Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LCD TV as Monitor?

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 11, 2005 3:53:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Confused when I see LCD TV's advertised with VGA or DVI adapters on them.
Does this mean it can function as a computer monitor or would the picture on
a LCD TV be of much less lower quality then a product labeled LCD MONITOR?

Thanks.

More about : lcd monitor

Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 11, 2005 8:01:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

An LCD TV has far fewer pixels, thus lower resolution, than an equivalent
size LCD monitor.

--
DaveW



"Al Franz" <albert@nospam.netmation.com> wrote in message
news:o oidnW1XnPTYXU_fRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> Confused when I see LCD TV's advertised with VGA or DVI adapters on them.
> Does this mean it can function as a computer monitor or would the picture
> on a LCD TV be of much less lower quality then a product labeled LCD
> MONITOR?
>
> Thanks.
>
July 11, 2005 10:18:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>An LCD TV has far fewer pixels, thus lower resolution, than an equivalent
>size LCD monitor.

Ok

But can I ask the reverse question then?

Does a LCD monitor and PC with TV card in it make a
better "TV" than an LCD TV?
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 12, 2005 12:46:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Al Franz, <albert@nospam.netmation.com>, the gill-equipped, negligent
door-to-door salesman, and eater of common weeds, squeaked:

> Confused when I see LCD TV's advertised with VGA or DVI adapters on
> them. Does this mean it can function as a computer monitor or would
> the picture on a LCD TV be of much less lower quality then a product
> labeled LCD MONITOR?
> Thanks.

Sometimes it's difficult to find the specs but all the LCD TVs that I have
checked have a very low resolution if used as a PC monitor. I am used to
1600 x 1200 so even 1024 x 768 seems far too small but they were lower
still.

--
For my own part, I have never had a thought which I could not set down
in words with even more distinctness than that with which I conceived
it. There is, however, a class of fancies of exquisite delicacy which
are not thoughts, and to which as yet I have found it absolutely
impossible to adapt to language. These fancies arise in the soul, alas
how rarely. Only at epochs of most intense tranquillity, when the
bodily and mental health are in perfection. And at those weird points
of time, where the confines of the waking world blend with the world of
dreams. And so I captured this fancy, where all that we see, or seem,
is but a dream within a dream.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 12, 2005 4:04:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <8hv5d1th839injm4dpoqjta03a83jc74ur@4ax.com>, says...
> >An LCD TV has far fewer pixels, thus lower resolution, than an equivalent
> >size LCD monitor.
>
> Ok
>
> But can I ask the reverse question then?
>
> Does a LCD monitor and PC with TV card in it make a
> better "TV" than an LCD TV?
>
Not in a million years. Even the LCD PC monitors WITH a dedicated TV
tuner in look shite.


--
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)
July 12, 2005 5:13:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>Not in a million years. Even the LCD PC monitors WITH a dedicated TV
>tuner in look shite.

As compared to what?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 12, 2005 11:48:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <o128d19mcf93339uid41gk6lgbjkl7ikgm@4ax.com>, says...
> >Not in a million years. Even the LCD PC monitors WITH a dedicated TV
> >tuner in look shite.
>
> As compared to what?
>
A TV or even a CRT monitor with a TV tuner card.


--
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)
July 13, 2005 12:16:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>In article <o128d19mcf93339uid41gk6lgbjkl7ikgm@4ax.com>, says...
>> >Not in a million years. Even the LCD PC monitors WITH a dedicated TV
>> >tuner in look shite.
>>
>> As compared to what?
>>
>A TV or even a CRT monitor with a TV tuner card.

Not arguing with you but the LCD TVs I've seen look ok

What exactly do you see in the LCD units that isn't up
to par?
July 13, 2005 5:29:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:16:28 -0500, me@privacy.net wrote:


>Not arguing with you but the LCD TVs I've seen look ok
>
>What exactly do you see in the LCD units that isn't up
>to par?

