i DVD illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should this be outlawed by the forum? Unless my information theory fails me, what does one gain in scaling 480p to 1080i in the first place? Does this have to do with the appearance of scanlines on a high-end projector? I know I could resize ripped DVDs on my computer, but the result wouldn't impart greater picture fidelity.

wow

[Anonymous Coward]

buying a box for 400 dollars than can downgrape my monitor.... where can i get one?

This makes sense for me...

[Thumper_SVX]

I've got one of the old Destination monitors; a 36" jobbie I use for my TV. I don't have the computer, I built my own custom box to do the job better, but I picked up the monitor on Ebay. To have either a decoder card or box hooked up to the monitor (probably through a KVM switch) would give me the ability to watch HDTV.

Sure, the 800x600 max resolution is far from perfect, but it's certainly a lot cheaper than going out and buying an HDTV at this point.

don't be sorry! (Thanks)

[timothy]

OK, guess I've been looking at the wrong projectors ;) Looking up that one now.

The piggy bank idea has actually run through my mind already as the best way to stretch out the bulb-life payments -- good system.

Now, if only human wants were no infinite, and I didn't also want a newer car, house, trip to Spain ...

timothy

Re:don't be sorry! (Thanks)

[Mr.Phil]

Counting the $100 mail in rebate that runs until March 31st, a NEW Infocus X1 can be purchased for $1350 online.

LCD TV vs monitor: Why the price difference?

[Elvon Livengood]

Could someone explain why LCD TVs cost so much more than LCD monitors? The tuner should be *cheaper* than a video card, if anything, yet you have examples like Samsung's LTM-1555 TV for $800 at http://www.bestbuy.com versus Samsung's 152N monitor for $330.

Who needs a big display? Not me.

[BigBlockMopar]

Quoting from article: Like the review, I can't figure out what the target market for this is, but it's still a cool device.

Quoting from last comment: But the replacement bulbs for LCD projectors are expensive, especially considering that these bulbs don't have a particularly long lifetime.

Yeah. Heh. Even so, I don't care for large displays anyway.

Do I really need to see tuneless singers on American Idol blown up to the height of my living room wall?

Won't the videophones used on CNN still look every bit as grainy?

I want HDTV for the image fidelity, not so much for the practical size which can come with resolution. I can still enjoy and appreciate 1080i on my 17" monitor.

Sometimes, of course, you do want image size. I'm not knocking it, nor am I knocking the people who like big displays. Hell, in a former career, I was a Sony-certified video projector technician for the VPH-10xx and VPH-12xx CRT projectors. They're a blast, but not for my daily needs.

Of course, if I felt the need to accentuate my ...girth... as a testament to my virility, I could do it with a large TV set.

Instead, however, I spend my disposable cash on my collection of vehicles. It's rather expensive driving a 27-foot-long 1976 Dodge Ram with a 440 CID (7.2L) V8 engine with today's gas prices. Yessir.

No need to try to demonstrate my manhood with a big TV. Nope, I'm perfectly happy with one of these little boxes connected to my comfy little ViewSonic 17" monitor.

Just a second, I feel an incredibly powerful need to go outside and listen to that lovely engine idle for a few minutes... Ahhhh.

Last Post!

[alpg]

Every Solidarity center had piles and piles of paper ... everyone was
eating paper and a policeman was at the door. Now all you have to do is
bend a disk.
-- A member of the outlawed Polish trade union, Solidarity,
commenting on the benefits of using computers in support
of their movement.

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...