Sticky, Using HDTV as a computer monitor.

What about the Westinghouse 37" (W3)?

I've read some good things about these in FPS (I play CoD2), but am still reluctant if my machine is fast enough to drive such a big monitor. Besides worrying about Westinghouse quality/longevity.

I have a 2.4 P4, Nvidia 6800GT 256MB, and 1GB RAM. Currently running a Dell 2001FP, which was huge just a couple years ago, but am looking to go with a bigger monitor while I wait for Core2 prices to come down a bit (and for Team Fortress2 to be released).

Any thoughts on this and/or other LCD/TV options would be appreciated. I'm leaning toward the Dell 2407, just cuz it's a safe bet, but 37" would be sweet insanity!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rimmerchant

also 1080p is only available through DVI/VGA/HDMI connections. Coax, Composite A/V, S-Video, and Component video cannot do 1080p

Coax, Composite A/V, S-video can only do 480i signal
Component can do 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i

---

Given that you and I have the same TV, I'd figure you'd be aware that the Westy does 1080p on the component inputs. That's how I get 1080p from my xbox360.

Component is more than capable of doing 1080p.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

I can now say that I have experienced the 42" 1920x1080 Westinghouse LCD monitor first hand. And my word it looks sweet. Very crisp and easy on the eyes, and an absolute dream for those 1080p Quicktime HD trailers.... ;)

Media Center PC's now have a reason to exist.

---

Yeah when people come over and see my setup they almost crap their pants. We'll be in the middle of playing the 360 or watching some HD satellite and I'll just press the DVI button on the remote and bam, checking email or surfing the web via a wireless mouse/keyboard.

Obviously the Lian Li 6070B is the world's most stealth PC case, since it sits right beside the TV and yet nobody is aware it's a PC. They always ask me "how are you getting Windows on your TV?!?!" and every time I point out the box, they're astonished.

I think people think it's a subwoofer or something.

Unless I change my mind back to 50" plasma I might be trying out a few games on a 60" SXRD XBR2 later this month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zuke

What about the Westinghouse 37" (W3)?

I've read some good things about these in FPS (I play CoD2), but am still reluctant if my machine is fast enough to drive such a big monitor. Besides worrying about Westinghouse quality/longevity.

I have a 2.4 P4, Nvidia 6800GT 256MB, and 1GB RAM. Currently running a Dell 2001FP, which was huge just a couple years ago, but am looking to go with a bigger monitor while I wait for Core2 prices to come down a bit (and for Team Fortress2 to be released).

Any thoughts on this and/or other LCD/TV options would be appreciated. I'm leaning toward the Dell 2407, just cuz it's a safe bet, but 37" would be sweet insanity!

---

if you want a screen for shear gaming/movie multimedia then go with the westy 37 inches.

if your sytem can run games in 1600x1200 then i can take full advantage of the 1080p. (it's about 1920x1080 not much more than 1600x1200).

heck even if you can't run int full resolution u can lower th resoolution and still get a big nice picture.

Well I'm thinking about finding a sony 24" widescreen monitor that is full 1080p actually a little more would be good for movies and well I use tabbed browsing so I'll have enough desktop real estate too
my .02
terramir
Would be cool to find a tube that supports 1080p as well I dun like lcd's :p

anyone here have personal exp over the diff with 1080i n 1080p? can u really tell the diff with the pc plugged in? i think p is suppose to better for fast moving pictures. but how much better? will the screen get blurred when i do a complete 180 to shoot the terrorists camping a ct spawn? lol

Here's the difference:

i = interlaced which means that is draws 1/2 of the lines on the screen on one refresh cycle, and the other half the next cycle. Effectively, you get more lines at lower bandwidth at the cost of image quality. An LCD needs a de-interlacer to work properly, which usually means a loss in image quality. Since the 2 sets of lines that are drawn are captured at different moments in time, there are also motion artifacts when interlaced content is displayed on a progressive scan monitor (1/2 the image is from time=0 and the other half is from time=1). Let's just leave it at "interlaced is crap."

p = progressive which means each line is drawn simultaneously. You need twice the bandwidth as with interlacing, but the speed picture quality are far superior.

Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlace

thx for the emplaination, but I read all that already. I also read that this is "all theory", the basis of the technology. The question is, will the picture be crap on an 1080i, or 720p...? You spouted a lot of information, and while it is appreciated, have you seen the difference yourself?

isn't it usually TV sets that cannot do 1080p have lower resolution like 768p or 720 or 1024p? they are "1080i" compitable just by scaling the image to say 768. I don't know of any 1080p physical pixel resolution sets that can't dispaly 1080p images.

so going by that my PC can play a 1080p video file and scale it down to 640x480 on my 14" CRT monitor from 1992. so my POS 15 year old monitor is "1080i compatible"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jd53887

thx for the emplaination, but I read all that already. I also read that this is "all theory", the basis of the technology. The question is, will the picture be crap on an 1080i, or 720p...? You spouted a lot of information, and while it is appreciated, have you seen the difference yourself?

---

I've seen the difference between interlaced and progressive. It's gigantic.

Text looks like crap on an interlaced signal, sent to a progressive screen.

I haven't played games, so I can't tell you much about that, but from a 2d point of view, interlaced = dognuts. Everything is a little distorted.

I'd pick 720p over 1080i in a heartbeat.

There's a reason MS has been against including 1080i in the HD specifications...

thx, thats exactly wat i want to hear. 1 thing i never got the concept of is the resolution size to the screen size. can someone explain that? wats a recommended, good size for the 720, and the 1080?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jd53887

thx, thats exactly wat i want to hear. 1 thing i never got the concept of is the resolution size to the screen size. can someone explain that? wats a recommended, good size for the 720, and the 1080?

---

to tellya the truth I think anything over 32" is good.

As for resolution vs. screen size - if the screen is too large for the resolution, you will start to see the individual pixels (or if you sit too close to the screen). However, if the screen is too small (view distance too great), you'll obviously miss out on the fine detail that you get with the HD signal.

You can see this effect just by playing with your current monitor's resolution.

If the screen is going to double as a computer monitor, there's really no point in getting anything than a 1080p screen. 1280x720 is too low of a resolution for computer applications for a big screen sitting 3-5ft from you, though it will work for just watching movies/tv. 32" is a good size. I wouldn't go beyond 40" unless you have some good distance between you and the screen.

For normal home theater applications, bigger is better (unless you're going to be sitting 5ft away).

I was thinking about getting a HDTV to use as my monitor, and was wondering what the best resolution I can expect. Most of the ones I've seen don't support high PC resolutions. What does Computer Formats Refresh Rate: 1920 x 1080i60Hz, 1920 x 1080p60Hz mean?

Here's the link where the computer formats refresh rate was found. It's a 42' phillips
http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/nav...2&pCatg=9666#A