Pixellation, poor tonal scale. Take it from someone with an external
Viewsonic N6 TV tuner who has hooked it up to both my 17" LCD and
upscaled it to 1280x1024 and hooked up to my 19" CRT upscaled to
1024x768, the CRT looks superior. LCD looks passable and is great with
cartoons but when it comes to contiuous tone images it is inferior. I
could live with LCD monitor for TV but I own a CRT monitor too so I
don't have to.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 13, 2005 11:04:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <5qq8d1lbcme9qegojl6miv92f3k3bfugan@4ax.com>, says...
> >In article <o128d19mcf93339uid41gk6lgbjkl7ikgm@4ax.com>, says...
> >> >Not in a million years. Even the LCD PC monitors WITH a dedicated TV
> >> >tuner in look shite.
> >>
> >> As compared to what?
> >>
> >A TV or even a CRT monitor with a TV tuner card.
>
> Not arguing with you but the LCD TVs I've seen look ok
>
Yes..proper dedicated LCD TVs. These run at a far lower resolution than
a LCD monitor. TV broadcasts for NTSC for example are at 720x480. What
this means on a LCD monitor running at a native 1280x1024 is that it
has to use interpolation. This results in a massive degredation of
image quality.

Basically you realise just how low quality TV pictures are compared to
the average resolution of a PC.

> What exactly do you see in the LCD units that isn't up
> to par?
>
Noise, blurring, moire patterns for example.


--
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)
July 14, 2005 12:54:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>Viewsonic N6 TV tuner

I've always wondered how well those devices work!

So how do you like yours and why did you buy such an
external tuner to make a TV out of a monitor?

Bottom line...sounds like you are a die hard CRT
monitor fan. Yes?
July 14, 2005 12:56:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>Yes..proper dedicated LCD TVs. These run at a far lower resolution than
>a LCD monitor. TV broadcasts for NTSC for example are at 720x480. What
>this means on a LCD monitor running at a native 1280x1024 is that it
>has to use interpolation. This results in a massive degredation of
>image quality.
>
>Basically you realise just how low quality TV pictures are compared to
>the average resolution of a PC.

Ahh.... I see.... I didn't know this.

I always assumed that buying one of those Hauppauge TV
tuner cards and installing it in a PC makes it into a
decent "TV".

No?
July 16, 2005 8:05:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:54:22 -0500, me@privacy.net wrote:

>>Viewsonic N6 TV tuner
>
>I've always wondered how well those devices work!
>
>So how do you like yours and why did you buy such an
>external tuner to make a TV out of a monitor?

I bought it because I was dissapointed with an internal TV tuner I
bought, on some channels I was getting RF interference - it was a
Pinnacle brand. Internal TV tuners can be prone to RF interference and
external tuners are not. Plus with the N6 I can hook up a game console
system or other peripherals to my computer monitor if I should ever
desire to. It costs more than an internal tuner but it was worth it to
me as I don't own a TV and just use my computer monitor to watch TV.
Plus being able to upscale the resolution makes the image a little
sharper even though the TV signal is not high res.

>Bottom line...sounds like you are a die hard CRT
>monitor fan. Yes?

Yes. I have two PC's and one is hooked to an LCD but for gaming, DVD
viewing, TV viewing I much prefer the CRT. LCD's are getting better
though but the stuck at native resolution thing is a real thorn, IMO.
When I drop an LCD down to 1024x768 from 1280x1024 I can easily see
the image degradation due to interpolation.
July 16, 2005 8:05:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> I don't own a TV and just use my computer monitor to watch TV.

well that's what I want to do as well. I sold my TV
awhile back in effort to downsize a bit

I want to use my PCs as a "TV"

Hence the question abt using an internal TV tuner such
as the Hauppauge cards

But I assumed an LCD display would be fine for that

Matter of fact I was thinking abt buying the big Dell
24" wide screen LCD display for this purpose
July 16, 2005 8:09:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:04:54 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
wrote:

>TV broadcasts for NTSC for example are at 720x480.

NTSC is no where near that resolution. I don't know the exact figures
but I know it's not 720x480. PAL is not even that high and PAL is
broadcast at a higher res than NTSC.
July 16, 2005 11:04:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

me@privacy.net wrote:

> Hence the question abt using an internal TV tuner such
> as the Hauppauge cards
>
> But I assumed an LCD display would be fine for that
>
> Matter of fact I was thinking abt buying the big Dell
> 24" wide screen LCD display for this purpose

I set up a Sony HS95P 19" LCD monitor recently with a WinTV card. The
picture's fine for watching TV programmes as and when, but not nearly as
detailed as a television set. It's most noticeable when there are large
areas of dark, or where there are areas of light (such as sunshine) on
an object. The light areas especially look unfocussed or blurry, it's
difficult to explain. Perfectly watchable, just don't expect the same
clarity as a television. I wouldn't get one to use specifically as a TV,
but if it gets used as a TV occasionally you should be happy with the
result. I used an analogue aerial signal to the card, maybe using a
digital transmission (such as a Freeview box in the UK) and card that
accepts digital input would have cleared up the picture even more.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 17, 2005 4:27:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <p6cid1d338ke5p9pa4rvgutidrn8qjd22m@4ax.com>, Fisher says...
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:04:54 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >TV broadcasts for NTSC for example are at 720x480.
>
> NTSC is no where near that resolution. I don't know the exact figures
> but I know it's not 720x480. PAL is not even that high and PAL is
> broadcast at a higher res than NTSC.
>
Its what I found on Google.


--
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 17, 2005 4:27:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

> In article <p6cid1d338ke5p9pa4rvgutidrn8qjd22m@4ax.com>, Fisher says...
>
>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:04:54 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>TV broadcasts for NTSC for example are at 720x480.
>>
>>NTSC is no where near that resolution. I don't know the exact figures
>>but I know it's not 720x480. PAL is not even that high and PAL is
>>broadcast at a higher res than NTSC.
>>
>
> Its what I found on Google.
>

Ah. Well, that the encoding resolution of a DVD but they're sampling above
what NTSC can actually do, and then there's the matter of what a TV can do.

NTSC channel bandwidth is 6Mhz and the duration of a horizontal line is
63.556 microsec. However, that includes sync with the potentially visible
portion being 52.66 microsec (I say potentially because TVs overscan to
mask alignment errors so you don't see black bands on the screen edge).

Now, a "Hertz" is a swing from one polarity to the other and back so, if we
make a loose translation to 'pixels', that corresponds to 2 pixels, one
light and one dark, then the next cycle could be light and dark again, etc.
(in TV terms they talk about "lines" [one being light and the other dark]
of resolution because that takes into account horizontal scan jitter [it
won't be a vertical line if they don't line up all the way down the screen]).

Dividing it out, roughly 12 million pixels per second, max, over the 52.66
microsec visible portion is about 632 pixels and the number usually gets
rounded to 640.

A similar consideration of the vertical blanking interval gives a vertical
of 480-486 lines (pixels) out of the 525 total.

That's interlaced, however, and TVs have a difficult time getting every
line to interlace 'perfectly' in-between the previous frame's lines so the
visual effect is usually less than the 480. But, for the moment, let's say
it's perfect so the theoretical capability is 640x480, in MONOCHROME, I.E.
black and white.

Color (difference) information is quadrature modulated on a 3.58 MHz
subcarrier that's placed inside the monochrome signal and the strange
frequencies, such as 60Hz vertical not being 60Hz but rather 59.94, was
done so that the color subcarrier information looks like perpetually
shifting 'random noise' in the B&W picture and, as a result, it becomes
'invisible' to the eye because it doesn't persist in any location long
enough for the eye to notice it.

