Slashdot Mirror
Large LCD HDTV as a Computer Monitor?
An anonymous reader asks: "I have seen $2000 27"and $1400 23" HDTV LCD sets at Costco, and similarly priced smaller sets elsewhere. I asked a salesperson (elsewhere) if I could try one with my laptop's DVI, and was told that the TVs wouldn't work well. DVI and VGA inputs, 400-600:1 contrast ratio, fast refresh rates (for gaming?), and HDTV capability for other uses, why can't they work? The prices run from as above to very significantly more. Has anyone tried the inexpensive large LCD HDTVs, or the expensive ones, for their desktop? I want to reduce the clutter in my family room and upgrade to highdef? Is it time?"
Its abit costly no?
why not just get a nice Samsung 19" TFT for 650+ Euro (abit more in $'s) you can that patch a tv signal into this?
I'd personally rather keep them both seperate (tv and pc monitor).
"WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
Just think about a desktop at 1280 x 720 at 27". Shudder...
You can get a 23" Cinema display from Apple for $1999 (plus $100 for a DVI to ADC adapter if you don't have a Mac). It displays 1920 x 1200. Plus, Apple's LCD displays are beautiful is design and image quality. Also, if you decide you don't like it or want something else later on, Apple displays have a much higher resale value that any other LCD displays.
You'll see these fairly often at tradeshows. They make it easy to see the software from a relative distance during a software demonstration.
I bought a large screen LCD for my company to use during such a software demo. We wanted to keep it in our development lab, figuring that a huge monitor would be a Good Thing.
The unfortunate reality is that, for reasons that remain mysterious to me, the maximum resolution when driven by a computer is only 1280 x 768. This means that you're not getting a massive, high resolution display; you're just getting really big pixels.
I spent some time searching, but couldn't find _any_ manufacturers whose large screens could be driven to 1080i HDTV resolution (1920 x 1080). Quite a disappointment.
At a recent AFCEA show, I saw a 3000 x 3000 pixel large screen flat panel display in the Matrox booth. They said it was a prototype display made by Toshiba. They said it would be available in about 1 year for $30K.
Is there someone out there with an EE type background that can explain why, with pixel addressability of 1920 x 1080 we're not seeing any LCDs that can be used at this resolution as computer monitors?
Most likely he he was trying to politely convey "we would rather you didn't come in off the street and hook your laptop up to our $3000 floor display"
You know, if your laptop was whacked out and outputting the wrong voltages (or something, im no electronics major), you could damage the inputs. They might not notice even notice untill the future buyer brings it back.
symetrix. We are building a religion, a limited edition.
TV: continuous tones, smooth (i.e.) slow transitions, discrete pixels
Monitor: clearly defined, sharp, ability to invididually see a pixel.
Ipso facto: you're probably going to be disappointed trying to use a TV as a computer display.
-psy
your experience is only in computer monitors, then. HDTVs are often widescreen, which means 1024 (or, more appropriately, 1080, I can't remember which) lines of resolution won't give you 1280, it should give you more. (I think widescreen is often 16:9 or more, instead of 4:3, which is the ratio of most of the VGA derived resolutions (1280x1024 being a rather glaring exception))
Thus, at 1080 lines, you'd get 1920 columns (16x9 widescreen).
I think the biggest problem, though with using these things as normal computer monitors is what my friend experienced: Most computer display cards don't like outputting to them. You can get a computer display at some resolutions, but very few cards without special drivers/software can output (1920x)1080 interlaced resolution, at a refresh rate that the TV likes (his, at least, was very particular). Eventually I think he got it in 1080i at 56Hz, but it wasn't steady or reliable, or something like that. Eventually just 'downgrading' to 720p. Your mileage may vary, depending on OS, video card, driver version, TV, etc.
Browsing the web, however, is a pain in the ass. Text is very hard to read, even with the font sizes cranked up.
Using a TV as monitor for playing media is a viable solution, however, especially if you have your hi-fi sound system in the proximity of your TV. It's much nicer to kick back and listen to mp3s on the couch rather than at your desk.
Keep in mind that HDTV does not even mean a full 1080 lines of resolution necessarily.
Specifically, I have an HDTV LCD rear projection 50". Its native resolution is 1280x720, but with a little overscan you have to cut that down to about 1200x680 (roughly). I believe this resolution is typically the same for DLP rear projections and LCOS. I suspect that LCD flat panels are the same. Some DLP TVs appeared to me to have a limited color depth and too much dithering was apparent. I don't think this is an inherent problem with the technology, however, as DLP projectors work quite well hooked up to computers.
An "EDTV" plasma flat-panel TV is (IIRC) 768x480. That is clearly inadequate for use as a computer monitor. I think even the HDTV plasmas are commonly only 720 vertical lines. The few TVs that actually have 1080 lines of resolution are mostly CRT tubes (e.g. CRT RP).
The most important question is what the native resolution of these LCD flat panels is, and whether or not there is a computer-compatible connector that makes full use of it. For example, my TV I specifically got because it has both RGB (HD15) and DVI inputs, and I can get a resolution that maps directly to the pixels on the screen.
Unfortunately, this resolution (again, 1280x720) is not really adequate for full-time use as a computer monitor. It's great for the occasional web surfing, but I wouldn't want to do any real work on it.
In summary: If you can deal with the resolution, and there is a good connector on the TV (DVI is ideal, VGA is acceptable), then you will be fine. There's nothing particularly wrong with the attributes of these LCD TVs for use as computer monitors, in general, including color depth and pixel response times. (Once you start looking at other technologies like CRT RP, DLP, and Plasma, these other issues may become problematic.)
