HDTV for PC video output?

Anybody else thinking about buying a new monitor and getting a good
feeling about high-definition television?

I wouldn't buy one just for television, but do you think maybe
display manufacturers will end up targeting both markets at the same
time? I think that be great if we get some really nice video output
at a reasonable cost driven by the consumer television market.

There might be deficiencies, but it's a relatively new product too.

I wouldn't mind doing a little research given some clues.

Thank you.

John Doe wrote:
Anybody else thinking about buying a new monitor and getting a good
feeling about high-definition television?

I wouldn't buy one just for television, but do you think maybe
display manufacturers will end up targeting both markets at the same
time? I think that be great if we get some really nice video output
at a reasonable cost driven by the consumer television market.

There might be deficiencies, but it's a relatively new product too.

I wouldn't mind doing a little research given some clues.

Thank you.

I'm using an HD LCDTV for computer and TV use. My Viewsonic LCDTV has
both VGA and DVI inputs. I chose it over a computer monitor because the
native resolution of computer LCD widescreen monitors is too high to run
many games fast enough but my LCDTV has a native res of only 1360x768. I
also have a second 17" LCD hooked up to my video card. This url should
give you some better input on the subject.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=759011

Conor wrote:

In article , John Doe
says...
Anybody else thinking about buying a new monitor and getting a
good feeling about high-definition television?

I wouldn't buy one just for television, but do you think maybe
display manufacturers will end up targeting both markets at the
same time? I think that be great if we get some really nice video
output at a reasonable cost driven by the consumer television
market.

The PC monitor is already FAR ahead of HDTV televisions and has
been for well over a decade.

I don't even have an HDTV set. Last I heard, the large majority of
Americans don't have HDTV television yet.

My question isn't about the highest end video output, it's about
value.

If I could get a large screen HDTV television that looks about as
good as a medium quality monitor, for the same price I would go for
it. The benefits of a large screen are great in that you aren't
stuck viewing it from a specific distance. Like in a movie theater,
the viewing is very comfortable, because for example body movements
don't change your perspective of the screen.


Any 21" CRT can work at a far higher resolution
and refresh rate than any HDTV.

If you mean because of the resolution, I'm easily satisfied by no
more than 1024 x 768. In the games I play, I'm too involved in the
game to appreciate pixel by pixel graphical details.

Definition wise, how it is able to print text is what matters to me.
A big screen is easy to read even if the text is jagged.

Monitor refresh rates don't have to be very high. The limiting
factor is usually the video card and CPU. Kids want very high frames
per second because it means FPS won't drop to unacceptable levels
when the game gets intense/crowded (which has nothing to do with
monitor capability).

Basically I'm wondering if HDTV is improved enough over conventional
TV to make an acceptable PC monitor.


The PC already has had excellent video output for donkeys years.

How much for a 36 inch PC monitor?

I probably should have stated and maybe emphasized the idea of a larger
screen.

John Doe wrote:
Conor wrote:


In article , John Doe
says...

Anybody else thinking about buying a new monitor and getting a
good feeling about high-definition television?

I wouldn't buy one just for television, but do you think maybe
display manufacturers will end up targeting both markets at the
same time? I think that be great if we get some really nice video
output at a reasonable cost driven by the consumer television
market.


The PC monitor is already FAR ahead of HDTV televisions and has
been for well over a decade.


I don't even have an HDTV set. Last I heard, the large majority of
Americans don't have HDTV television yet.

My question isn't about the highest end video output, it's about
value.

If I could get a large screen HDTV television that looks about as
good as a medium quality monitor, for the same price I would go for
it. The benefits of a large screen are great in that you aren't
stuck viewing it from a specific distance. Like in a movie theater,
the viewing is very comfortable, because for example body movements
don't change your perspective of the screen.


Any 21" CRT can work at a far higher resolution
and refresh rate than any HDTV.


If you mean because of the resolution, I'm easily satisfied by no
more than 1024 x 768. In the games I play, I'm too involved in the
game to appreciate pixel by pixel graphical details.