However, the bandwidth of the subcarrier color information is extremely
limited and nowhere even close to 640x480. It only appears reasonable
because the human eye is much more sensitive to intensity variations than
it is to color change and if you get up close to a TV picture you will see
that color 'smears' all over the place. It just looks decent, at normal
viewing distances, because your eye keys off the B&W content. I.E. if Billy
Bob is wearing a red jacket against a blue sky your eye tells you the red
of his jacket ends where the blue sky begins because it can 'see' the B&W
intensity change between his dark jacket and the bright sky but it you put
your eyeball up to the screen you'll see the red and blue terribly smeared
across the line of demarcation.

So, saying 640x480 resolution is wholly inappropriate when talking about a
COLOR picture.

Now, to get to what a TV can do we need to note one other thing, the sound
information is placed on a 4.5MHz carrier in the 6MHz video bandwidth. The
point being, we've got what the NTSC signal is *made* of but the TV has to
untangle all that stuff back out of it.

Unfortunately, the idea of the color chroma subcarrier looking like 'noise'
on a B&W set doesn't work on a color one because that 'noise' IS the color
information and would interact directly with the decoded version of it on
the screen. The 'simple' way, which early TV receivers used because complex
electronics was expensive, is to simply say to hell with it and roll off
the monochrome signal at 3MHz, under the 3.58MHz subcarrier, and feed the
upper part to the color decode circuitry. That, however, cuts the
monochrome bandwidth in half to 320 pixels per line.

The fancy way is to use some kind of complex filtering, now that
electronics is 'cheap' and we can pop complex ICs all over the place, to
'comb' out the 3.58MHz subcarrier, leaving in the rest. And that's what's
typically used now days, a "comb filter." It's not perfect either but it's
a hell of a lot better than rolling it off at 3MHz. And then we've got to
get the 4.5MHz sound of of it too.

The point is, you're going to loose some resolution off the theoretical
maximum, which isn't all that great to begin with, no matter what mechanism
you use to decode it.

I.E. NTSC, and TVs, stink as computer monitors.

So what can one 'gain' with a PC and a tuner card? Not much in the way of
the tuner because it's got to decode that lousy broadcast NTSC signal. A
'better' signal just ain't there.

What you *can* gain gets back to your 720x480 DVD encode. Assuming it's
encoded better than 'broadcast' you have better video than could come
through an NTSC signal. So now the problem is, what to display it on?

A computer monitor would be great as it has much better resolution than an
NTSC TV and the signal in the PC it can go straight to it uncorrupted.

The other alternative is to feed it to a TV/monitor with better resolution
than a 'normal' TV using an interface that is better than NTSC, like
component video. (Of course, a standalone DVD player could do the same thing)

You will even gain a slight amount, for DVD/VCD, using S-video, or even
composite video, because it doesn't have to go through the RF
modulation/demodulation phases but it's going to suffer from color chroma
subcarrier modulation and stripping just like broadcast video because
that's how NTSC works. Where you can potentially gain is if they don't
strictly limit to a 6Mhz bandwidth because you're on wire and don't have to
meet FCC channel assignments.

But there's not much you can do with a tuner card because it's dealing with
the same signal a TV tuner is. Unless you get into post processing filters
but, even then, you can't get more resolution than is in the signal to
begin with.
July 17, 2005 7:03:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:42:10 -0500, me@privacy.net wrote:

>> I don't own a TV and just use my computer monitor to watch TV.
>
>well that's what I want to do as well. I sold my TV
>awhile back in effort to downsize a bit
>
>I want to use my PCs as a "TV"
>
>Hence the question abt using an internal TV tuner such
>as the Hauppauge cards
>
>But I assumed an LCD display would be fine for that
>
>Matter of fact I was thinking abt buying the big Dell
>24" wide screen LCD display for this purpose

The Viewsonic N6 allows you to watch TV on your monitor without having
your computer on so no computer noise while watching TV. It also does
16:9 ratio too.
July 17, 2005 7:28:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:27:39 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <p6cid1d338ke5p9pa4rvgutidrn8qjd22m@4ax.com>, Fisher says...
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:04:54 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >TV broadcasts for NTSC for example are at 720x480.
>>
>> NTSC is no where near that resolution. I don't know the exact figures
>> but I know it's not 720x480. PAL is not even that high and PAL is
>> broadcast at a higher res than NTSC.
>>
>Its what I found on Google.

