Best tv for pc resolution
 

Colin Stamp wrote:

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:07:18 -0000, Dr Hfuhruhurr
wrote:

Text is unreadable on your 32" telly because its only 720.

Superb! So you reckon that, if my 32" TV was 1080 rather than 720, the
text would be larger! I guess the laws of physics must be a little
different round your way.

No, there would be more lines to display the font, making it clearer.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Best tv for pc resolution
 

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:22:46 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

but the graphic card on my most recent
computer (built this year) has both types of output, giving me the
opportunity to try both, so just out of curiosity, I did. I can't see any
difference at all.

Good heavens.

I have two 20" displays at work. My last machine had DVI+VGA on its
graphics card, and the difference in the available bandwidth was
pretty obvious. I tried swapping the screens in case it was an issue
with one screen's input, but the problem stayed on one side,
indicating an issue with the VGA. Characters on the VGA-connected
screen were always slightly fuzzy. Enough to make me do all text
editing (I write a lot of code) on the DVI-connected screen.

My new machine has quad DVI, and it made a big difference to usability
to have both screens on a decent connection.

VGA connection for 1600x1200 and above _is_ feasible, but I
personally wouldn't do it. The limitations of the technology really
start to become apparent.

Best tv for pc resolution
 

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:42:05 +0100, (Peter
Hayes) wrote:

Colin Stamp wrote:

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:07:18 -0000, Dr Hfuhruhurr
wrote:

Text is unreadable on your 32" telly because its only 720.

Superb! So you reckon that, if my 32" TV was 1080 rather than 720, the
text would be larger! I guess the laws of physics must be a little
different round your way.

No, there would be more lines to display the font, making it clearer.

The test is already absolutely crystal clear (from close-up) and the
fonts can be made bigger on 720 just as easily as 1080.

If you choose to throw away the extra resolution by using larger
fonts, the text will be smoother, not clearer. The distance at which
it becomes unreadable will be the same.

The bottom line is, the more detail you want on your screen, the
bigger the screen will need to be, or the closer you will need to sit.
It sounds really obvious, I know, but I bet it's often not thought of
until after the small, high-resolution screen gets installed ten feet
away from the sofa, and the PC boots for the first time..

Cheers,

Colin.

Best tv for pc resolution
 

In article , Colin Stamp wrote:
Agreed. My PC monitor is 1600 x 1200 and has both the standard 15-pin VGA*
analogue input and a digital input. I've been perfectly happy with it*
connected via 15-pin analogue, but the graphic card on my most recent*
computer (built this year) has both types of output, giving me the*
opportunity to try both, so just out of curiosity, I did. I can't see any*
difference at all.


What's agreed? That neither of you have tried 1920X1080 over a VGA
connection?

I thought I was agreeing that it was nonsense to state that a 15-pin VGA
analogue video output would have difficulty handling HD video. In reality I
would expect it to have no difficulty at all.

Actually, it's probably possible to get it to work, but it'll be
hit-and-miss at best.

1920x1080 is practically the same number of pixels as 1600x1200, so pretty
much the same frequency range would be required to handle it as an analogue
signal. The fact that a 15-pin analogue output shows not the slightest hint
of problems handling 1600x1200 leads me to expect it would handle the other
easily. Performance does not look in the least "hit-and-miss". Analogue video
amplifiers can be made which exceed the required performance by a generous
margin.

Rod.

Best tv for pc resolution
 

In article , Bob Moore
wrote:
VGA connection for 1600x1200 and above _is_ *feasible, but I
personally wouldn't do it. The limitations of the technology really
start to become apparent.

What limitations? We're only considering a video amplifier that has to
drive a signal along a couple of metres of cable. I saw analogue 1250/50
and 1125/60 video from tube cameras fed to CRT monitors way back in the
1980s, and the French were broadcasting 819/50 video several decades
before that, in the days of valve amplifiers. Broadcast video signals
are routinely fed along hundreds of metres of cables, and in that
situation the analogue ones can manage greater cable lengths before the
signal suffers. All it needs is a properly designed video output stage
and the correct impedance cable. If your video output stage cannot
manage 2 metres of cable, there is something wrong with it, or it's the
wrong cable.

Rod.

Best tv for pc resolution
 

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:53:02 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Colin Stamp wrote:
Agreed. My PC monitor is 1600 x 1200 and has both the standard 15-pin VGA*
analogue input and a digital input. I've been perfectly happy with it*
connected via 15-pin analogue, but the graphic card on my most recent*
computer (built this year) has both types of output, giving me the*
opportunity to try both, so just out of curiosity, I did. I can't see any*
difference at all.