Definition wise, how it is able to print text is what matters to me.
A big screen is easy to read even if the text is jagged.

Monitor refresh rates don't have to be very high. The limiting
factor is usually the video card and CPU. Kids want very high frames
per second because it means FPS won't drop to unacceptable levels
when the game gets intense/crowded (which has nothing to do with
monitor capability).

It's a mistaken impression that 30 frames a second is all the motion the
eye can perceive. It's simply sufficient to give the illusion of motion


Basically I'm wondering if HDTV is improved enough over conventional
TV to make an acceptable PC monitor.


The PC already has had excellent video output for donkeys years.


How much for a 36 inch PC monitor?

The illusion of motion can be given with two or three frames per second.

The major moviemakers consider 25 to 30 frames per second to be plenty.

In my gaming experience, anything consistently above 25 is good.


David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm03.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prod igy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!ne wscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp. dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!statler.nntpser ver.com!news.glorb.com!sn-xt-sjc-04!sn-xt-sjc-09!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard nospam private.net
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: HDTV for PC video output?
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:00:52 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 121p7pkd98umr2e corp.supernews.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: Xns9789E6C5AFE01follydom 207.115.17.102 MPG.1e85f9c14cf34c9198c26d news.individual.net Xns978A9AA4EAA4Dfollydom 207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: Xns978A9AA4EAA4Dfollydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 72
Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:461777

John Doe wrote:
Conor conor.turton gmail.com wrote:


In article Xns9789E6C5AFE01follydom 207.115.17.102, John Doe
says...

Anybody else thinking about buying a new monitor and getting a
good feeling about high-definition television?

I wouldn't buy one just for television, but do you think maybe
display manufacturers will end up targeting both markets at the
same time? I think that be great if we get some really nice video
output at a reasonable cost driven by the consumer television
market.


The PC monitor is already FAR ahead of HDTV televisions and has
been for well over a decade.


I don't even have an HDTV set. Last I heard, the large majority of
Americans don't have HDTV television yet.

My question isn't about the highest end video output, it's about
value.

If I could get a large screen HDTV television that looks about as
good as a medium quality monitor, for the same price I would go for
it. The benefits of a large screen are great in that you aren't
stuck viewing it from a specific distance. Like in a movie theater,
the viewing is very comfortable, because for example body movements
don't change your perspective of the screen.


Any 21" CRT can work at a far higher resolution
and refresh rate than any HDTV.


If you mean because of the resolution, I'm easily satisfied by no
more than 1024 x 768. In the games I play, I'm too involved in the
game to appreciate pixel by pixel graphical details.

Definition wise, how it is able to print text is what matters to me.
A big screen is easy to read even if the text is jagged.

Monitor refresh rates don't have to be very high. The limiting
factor is usually the video card and CPU. Kids want very high frames
per second because it means FPS won't drop to unacceptable levels
when the game gets intense/crowded (which has nothing to do with
monitor capability).

It's a mistaken impression that 30 frames a second is all the motion the
eye can perceive. It's simply sufficient to give the illusion of motion


Basically I'm wondering if HDTV is improved enough over conventional
TV to make an acceptable PC monitor.


The PC already has had excellent video output for donkeys years.


How much for a 36 inch PC monitor?

John Doe wrote:
I probably should have stated and maybe emphasized the idea of a larger
screen.

My HDLCDTV is 27", the second monitor is only 17".

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
The illusion of motion can be given with two or three frames per second.

The major moviemakers consider 25 to 30 frames per second to be plenty.

In my gaming experience, anything consistently above 25 is good.


David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

Path:
newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm03.news.prodigy
..com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.p rodigy.com!prodigy.com!news
con06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dc a.giganews.com!nntp.gigane
ws.com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!statler.nntpser ver.com!ne
ws.glorb.com!sn-xt-sjc-04!sn-xt-sjc-09!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.superne
ws.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard nospam private.net
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: HDTV for PC video output?
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:00:52 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 121p7pkd98umr2e corp.supernews.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: Xns9789E6C5AFE01follydom 207.115.17.102
MPG.1e85f9c14cf34c9198c26d news.individual.net Xns978A9AA4EAA4Dfollydom
207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: Xns978A9AA4EAA4Dfollydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 72
Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:461777

John Doe wrote:
Conor conor.turton gmail.com wrote:


In article Xns9789E6C5AFE01follydom 207.115.17.102, John Doe
says...