That's for DVD. TV broadcast in North America is low res until we all
have HDTV. I believe the UK has the highest broadcast TV res in the
world.

http://www.videohelp.com/forum/userguides/94382.php
720 X 576 (480 NTSC). Used by most DVD.

http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidres.htm

http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidcolor.htm

NTSC Broadcasts (composite) – 120 lines best, 40 - 48 lines typical
for reddish orange and greenish blue; 40 - 48 lines for most other
color transitions.

http://nemesis.lonestar.org/reference/internet/web/colo...

The number of lines of horizontal resolution in NTSC broadcast video
is about 333 lines across the screen. Think of being able to display a
maximum of 166.5 pairs of alternating black and white stripes, drawn
vertically on the screen. That's the horizontal luminance resolution,
so it only covers the resolution of the black and white detail of the
image. Many television makers neglect to mention the "luminance" word
when giving their specifications, and incorrectly describe their lines
of resolution specification value as covering everything. It does not.
July 17, 2005 1:34:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Fisher" <fisher@no_email.here> wrote in message
news:9oijd1t63ijg12ugduacucnj20jr6enimj@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:27:39 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <p6cid1d338ke5p9pa4rvgutidrn8qjd22m@4ax.com>, Fisher says...
> >> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:04:54 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >TV broadcasts for NTSC for example are at 720x480.
> >>
> >> NTSC is no where near that resolution. I don't know the exact figures
> >> but I know it's not 720x480. PAL is not even that high and PAL is
> >> broadcast at a higher res than NTSC.
> >>
> >Its what I found on Google.
>
> That's for DVD. TV broadcast in North America is low res until we all
> have HDTV. I believe the UK has the highest broadcast TV res in the
> world.
>


HDTV is all but dead...............

> http://www.videohelp.com/forum/userguides/94382.php
> 720 X 576 (480 NTSC). Used by most DVD.
>
> http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidres.htm
>
> http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidcolor.htm
>
> NTSC Broadcasts (composite) - 120 lines best, 40 - 48 lines typical
> for reddish orange and greenish blue; 40 - 48 lines for most other
> color transitions.
>
> http://nemesis.lonestar.org/reference/internet/web/colo...
>
> The number of lines of horizontal resolution in NTSC broadcast video
> is about 333 lines across the screen. Think of being able to display a
> maximum of 166.5 pairs of alternating black and white stripes, drawn
> vertically on the screen. That's the horizontal luminance resolution,
> so it only covers the resolution of the black and white detail of the
> image. Many television makers neglect to mention the "luminance" word
> when giving their specifications, and incorrectly describe their lines
> of resolution specification value as covering everything. It does not.
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 17, 2005 4:13:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

JAD wrote:

> "Fisher" <fisher@no_email.here> wrote in message
> news:9oijd1t63ijg12ugduacucnj20jr6enimj@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:27:39 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <p6cid1d338ke5p9pa4rvgutidrn8qjd22m@4ax.com>, Fisher says...
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:04:54 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>TV broadcasts for NTSC for example are at 720x480.
>>>>
>>>>NTSC is no where near that resolution. I don't know the exact figures
>>>>but I know it's not 720x480. PAL is not even that high and PAL is
>>>>broadcast at a higher res than NTSC.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Its what I found on Google.
>>
>>That's for DVD. TV broadcast in North America is low res until we all
>>have HDTV. I believe the UK has the highest broadcast TV res in the
>>world.
>>
>
>
>
> HDTV is all but dead...............

Isn't the congressional mandate to drop analog broadcasting still in effect?