What's agreed? That neither of you have tried 1920X1080 over a VGA
connection?

I thought I was agreeing that it was nonsense to state that a 15-pin VGA
analogue video output would have difficulty handling HD video. In reality I
would expect it to have no difficulty at all.

You're agreeing, yet you haven't tried it any more than he has.


Actually, it's probably possible to get it to work, but it'll be
hit-and-miss at best.

1920x1080 is practically the same number of pixels as 1600x1200, so pretty
much the same frequency range would be required to handle it as an analogue
signal.

It's the horizontal resolution that really matters, not the vertical,
so it's 20% higher.

The fact that a 15-pin analogue output shows not the slightest hint
of problems handling 1600x1200 leads me to expect it would handle the other
easily.

Expect, but not know.

Performance does not look in the least "hit-and-miss". Analogue video
amplifiers can be made which exceed the required performance by a generous
margin.


It's hit-and-miss in that some systems will work and some won't. If
you have one that works then that's wonderful - for you and you alone.
But then again, we don't know that it works even for you.
I've even seen one 1380X720 setup that's pixel-perfect until the PC
starts to warm up, then starts to smear after half an hor or so.
Flat-panel displays are *much* less forgiving than CRTs in this
respect. The output *has* to be pixel-perfect or it shows up really
badly.

Cheers,

Colin.

Best tv for pc resolution
 

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:53:03 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Bob Moore
wrote:
VGA connection for 1600x1200 and above _is_ *feasible, but I
personally wouldn't do it. The limitations of the technology really
start to become apparent.

What limitations? We're only considering a video amplifier that has to
drive a signal along a couple of metres of cable. I saw analogue 1250/50
and 1125/60 video from tube cameras fed to CRT monitors way back in the
1980s, and the French were broadcasting 819/50 video several decades
before that, in the days of valve amplifiers. Broadcast video signals
are routinely fed along hundreds of metres of cables, and in that
situation the analogue ones can manage greater cable lengths before the
signal suffers. All it needs is a properly designed video output stage
and the correct impedance cable. If your video output stage cannot
manage 2 metres of cable, there is something wrong with it, or it's the
wrong cable.

But you're thinking back in the analogue realm, when a bit of timing
skew didn't really matter one way or the other because it'd just get
lost in the CRT displays where the number of phosphor dots exceeded
the resolution of the incoming signal. With a flat-panel, if the
signal moves by more than half a pixel's width, it'll turn up really
visibly in the pixel next-door.

Apologies if the above doesn't make sense. I've had a few...

Cheers,

Colin.

Best tv for pc resolution
 

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:19:09 +0100, Colin Stamp
wrote:

You're agreeing, yet you haven't tried it any more than he has.

Thousands of people use 1080P via VGA on XBox 360's.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

Best tv for pc resolution
 

On 25 Sep, 18:04, Colin Stamp wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:33:38 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"





wrote:
...snip...

Make sure you get a card that supports the TVs native resolution and a
TV with enough inputs, so you can still plug in your DVD player,
decoder etc. as well as the PC.

Not necessary if you use 'powerstrip'

Incidentally, If you wan't to be able to read the text at 1080p,
you'll need to sit really close, or get a really big TV. Our 32 inch
TV is only 720p and, from a "normal" TV viewing distance, the text is
borderline unreadable.

Nothing to do with how close you sit. Text is unreadable on your 32"
telly because its only 720.

It's also probably running interlaced which won't help. There are some
sites on the web that suggest that you can run half the resolution but
non-interlaced into most TVs. Not tried it yet but they claim the picture
is more readable.

I'm afraid you've been led up the garden path by Dr Hfuhruhurr.
The PC display on my TV is perfect. The text is nearly unreadable
because I sit too far away from it.

Well now, that wasn't exactly made clear now, was it?

Doc

Best tv for pc resolution
 

I'm afraid you've been led up the garden path by Dr Hfuhruhurr.
The PC display on my TV is perfect. The text is nearly unreadable
because I sit too far away from it.

Well now, that wasn't exactly made clear now, was it?

Doc

Got to agree with the good doctor here. The fact that you want to read the
text from across the room was far from obvious.

If you want to be able to read text from a distance, I'd suggest either
increasing the font size or investing in a data projector so you can get a
"6 foot screen".

Paul DS.