Given that you can get an X1 projector for a lot less, why would you try to put a huge, expensive TV on your desktop? ;)
When you can snatch the DVI adapter out of my hand, grasshopper, it will be time for you to upgrade.
You little whippersnappers must be too young to remember the days when hooking your computer up to the TV was your ONLY option? In my day, we had to hook our Commodore 64 up to a 13" Zenith with vacuum tubes - and we liked it!
\/\/oobie
Someone earlier said that they wouldnt let you hook up a laptop to the 3000 dollar floor model... I believe that most stores would. they'll do anything if they think you'll buy it, go in and give it a shot, worst case they'll say no. I would like to hear the answer to this question as well, which nobody has yet to come up with.
No way man, I used to have a tv (sans remote!) connected to a Commodore 16, then a Spectrum of some variety, and then a Commodore 64. My mate and I used to argue about which was best - the 64 or the Plus4, but then we always were sad bastards.
br/? Anyway, my first monitor was for the PC - just before that I had an Amiga which had a weird device called a TV modulator.
Free iPods - now in the UK!
Parent has a good point.
I purchasing IT equipment and albeit I'm not looking it up right now BUT I'm always turned off by the LCD TVs low native resolution when it comes to computer displays.
Most of them only have an 800 x 600 resolution or commonly 1024 x 768. On a 23" LCD screen (1024 x 768) it's going to look decent but not as great as it can be.
I'm not sure why the resolutions are so low but optimally I would say you should go for 1600 x 1200 resolution. These are out there but they're still up there in price. I would say wait a year or two to make the investment.
I predict too that 15" LCDs will go bye bye within 18-24 months and only be made for notebooks. We'll still see 13" - 17" notebooks but the core will be 15" and then the primary/standard LCD monitor will be 17". At this point the 21" - 23" market are going to drop along with the 17".
Where is evidence of this? 15" LCD monitors are going up in price (remember I'm talking about large volume pricing here) and closing the margin between 15" and 17" LCD monitors so that the transition won't be so hard for the corporate customers.
UID 1000000 is just around the corner.
that I use as a computer monitor with my HTPC. The resolution is not high enough for dedicated work, it's OK for websurfing if I want to look something up on IMDB but the resolution is too low for any sustained work. It is however pretty good for playing Civ III or other PC games and as soon as I get some time I'm going to set it up to play upsampled DVDs.
I never had any luck using the DVI inputs on the TV with my video cards, I'd end up with horribly low resolutions or weird looking stretched screens. I finally went out and got an ATI video card and one of ATI's VGA to component video converters and that worked pretty well with Powerstrip to give me a resolution of 1280 by 680.
Again, it's not perfect, but it's not bad for light web surfing, playing games, etc.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
1080 is the number of lines in the display format (which is 1920x1080, with rectangular pixels to make it a 16:9 display aspect). HDTVs don't yet have that high of an actual resolution; they downsample.
There are 10 kinds of people: ones who understand ternary, ones who don't, and ones who think this joke is about binary
I talk about this in one of my letters columns.
In brief: They will work, but only for suitably small values of "work", because they'll only accept DVI-HDTV input. That's a subset of regular DVI that only supports a few scan rates. If you can't goose your video card into outputting the resolution and frequency combinations the screen wants, you're out of luck.
There's a Freudian slip you don't see every day. ;-)
Money for nothing, pix for free
I don't know if I'm too late to comment on this story, but here goes anyway...
I personally have a HTPC (home theater PC) setup in my apartment. The display is a Samsung HLN4365W DLP set. Not the same as LCD, but it accepts the same types of input as a standard HDTV device: DVI, Component, etc.
My PC is a standard Windows XP box. Shuttle XPC SN45G case/mobo, Athlon 1800+, 512MB RAM, WinTV PVR, and a Radeon 9600 Pro.
My display's native resolution is 1280x720p. By default, my video card does not have this resolution enabled. An application called PowerStrip has been around for a good long while that excels at doing things like adjusting vertical/horizontal scan rates, resolutions, etc. in most video cards' firmware & drivers. Note that the display worked fine at 800x600, but then I wasn't making much good use of the widescreen aspect ratio and DVDs from the HTPC were letterboxed in the 8x6 area of the screen, which looked retarded.
So will your laptop work? It's not 100% clear that it will since your laptop probably has an integrated video chipset that PowerStrip may not support. Of course, you might just get lucky and it might work out of the box, too.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
I recently assembled a VIA EPIA mini-ITX box to integrate into my home theater system. The idea was having a small form factor that would fit into the entertainment center, utilize an RCA out video port for my 51" rear projection TV, and operate with a wireless keyboard/trackball device. All of that came together fine. On paper at least.
Where I was extremely let down was in the quality of the TV display. I don't have an HDTV, just an older rear projection set. I have to enable the Windows Accessibility Options in order to even come close to reading the fonts on the screen. Really ugly Windows High Contrast Black (large fonts). Yuck.
When I called VIA to get the display driver specs versus typical TV specs I was told that 800x600 was the best resolution I could hope for. And that this sort of setup is primarily intended for watching videos. Any onscreen fonts are really pushing it.
Can't complain in that the whole setup was around $600 in all, but I am still amazed at how average TV screen resolution is so much poorer than what a home PC can put out. I guess HDTV would be a good step up for me, but then again I am not relishing shelling out $1500-2000 only 5-6 years after getting my current set.
[/rant]