Anybody else thinking about buying a new monitor and getting a
good feeling about high-definition television?

I wouldn't buy one just for television, but do you think maybe
display manufacturers will end up targeting both markets at the
same time? I think that be great if we get some really nice video
output at a reasonable cost driven by the consumer television
market.


The PC monitor is already FAR ahead of HDTV televisions and has
been for well over a decade.


I don't even have an HDTV set. Last I heard, the large majority of
Americans don't have HDTV television yet.

My question isn't about the highest end video output, it's about
value.

If I could get a large screen HDTV television that looks about as
good as a medium quality monitor, for the same price I would go for
it. The benefits of a large screen are great in that you aren't
stuck viewing it from a specific distance. Like in a movie theater,
the viewing is very comfortable, because for example body movements
don't change your perspective of the screen.


Any 21" CRT can work at a far higher resolution
and refresh rate than any HDTV.


If you mean because of the resolution, I'm easily satisfied by no
more than 1024 x 768. In the games I play, I'm too involved in the
game to appreciate pixel by pixel graphical details.

Definition wise, how it is able to print text is what matters to me.
A big screen is easy to read even if the text is jagged.

Monitor refresh rates don't have to be very high. The limiting
factor is usually the video card and CPU. Kids want very high frames
per second because it means FPS won't drop to unacceptable levels
when the game gets intense/crowded (which has nothing to do with
monitor capability).

It's a mistaken impression that 30 frames a second is all the motion the
eye can perceive. It's simply sufficient to give the illusion of motion


Basically I'm wondering if HDTV is improved enough over conventional
TV to make an acceptable PC monitor.


The PC already has had excellent video output for donkeys years.


How much for a 36 inch PC monitor?












And you can see problems in movies with fast action at 30
frames/second.Portions of the picture will be blurred and out of focus.

It's all an illusion, David Maynard. Anything consistently greater
than 25 frames per second is fine for gaining, even though I can
easily tell when a computer monitor's refresh rate is 60 Hz or less.
I very seriously doubt that a few more frames would cost a $10
million motion picture a substantial amount of money. If you have
any citations that support your assertion, please post them (but of
course that's not going to happen).

Of course the real test is to just buy an HDTV and find out. I
will thoroughly research the issue before buying another monitor.

Have fun.


David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:
The illusion of motion can be given with two or three frames per second.

I should have said smooth motion.

The major moviemakers consider 25 to 30 frames per second to be plenty.

Because the illusion is sufficient, not that it is complete.

And that's how those frame rates were chosen, just enough to remove
objectionable flicker with sufficient motion illusion, because film costs
money and so does bandwidth.

In my gaming experience, anything consistently above 25 is good.

Then you may be happy with just the illusion.

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:



John Doe wrote:

Conor conor.turton gmail.com wrote:



In article Xns9789E6C5AFE01follydom 207.115.17.102, John Doe
says...


Anybody else thinking about buying a new monitor and getting a
good feeling about high-definition television?

I wouldn't buy one just for television, but do you think maybe
display manufacturers will end up targeting both markets at the
same time? I think that be great if we get some really nice video
output at a reasonable cost driven by the consumer television
market.


The PC monitor is already FAR ahead of HDTV televisions and has
been for well over a decade.


I don't even have an HDTV set. Last I heard, the large majority of
Americans don't have HDTV television yet.

My question isn't about the highest end video output, it's about
value.

If I could get a large screen HDTV television that looks about as
good as a medium quality monitor, for the same price I would go for
it. The benefits of a large screen are great in that you aren't
stuck viewing it from a specific distance. Like in a movie theater,
the viewing is very comfortable, because for example body movements
don't change your perspective of the screen.



