• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Playing games on a 42 inch tv, any way to make the picture smaller?

To echo what the guys have mentioned above, if you have a 1080p LCD TV then that means there is a fixed number of 1920x1080 (2.073 million) pixels on the entire screen.

If you chop down the image to (say) 1/4 the original area then you will be looking at a 20.5in image (similar size to many modern PC monitors) however in this area there would only be 0.691 million pixels (960x540) - which for PC use would be rubbish and the pixels would be the exact same size as before.

The best way to get the full 1080p and apparanetly smaller pixels is to either put the TV further back from your eyes or invest in a PC monitor (which have much smaller pixels).

That said, as you are using a TV for PC work - your "issue" with the image looking poor may be more to do with improper settings. By default many LCD/LED TVs have image processing options like edge enhancer and noise reduction turned on. These features are often very useful when you are running non-ideal video inputs like DVD or Freeview - however for a "perfect" 1080p signal from a PC these features just make the image look worse. May I ask what make and model TV you are using?
 
Last edited:
What about pixel response time, input lag, colour gamut, colour accuracy, sharpness?

Are these things better/worse on an average TV compared to a good IPS panel?

Say HZ27WC vs a £400 42" TV of any make.

We know the pixel pitch and resolution would be vastly higher (2 times the pixel pitch, 78% more pixels).

Certainly aliasing and work scenarios would be much less of a problem.
 
Shrinking the picture to a smaller section of the screen will not alter the pixel size / density. As such it won't look any better. All you will do is shrink the desktop size making Icons etc smaller and thus even harder to see.

Sitting further away is the best idea. Across a medium sized room is ideal.

TBH i used to use a 40inch Sony Bravia HD TV (1080p) and it was perfectly fine for browsing and games. I'd not want to do lots of work on it but otherwise it was fine. I specifically bought the screen tho for its low lag, good response etc for gaming. EPIC TV and EPIC for games.

Now moved to a lovely 27inch 120Hz monitor, so no need to use it anymore.
 
OCPete said:
Shrinking the picture to a smaller section of the screen will not alter the pixel size / density. As such it won't look any better. All you will do is shrink the desktop size making Icons etc smaller and thus even harder to see.
Click to expand...

And lose details since underscanning will take some pixels away from the picture and reducing resolution will just use less desktop space.
 
It wouldn't work anyway, shrinking the image will only lower the image quality even more, what you need a high resolution monitor or a smaller TV. :p
 
Don't see how it will look any better scaled down - just smaller.

If it looks rubbish, perhaps you are sat too close, or you need to try upping your graphical settings, maybe using anti-aliasing or something?
 
Pixel density on larger panels is not good. They're designed to be viewed from further back than a computer monitor would be.

Consider a 32" HDTV with 1080p at 1920 x 1080 resolution.
Then consider a 30" PC screen, typically 2560 x 1600 resolution.

My experience with large screens and projectors is just to sit further back and crank up the antialiasing.
 
i use my samsung 46" 3d tv as my main screen, the picture quality is superb even close up, also the black level is must better than my Iiyama ProLite B2712HDS 27" monitor
 
Mr Krugga said:
What about pixel response time, input lag, colour gamut, colour accuracy, sharpness?

Are these things better/worse on an average TV compared to a good IPS panel?

Say HZ27WC vs a £400 42" TV of any make.
Click to expand...

It really depends on the particular TV in question.

If it is one using a VA panel then you can expect the pixel responsiveness to be a bit worse than a nice IPS panel like the Hazro - so a bit more ghosting. However, if it uses an IPS panel (like many in this price bracket - including LG models) then the pixel responsiveness is basically the same as the Hazro.

In terms of input lag, TVs generally tend to be worse than a ~10ms input lag monitor like the Hazro - however there are some (I have experience with the LG LV/LK 450 range) where the input lag is reasonable at ~16-32ms. More info here.

As for gamut and colour accuracy - TVs tend to be pretty good (since they use decent IPS or VA panels) and many offer some very in-depth configuration options.

The big issue is the relatively low resolution and large pixels.
 
What about text sharpness and general browsing?

I know that text clarity improves vastly with higher pixel density but I guess the distance you sit from the TV plays a major role here.
 
what aboutplasma? is it gonna look like a dogs dinner when it arrives on tuesday ? 50 inch panaonic st 30b)
 
I sometimes use my 120" projector screen to game at 1080p and have no issues at all. Cant really see what the issue is tbh, if your not happy with the image either buy a monitor or sit further away
 
garyfl said:
what aboutplasma? is it gonna look like a dogs dinner when it arrives on tuesday ? 50 inch panaonic st 30b)
Click to expand...

Last time I witnessed a plasma screen, (about 4 or 5 years ago) it suffered horrifically from ghosting. This wasn't a cheap model either.

It put me off plasma screens all together but I'm sure they won't be anywhere near as bad now.

Was kind of funny, it made people's foreheads on the screen look really weird. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom