LCD TV as Monitor?

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.
34 answers Last reply
More about monitor
  1. 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:OoidnW1XnPTYXU_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.
    >
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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)
  5. 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?
  6. 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)
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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)
  10. 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?
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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)
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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/color/ntsc_primer.html

    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.
  20. 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/color/ntsc_primer.html
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >
  21. 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/color/ntsc_primer.html
    >>
    >>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.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
  22. 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.
  23. 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)
  24. 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.
  25. 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)
  26. 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)
  27. 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
  28. 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?
  29. 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?
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:p2eid1tbrus5qrd6r3i8ljap3h4ivo5rdg@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
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt TV LCD Monitors Systems