>>http://www.videohelp.com/forum/userguides/94382.php
>>720 X 576 (480 NTSC). Used by most DVD.
>>
>>http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidres.htm
>>
>>http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidcolor.htm
>>
>>NTSC Broadcasts (composite) - 120 lines best, 40 - 48 lines typical
>>for reddish orange and greenish blue; 40 - 48 lines for most other
>>color transitions.
>>
>>http://nemesis.lonestar.org/reference/internet/web/colo...
>>
>>The number of lines of horizontal resolution in NTSC broadcast video
>>is about 333 lines across the screen. Think of being able to display a
>>maximum of 166.5 pairs of alternating black and white stripes, drawn
>>vertically on the screen. That's the horizontal luminance resolution,
>>so it only covers the resolution of the black and white detail of the
>>image. Many television makers neglect to mention the "luminance" word
>>when giving their specifications, and incorrectly describe their lines
>>of resolution specification value as covering everything. It does not.
>>
>>
>
>
>
July 17, 2005 8:15:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:14:26 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:

> Unless you get into post processing filters
>but, even then, you can't get more resolution than is in the signal to
>begin with.
>

Yea, and this is what the Viewsonic N6 does. It doesn't make much
difference but it does make a difference.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 17, 2005 8:57:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <9oijd1t63ijg12ugduacucnj20jr6enimj@4ax.com>, Fisher says...

> >Its what I found on Google.
>
> That's for DVD. TV broadcast in North America is low res until we all
> have HDTV. I believe the UK has the highest broadcast TV res in the
> world.
>
> http://www.videohelp.com/forum/userguides/94382.php
> 720 X 576 (480 NTSC). Used by most DVD.
>
> http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidres.htm
>
> http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidcolor.htm
>
> NTSC Broadcasts (composite) ? 120 lines best, 40 - 48 lines typical
> for reddish orange and greenish blue; 40 - 48 lines for most other
> color transitions.
>
Cheers for that. It made no mention of being DVD.


--
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)
July 17, 2005 8:57:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:57:13 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
wrote:


>Cheers for that. It made no mention of being DVD.

Pay attention. This did.

http://www.videohelp.com/forum/userguides/94382.php
> 720 X 576 (480 NTSC). Used by most DVD.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 18, 2005 3:25:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <6i0ld15o62vahmjmam08uplgjsf1fs6i9u@4ax.com>, Fisher says...
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:57:13 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Cheers for that. It made no mention of being DVD.
>
> Pay attention. This did.
>
I was referring to the source I found on google.


--
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 18, 2005 3:26:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <TMvCe.5198$wN3.4535@fe07.lga>, JAD says...

>
> HDTV is all but dead...............
>
Guess the USA is dropping even further behind the UK then.

--
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)
July 18, 2005 12:15:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>I set up a Sony HS95P 19" LCD monitor recently with a WinTV card.

How you liking that monitor so far?

I like the design of the new Sony LCD monitors with the
adjustable foot and all
July 18, 2005 12:17:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>The Viewsonic N6 allows you to watch TV on your monitor without having
>your computer on so no computer noise while watching TV. It also does
>16:9 ratio too.

Are you happy with the unit above?
July 18, 2005 12:21:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>The other alternative is to feed it to a TV/monitor with better resolution
>than a 'normal' TV

Any advice on what TV/monitor above?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 18, 2005 4:08:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:p 2eid1tbrus5qrd6r3i8ljap3h4ivo5rdg@4ax.com...
> > I don't own a TV and just use my computer monitor to watch TV.
>
> well that's what I want to do as well. I sold my TV
> awhile back in effort to downsize a bit
>
> I want to use my PCs as a "TV"
>
> Hence the question abt using an internal TV tuner such
> as the Hauppauge cards
>
> But I assumed an LCD display would be fine for that
>
> Matter of fact I was thinking abt buying the big Dell
> 24" wide screen LCD display for this purpose

I have several computers with TV cards. Two of them now have LCD monitors. I
would suggest getting a monitor with at least a 700:1 contrast ratio.
Otherwise you'll constantly be adjusting contrast/brightness.
PQ of the NTSC signal starts to get ugly when you go above 1024X768 in a
standard aspect monitor. You really won't get any benefit, as far as the TV
goes, from a higher resolution unless you get a Digital TV card.
YMMV
July 18, 2005 8:30:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:17:58 -0500, me@privacy.net wrote:


>Are you happy with the unit above?

