Connecting Computer to LCD HDTV

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Vachon" <anon@example.net> wrote in message
news:B9VFd.10478$wZ2.6337@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Hi there. I may be missing something, so hopefully someone has some
> advice/pointers.
>
> I have a 32" Panasonic LCD with an HDMI input. I have a computer with the
> newest ATI Radeon card, with DVI out. I have a very expensive DVI to HDMI
> cable. Plugging the computer from DVI to HDMI results in a somewhat
> usable
> image, but reading text, useablility is almost impossible.
>
> As I understand it, what I own is essentially a big LCD monitor. I am
> plugging that monitor directly to the DVI, on a great video card, yet I
> get
> sub-par results. Anyone have an idea as to why? My LCD can handle the
> resolution I am set at easily (800x600 for starters).
>
> Thank you!
>
You want to run the native resolution of the monitor. I've got a LCD that
is 1280x720x60 native (720p) and the display looks better running at that
then my 21" Professional Series CRT. I believe native res should be
1280x768x60 for your display. If you have problems check at AVS forum for
other panasonic owner's imput. Also once setup properly turn on Clear Type
for your fonts if you have XP.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Robbie wrote:

>
> All LCD displays have best image quality when operated at their native
> resolution.
> The catch is that consumer level TV LCD displays have no where near the
> pixel density of a good computer monitor. The difference is immediately
> obvious with viewing of computer generated text. There is no solution to
> this image problem short of using a professional monitor that can cost
> upwards to $100,000.
>
> Robbie

You obviously haven't seen the Sharp Aquos 45" LCD TV with 1920 by 1080 pixels
with a street price around $5600. Computer text and pictures are awesome.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

George wrote:
>
> Robbie wrote:
>
>
>>All LCD displays have best image quality when operated at their native
>>resolution.
>>The catch is that consumer level TV LCD displays have no where near the
>>pixel density of a good computer monitor. The difference is immediately
>>obvious with viewing of computer generated text. There is no solution to
>>this image problem short of using a professional monitor that can cost
>>upwards to $100,000.
>>
>>Robbie
>
>
> You obviously haven't seen the Sharp Aquos 45" LCD TV with 1920 by 1080 pixels
> with a street price around $5600. Computer text and pictures are awesome.
>
Hi George,

The Sharp Aquos 45" LC-45GD6U was a Christmas present for my wife and I
am very familiar with it. I did make at least one blunder in purchasing
the model that has an integral receiver rather than a separate unit.
With the latter model, you can connect directly to the Sharp's LCD DVI
input and use a Gefen switch to change between the Sharp receiver and a
computer or other digital device. The integral receiver doesn't have
this option and Sharp limited its DVI input to 1280 x 1024.
Fortunately, The HDMI input can accept 1920 x 1080. You do need a HDCP
compliant video adapter. We use a Crucial Radeon x800 and PowerStrip.
Again, you may need a Gefen switch (this time HDMI rather than DVI)
because the Sharp has only one HDMI connector. Note that you will not
see the usual low resolution images on computer cold start because the
Sharp rejects the displays until it has 1920 x 1080 input.
The Sharp has a beautiful display, but it is no contest with a computer
monitor when viewed close up. It is easy to understand the difference
when the resolution is measured in pixels per horizontal or vertical
unit of measure.
One interesting example of high resolution technology is the Canon
EOS-1Ds Mark II camera. It has a maximum resolution of 4992 x 3328 and a
total of 16.7 million pixels.