Monitor/TV question...

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:36:53 -0500
"E. Rust III" wrote:

Is there any advantage to using a monitor over a TV anymore? The
reason why I ask is because there seams to be some really nice TV's
out there that would be an excellent idea for a computer system
(bigger, sharper graphics, etc)...

Take a laptop to the store with you and plug it into the TVs and you'll
know the answer to your question.

Bigger you can get, sharper graphics, no way, not with any TV on the
market. Some HDTV (real HD--not the cheap sets that claim to be HD but
don't actually display any more resolution than SD sets) sets are good
enough to use for a monitor, but they don't outperform a purpose-built
monitor.

Trey



--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Is there any advantage to using a monitor over a TV anymore? The reason why
I ask is because there seams to be some really nice TV's out there that
would be an excellent idea for a computer system (bigger, sharper graphics,
etc)...

Trey

Most LCDs and Plasmas will handle hi-res signals. Technically a monitor is
just a tube, a TV is a tube with a tuner. Now if you had some money you
could get a scaler or sync stripper and use a TV with component inputs and
that can hadle at least 720p then you would have a nice image. In the end
NTSC and composite video is just **** no matter what you do to it


"J.Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:36:53 -0500
"E. Rust III" wrote:

Is there any advantage to using a monitor over a TV anymore? The
reason why I ask is because there seams to be some really nice TV's
out there that would be an excellent idea for a computer system
(bigger, sharper graphics, etc)...

Take a laptop to the store with you and plug it into the TVs and you'll
know the answer to your question.

Bigger you can get, sharper graphics, no way, not with any TV on the
market. Some HDTV (real HD--not the cheap sets that claim to be HD but
don't actually display any more resolution than SD sets) sets are good
enough to use for a monitor, but they don't outperform a purpose-built
monitor.

Trey



--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

red wrote:
Most LCDs and Plasmas will handle hi-res signals. Technically a monitor is
just a tube, a TV is a tube with a tuner. Now if you had some money you
could get a scaler or sync stripper and use a TV with component inputs and
that can hadle at least 720p then you would have a nice image. In the end
NTSC and composite video is just **** no matter what you do to it

One word: "Dot Pitch" (ok, so I can't count)

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:44:28 GMT
"red" wrote:

Most LCDs and Plasmas will handle hi-res signals.

Please be kind enough to identify a television of any kind that is
capable of displaying the 1600x1200 that is commonplace for CRTs. Let
alone the 3840x2400 that is native to some LCD monitors.

Technically a
monitor is just a tube,

No, a CRT monitor is a tube, deflection assembly, power supply, high
voltage assembly, and assorted auxiliary components. An LCD monitor is
a display, signal processors, power supply, and assorted auxiliary
components.

a TV is a tube with a tuner.

A CRT TV is a tube, deflection assembly, power supply, high voltage
assembly, and assorted auxiliary components, including a tuner, however
if you check the specifications you will find that the selection of
components used to assemble a television is limited to considerably
lower resolutions than a decent monitor.

As for LCD and Plasma TVs, their resolution is limited by the physical
layout of transistors comprising the display. And the ones that are
sold as televisions have that layout optimized for TV, not for computer
output.


Now if you had
some money you could get a scaler or sync stripper and use a TV with
component inputs and that can hadle at least 720p then you would have
a nice image.

A "nice image" yes. Sharper than a 1600x1200 monitor? Not hardly.

In the end NTSC and composite video is just **** no
matter what you do to it

Who said anything about "NTSC and composite video"? I thought we were
talking about televisions here. Perhaps you are unaware that many
televisions these days have the same VGA and/or DVI inputs as computer
monitors. The limitation on performance is not the signalling, it is
the display itself.

"J.Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:36:53 -0500
"E. Rust III" wrote:

Is there any advantage to using a monitor over a TV anymore? The
reason why I ask is because there seams to be some really nice
TV's out there that would be an excellent idea for a computer
system(bigger, sharper graphics, etc)...

Take a laptop to the store with you and plug it into the TVs and
you'll know the answer to your question.

Bigger you can get, sharper graphics, no way, not with any TV on the
market. Some HDTV (real HD--not the cheap sets that claim to be HD
but don't actually display any more resolution than SD sets) sets
are good enough to use for a monitor, but they don't outperform a
purpose-built monitor.

Trey



--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)




--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I bow to the gods of common sense. I checked into it, and yes, indeed,
while TV's are cheaper, they DO NOT make a clearer picture for computers.
Oh well, i'll have to stick by the CRT flat screens i'm using. Thanks all.

Trey