Any 21" CRT can work at a far higher resolution
and refresh rate than any HDTV.


If you mean because of the resolution, I'm easily satisfied by no
more than 1024 x 768. In the games I play, I'm too involved in the
game to appreciate pixel by pixel graphical details.

Definition wise, how it is able to print text is what matters to me.
A big screen is easy to read even if the text is jagged.

Monitor refresh rates don't have to be very high. The limiting
factor is usually the video card and CPU. Kids want very high frames
per second because it means FPS won't drop to unacceptable levels
when the game gets intense/crowded (which has nothing to do with
monitor capability).

It's a mistaken impression that 30 frames a second is all the motion the
eye can perceive. It's simply sufficient to give the illusion of motion


Basically I'm wondering if HDTV is improved enough over conventional
TV to make an acceptable PC monitor.



The PC already has had excellent video output for donkeys years.


How much for a 36 inch PC monitor?

John Doe wrote:
It's all an illusion, David Maynard. Anything consistently greater
than 25 frames per second is fine for gaining,

Glad you like it. Others don't and can tell. I was just passing along some
information for you to consider but, of course, you have to be an ass about it.

even though I can
easily tell when a computer monitor's refresh rate is 60 Hz or less.
I very seriously doubt that a few more frames would cost a $10
million motion picture a substantial amount of money. If you have
any citations that support your assertion, please post them (but of
course that's not going to happen).

You're right, it's not, because I'm not going to argue with you about it as
I don't give a tinker's dam.


Of course the real test is to just buy an HDTV and find out. I
will thoroughly research the issue before buying another monitor.

Have fun.


David Maynard wrote:


John Doe wrote:

The illusion of motion can be given with two or three frames per second.

I should have said smooth motion.


The major moviemakers consider 25 to 30 frames per second to be plenty.

Because the illusion is sufficient, not that it is complete.

And that's how those frame rates were chosen, just enough to remove
objectionable flicker with sufficient motion illusion, because film costs
money and so does bandwidth.


In my gaming experience, anything consistently above 25 is good.

Then you may be happy with just the illusion.


David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:



John Doe wrote:


Conor conor.turton gmail.com wrote:




In article Xns9789E6C5AFE01follydom 207.115.17.102, John Doe
says...



Anybody else thinking about buying a new monitor and getting a
good feeling about high-definition television?

I wouldn't buy one just for television, but do you think maybe
display manufacturers will end up targeting both markets at the
same time? I think that be great if we get some really nice video
output at a reasonable cost driven by the consumer television
market.


The PC monitor is already FAR ahead of HDTV televisions and has
been for well over a decade.


I don't even have an HDTV set. Last I heard, the large majority of
Americans don't have HDTV television yet.

My question isn't about the highest end video output, it's about
value.

If I could get a large screen HDTV television that looks about as
good as a medium quality monitor, for the same price I would go for
it. The benefits of a large screen are great in that you aren't
stuck viewing it from a specific distance. Like in a movie theater,
the viewing is very comfortable, because for example body movements
don't change your perspective of the screen.




Any 21" CRT can work at a far higher resolution
and refresh rate than any HDTV.


If you mean because of the resolution, I'm easily satisfied by no
more than 1024 x 768. In the games I play, I'm too involved in the
game to appreciate pixel by pixel graphical details.

Definition wise, how it is able to print text is what matters to me.
A big screen is easy to read even if the text is jagged.

Monitor refresh rates don't have to be very high. The limiting
factor is usually the video card and CPU. Kids want very high frames
per second because it means FPS won't drop to unacceptable levels
when the game gets intense/crowded (which has nothing to do with
monitor capability).

It's a mistaken impression that 30 frames a second is all the motion the
eye can perceive. It's simply sufficient to give the illusion of motion



Basically I'm wondering if HDTV is improved enough over conventional
TV to make an acceptable PC monitor.




The PC already has had excellent video output for donkeys years.


How much for a 36 inch PC monitor?