Yes.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 19, 2005 2:50:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

me@privacy.net wrote:

>>The other alternative is to feed it to a TV/monitor with better resolution
>>than a 'normal' TV
>
>
> Any advice on what TV/monitor above?

As I don't have one, no. Look for one that explicitly states it is a
TV/Monitor and gives the supported resolutions.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 28, 2005 4:00:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

You guys are confusing the lines of scanning (or for digital displays
the lines & columns of pixels) with the *resolution* a display is
capable of showing (or media capable of delivering).

The digital ratio of pixels for NTSC is 720 across and 480 down.
For analog it is 525 lines scanned horizontally, of which about 490 are
visible. For analog PAL (European standard) it is 625 scanning lines, of
which about 560 or so are visible.

RESOLUTION is a different latter altogether. Vertical resolution means
how many vertical lines can be discerned when scanned horizontally.
(Think about it. you have a bunch of vertical lines. It is the
horizontal scan which will discern between them.) The number of
"vertical lines of resolution" therefor has nothing to do with the
number of pixels arranged vertically.

The resolution of even analog signals is quite goo if viewed on the
master tape, played off a time base stabilized vcr, viewed on a
broadcast control monitor (those used to cost about $5,000). But by the
time a signal is passed to affiliates, via cable or satellite,
rerecorded on inferior equipment, played back again and piggybacked on a
radio frequency, passed through a transmitter, received by an antenna at
your home (or by one at your cable company, then passed through miles of
cable with dozens of signal amplifiers)and finally received by your
cheap home tv and decoded from a radio frequency back to a video
signal... it is amazing we see anything at all. It certainly does not
match what we see when working with the Master.


>>>>>> TV broadcasts for NTSC for example are at 720x480.
>>>>>
>>>>> NTSC is no where near that resolution. I don't know the exact
>>>>> figures but I know it's not 720x480. PAL is not even that high and
>>>>> PAL is broadcast at a higher res than NTSC.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its what I found on Google.
>>>
>>> That's for DVD. TV broadcast in North America is low res until we
>>> all have HDTV. I believe the UK has the highest broadcast TV res in
>>> the world.


>>> NTSC Broadcasts (composite) - 120 lines best, 40 - 48 lines typical
>>> for reddish orange and greenish blue; 40 - 48 lines for most other
>>> color transitions.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
August 16, 2005 8:18:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Dave, I have read your posts on the IDE Channels thread and agree with
your reasoning there. But here you are off base because of misuse of
terms that lead to misconceptions. Sorry. Please read to the end before
writing any reply.

>
>> You guys are confusing the lines of scanning (or for digital displays
>> the lines & columns of pixels) with the *resolution* a display is
>> capable of showing (or media capable of delivering).
>
> Not so.

Yes so.

>
>> The digital ratio of pixels for NTSC is 720 across and 480 down.
>
> There is no 'digital ratio' for NTSC broadcast video (the topic for
> tuners). It's an analog system.

Analog video as seen in television sets and analog monitors has NO
pixels. They are only a factor in digital displays. Thus the term
"digital ratio" which is the number of columns vs rows.


> What you're describing is, as was said, the DVD encoding and that
> isn't the same thing.

I am not describing "DVD encoding" at all. I am talking about displays,
analog and digital.


>> For analog it is 525 lines scanned horizontally, of which about 490
>> are visible. For analog PAL (European standard) it is 625 scanning
>> lines, of which about 560 or so are visible.
>
> The electron beam is going horizontally back and forth to make the
> horizontal scan lines but how many of them it stacks going from top to
> bottom is the vertical resolution (at best).

