- Joined
- 30 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 909
- Location
- Wigan Lancs
I have finally decided on which monitor i am buying. It's an Acer, not sure of of exact model number but it looks very similar to the Samsung 27inch 3D with the offset stand.
Using a TV as a monitor
- Thread starter bloodhunter
- Start date
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 909
- Location
- Wigan Lancs
Yes that's the one, got it for £198.66 inc postage.
keeping in mind the compared products
Here's a simple comparison of size:
http://displaywars.com/23-inch-16x9-vs-42-inch-16x9
Assuming your TV has a maximum resolution of 1920x1080, which is the same as what the S23A750D offers, it's fairly safe to say it can't offer the same sharpness...
Now, I don't know which model your 42" TV is, but I'm willing to guess it doesn't offer 4:4:4 sumsampling. Furthermore, I hope the VGA you mentioned wasn't actually in use, because that usually gives an undesired blurriness. And I hope it's at least Full-HD, not just HD-Ready.
But in any case, anyone reading this should keep in mind that some TVs are more suited to PC use than others. You can't just buy ANY television, you should always ask for recommendations in the forums (like this one). And if the TV will be standing on your desktop, you really shouldn't go much higher than 32".
PS. With "PC use", I'm talking about using the TV as the primary display for the computer. If using the TV as an occasional companion for movie watching, etc., the requirements are much lower. Pretty much every modern TV is good enough for that.
PS2. Getting a TV as a primary PC monitor is not for the faint of heart. There are usually compromises you will have to make.
Here's a simple comparison of size:
http://displaywars.com/23-inch-16x9-vs-42-inch-16x9
Assuming your TV has a maximum resolution of 1920x1080, which is the same as what the S23A750D offers, it's fairly safe to say it can't offer the same sharpness...
Now, I don't know which model your 42" TV is, but I'm willing to guess it doesn't offer 4:4:4 sumsampling. Furthermore, I hope the VGA you mentioned wasn't actually in use, because that usually gives an undesired blurriness. And I hope it's at least Full-HD, not just HD-Ready.
But in any case, anyone reading this should keep in mind that some TVs are more suited to PC use than others. You can't just buy ANY television, you should always ask for recommendations in the forums (like this one). And if the TV will be standing on your desktop, you really shouldn't go much higher than 32".
PS. With "PC use", I'm talking about using the TV as the primary display for the computer. If using the TV as an occasional companion for movie watching, etc., the requirements are much lower. Pretty much every modern TV is good enough for that.
PS2. Getting a TV as a primary PC monitor is not for the faint of heart. There are usually compromises you will have to make.
If a good quality VGA cable is used analog image quality degradation can be negligible. Some TVs only bypass the "image enhancing" electronics if the VGA is used which may make VGA the best option for computer input.
I was using a 1080p 32" tv as a monitor for a while, sat at my desk.
I preferred it to a pc monitor, the size made games so epic, yes the image quality sufferred and I could see the pixels but I found it better tbh. I'm not much of a expensive monitor person I'm using a cheap as chips 22" atm, if you were going from a good quality monitor you might not like it so much.
Just my two cents and a different take on it.
I preferred it to a pc monitor, the size made games so epic, yes the image quality sufferred and I could see the pixels but I found it better tbh. I'm not much of a expensive monitor person I'm using a cheap as chips 22" atm, if you were going from a good quality monitor you might not like it so much.
Just my two cents and a different take on it.
Last edited:
analog vs. digital
Problem is, when using VGA with LCD, you first need to have a good DA-conversion on the GPU, and also a good AD-conversion on the TV side. While on the contrary, there's no need for conversion at all with HDMI (or DVI for PC monitors).
And some TVs also have "PC Input" or "PC Mode", which minimizes the extra "enhancements". But be wary of "Game Mode", because while it sometimes disables unnecessary calculations to reduce lag, it often adds more "features", which can make the picture even worse.
Problem is, when using VGA with LCD, you first need to have a good DA-conversion on the GPU, and also a good AD-conversion on the TV side. While on the contrary, there's no need for conversion at all with HDMI (or DVI for PC monitors).
And some TVs also have "PC Input" or "PC Mode", which minimizes the extra "enhancements". But be wary of "Game Mode", because while it sometimes disables unnecessary calculations to reduce lag, it often adds more "features", which can make the picture even worse.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 522
VGA/RGB Component (or YPrPB Component for that matter) is fine for 1080p, and especially fine for 768p. It's CVBS (Yellow Phono Composite) that you want to avoid because the colour and brightness channels are encoded together at an analogue level - most modern TV sets don't have a good enough baseband PAL decoder to decode the information properly and you usually end up with a dot crawl effect and therefore blurriness or fussiness (depending on any noise reduction). Also the fact that the clocking on Composite will only provide an effective resolution of 704x576. S-Video is better than CVBS in that the colour and brightness channels are not encoded together as subcarriers but all the colours are encoded together so you still loose pixel fidelity like with CVBS. Component can be achieved with a properly wired SCART cable, Component Video all the way!
Last edited:
)