notebook to LCD

"bumblebee" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi,

I am trying to connect my DELL notebook to my Sharp AQUOS LCD TV thru
HDMI.

But I dont have a HDMI or DVi interface in my notebook. I am using a
HDMI to DVi cable from my LCD TV and connecting to VGA interface in my
notebook thru a DVi-to-VGA connector. Nothing is happening on my TV
and I dont get any signal.

After this I am not sure, how to go abt connecting these two. I would
appreciate if you anyone could help me in connecting these 2 devices.
Or, Is there any way to connect these 2?
Thanks.




have you actually gone into desktop properties on the pc and told it to
provide a dual screen display?



--
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

"Steve Roberts" wrote in message
...


However, HDMI is a digital-only connector. What you are trying to do
is to connect an analogue output to a digital input. Your analogue VGA
is getting as far as the input to the DVI to HDMI converter but that's
as far as it can get, as the connection from then on is digital only.

Hope that clarifies the situation.



never done it myself but my sharp lcd tv manual claims that with a small
looking dongle - a vga to dvi convertor, you can connect the analogue
monitor output of the pc to the dvi input of the tv - not sure if HDMI is
that different or not - it could simply be that the tv accepts analogue
input on a few of the pins in the HDMI connector.


--
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

the dog from that film you saw wrote:
"Steve Roberts" wrote in message
...


However, HDMI is a digital-only connector. What you are trying to do
is to connect an analogue output to a digital input. Your analogue
VGA is getting as far as the input to the DVI to HDMI converter but
that's as far as it can get, as the connection from then on is
digital only. Hope that clarifies the situation.



never done it myself but my sharp lcd tv manual claims that with a
small looking dongle - a vga to dvi convertor, you can connect the
analogue monitor output of the pc to the dvi input of the tv - not
sure if HDMI is that different or not - it could simply be that the
tv accepts analogue input on a few of the pins in the HDMI connector.

It could simply be you don't know what HDMI is, it does _not_ handle
analogue in any way.

On Jul 17, 8:29 pm, "Paul D.Smith" wrote:
I think it has a component input? I presume the likes of this would work

http://www.clearly-av.co.uk/CAB-VGA-2-CMP10.html

but possibly at the expense of plug and play?

I suspect NOT. The description clearly states that the cable does NOT
perform any conversion. This seems to be for projectors that have a VGA
type connector that accepts component inputs. Sounds a little non-standard
to me but in any case VGA is essentially RGB (plus sync) which is different
from component.

Paul DS.

Thanks for all your responses. Yes Paul, you are right. This model
does not have RGB interface. At this point, looks like I dont have any
option other than S-Video. I'll try with S-Video first and if the
quality is not good, I'll play with VGA/RGB (SCART) connector.
thanks again.

In message . com,
bumblebee writes
On Jul 17, 8:29 pm, "Paul D.Smith" wrote:
I think it has a component input? I presume the likes of this would work

http://www.clearly-av.co.uk/CAB-VGA-2-CMP10.html

but possibly at the expense of plug and play?

I suspect NOT. The description clearly states that the cable does NOT
perform any conversion. This seems to be for projectors that have a VGA
type connector that accepts component inputs. Sounds a little non-standard
to me but in any case VGA is essentially RGB (plus sync) which is different
from component.

Paul DS.

Thanks for all your responses. Yes Paul, you are right. This model
does not have RGB interface. At this point, looks like I dont have any
option other than S-Video. I'll try with S-Video first and if the
quality is not good, I'll play with VGA/RGB (SCART) connector.
thanks again.

If your TV has preset picture options you may find one that you can
adjust to make the picture acceptable.

My set lets me choose from, Multimedia, Rich, Soft, Natural, Personal.

Personal is the default as it's the setting I stored when I first set
the TV up.

When I use S-Video from the PC, I find that the Soft setting makes the
picture smoother, but a little dark, so I adjust the brightness till I
get a perfectly reasonable picture.

Movies and TV recordings look fine, but it's not much use for navigating
the PC.

Hth.
--
Ian

Movies and TV recordings look fine, but it's not much use for navigating
the PC.


Those with long memories will remember "hi res" computer screens that used
interlacing. Text especially was useless on them. Since PAL uses
interlacing, you get exactly the same affect using a TV as a computer
monitor.

Of course if your "TV" has "real" computer inputs then you should be able to
get the same quality as a regular monitor (subject to other differences that
the TV screen might have relative to a computer monitor).

Unfortunately for the OP, their TV/computer only overlap at S-video.

Paul DS

In article , Paul D.Smith wrote:
Movies and TV recordings look fine, but it's not much use for navigating*
the PC.


Those with long memories will remember "hi res" computer screens that used*
interlacing. *Text especially was useless on them. *Since PAL uses*
interlacing, you get exactly the same affect using a TV as a computer*
monitor.

I would suggest that it is the low resolution of a conventional TV display
that renders it unsuitable for computer use, rather than the use of
interlace.

It may not even be true that interlace is used in the "TV" output from an
electronic device when the signal is not derived from a broadcast. It is
certainly possible to generate a non-interlaced video signal sufficiently
close to broadcast specifications that most standard TV sets can display it,
and if the content is to be mostly static graphics and text, it would be
sensible to do this. I do remember interlaced computer displays, and they
were not very pleasant to watch for very long.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Paul D.Smith
wrote:
Movies and TV recordings look fine, but it's not much use for
navigating
the PC.


Those with long memories will remember "hi res" computer screens that
used
interlacing. Text especially was useless on them. Since PAL uses
interlacing, you get exactly the same affect using a TV as a computer
monitor.

I would suggest that it is the low resolution of a conventional TV display
that renders it unsuitable for computer use, rather than the use of
interlace.


Isn't the resolution if a 4:3 TV close to 800x600? That's perfectly usable
although icons tend to be a little large.

It may not even be true that interlace is used in the "TV" output from an
electronic device when the signal is not derived from a broadcast. It is
certainly possible to generate a non-interlaced video signal sufficiently
close to broadcast specifications that most standard TV sets can display
it,
and if the content is to be mostly static graphics and text, it would be
sensible to do this.

But "most standard TV sets..." means that every buyer who has a TV that
doesn't is a potential complaint or class-action suit. It's not worth the
risk for manufacturers. The fact is that very few people ever connect their
computers to TVs (getting more as media PCs etc. appear) so the lack of
quality isn't an issue providing the DVD picture looks OK.

OTOH it might be possible to use the various Windows/Linux tools to get the
notebook to output something non-standard but of a better quality (i.e. on
interlaced). Perhaps a quick Google is needed ;-).

I do remember interlaced computer displays, and they
were not very pleasant to watch for very long.

Rod.

In article , Paul D.Smith wrote:
It is
certainly possible to generate a non-interlaced video signal sufficiently
close to broadcast specifications that most standard TV sets can display*
it,
and if the content is to be mostly static graphics and text, it would be
sensible to do this.

But "most standard TV sets..." means that every buyer who has a TV that*
doesn't is a potential complaint or class-action suit.

I wouldn't have thought so as long as it is sold as a TV set and is capable
of functioning as such.

"Capable of functioning" needn't imply the use of any objective technical
standards of course, because although broadcast technical standards do exist,
even the broadcasters don't seem to keep to them these days, and most of the
viewers don't seem to care.

Rod.