No it is not. You are confusing the number of horizontal scanning lines
with "vertical resolution", which is a measurement. (I have worked in
professional television production and post production for 25 years).
Vertical resolution is a measurement of the number of vertical lines
that can be resolved in a display. IOW, how many individual vertical
lines can be seen on a display. Thus "vertical resolution" depends on a
horizontal scan, passing across each line.

> And NTSC does 525 of them
> by the time it goes from top to bottom (twice: 252.5 each half
> interleaved with the other half).
>
>
>> RESOLUTION is a different latter altogether.
>
> You've got it switched.

No, I have it right, as described above. I've made my living in this biz
for a long, long time.


>> Vertical resolution means
>> how many vertical lines can be discerned when scanned horizontally.
>
> No. "Vertical resolution" is how many scan lines there are, assuming
> interleave is working perfectly.

Wrong. See above.

Perhaps better, consider the meaning of the term "resolution". If we
accept your erroneous interpretation for sake of discussion, how many
horizontal lines can be discerned in a 500 horizontal scan line display?
(we will exclude any consideration of lines only carrying broadcast tech
data apart from visual information). 500? Nope. That would be a solid
display. 500 black lines would be a black screen. 500 white lines would
be a white screen. "Resolution" means how many individual lines can be
resolved. Theoretically in this case the max answer would be 250 lines,
alternating black and white, so that the individual lines can be seen.
In real world applications this level is not reached. > How many
"vertical lines can be discerned" is the horizontal > resolution. > >>
(Think about it. you have a bunch of vertical lines. > > No, you think
about it. 'We' didn't have a "bunch of vertical lines" > till you
decided to claim that's what we meant when we didn't.

You may not mean it, but the professional world of video defines
vertical resolution as the ability to resolve individual vertical lines.
It's part of the SMPTE definitions and standards and has been for
decades. That's the world I come from and the standards we use.


>> It is the
>> horizontal scan which will discern between them.) The number of
>> "vertical lines of resolution" therefor has nothing to do with the
>> number of pixels arranged vertically.
>
> Only because you're jumbling the words midstream. No one meant
> "vertical lines" as in lines going up and down on the screen. They
> meant the vertical resolution is how many scan lines there are.

Exactly. Read your words closely.

Take a breath because I am seeking understanding, not a fight.

Your last line reads, "They meant the vertical resolution is how many
scan lines there are."

Those are Two Different Things, which has been my whole point. "How many
scan lines there are" is, well, "how many scan lines there are".

"Vertical Resolution" is the ability to discern vertical details.

Those are two completely different issues. My posting was about the
correct definitions of those two issues.

The rest of your post quotes my comments on the loss of resolution when
passing through copied generations from the master down to copies,
thence through transmitters, into receivers, and eventual home display.
We have no apparent disagreement there.

And you note that:

"And there is the problem because the signal is encoded NTSC to get on
that radio frequency and NTSC bandwidth, hence the available resolution
when decoded, stinks."

Yes, and you are on the same page with me if you will consider your use
of terms here.

My point in talking about that procession is that the number of scanning
lines, or rows of pixels on a digital display, do not change. But the
quality of the picture degrades substantially - it loses resolution.
Because, once again, scanning lines and resolution being separate
matters. Resolution is a quality issue. Scanning lines, or digital pixel
ratios, are technical specifications. You can have a very high number of
scan lines. such as 1080 for HD, but still have a very low _Resolution_
image displayed (perhaps as low as "180 vertical lines of resolution".

So an NTSC system will not have "525 lines of vertical resolution". Nor
will PAL have "625 lines of vertical resolution". They do have those
numbers of "scanning lines". (Not all of which are for visual image
capture but that's a whole different discussion).

Hope this clarifies. When talking tech it is important to be careful and
precise in the use of terms. The short cut memory is that scanning
lines, or rows & columns of pixels, are a technical specification.
Resolution is a quality issue.

FWIW the confusion between the two is not new. Been going on among the
lay for about 60 years.
!