1366x768 LCD Resolution - Who is running it?

[dcr]

Hi all,

With the Black Friday deals coming up, I have been looking at 32" + LCD TV's with the 1366x768 resolution for use as a PC monitor.

I currently have the:

Gateway 21"

I want to go bigger, buy not if the resolution will look bad. I have gone to the stores near me and looked at 32" LCD's at this spec, but not a single store will drag a laptop over to show me how it would look.

Anyone running this res as a PC monitor?

 

[duckymcse]

I'm running the Sony KDL-V32XBR1 32" LCD at resolution of 1360x768 with my PC for about a year. So far, I'm fine with it. For regular Windows usage, web browsing and gaming, it's great. But if you doing photoshop or autocad type of things, this low resolution can be a pain to work with. You must sit at least 4 feets away from the screen, if not, you might go blind. The best thing I like about it is gaming. With my 8800GTX running at 1360x768 with all graphics option turn on to the max and 32" of viewing pleasure, it run super smooth. Gaming at big screen LCD is a totally different experience. I don't think I can go back to anything smaller than 32" from now on.
Despite it low resolution, but if you sit at least 4 feets away, you can't really tell much different from higher resolution LCD.

 

[dcr]

That is interesting...

I will be pretty close though, less than 3 feet for sure.

 

[Tegeril]

I can't say I agree with the statement that "Despite its low resolution, if you sit 4 feet away, you can't really tell much difference."

You really, really, can. 1360x768 looks loads and loads of different when compared to 1920x1200 and 2560x1600.

 

[dcr]

Since prices continue to fall, I might wait until the higher res panels drop.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Tegeril
I can't say I agree with the statement that "Despite its low resolution, if you sit 4 feet away, you can't really tell much difference."

You really, really, can. 1360x768 looks loads and loads of different when compared to 1920x1200 and 2560x1600.

He is correct though. I feel like a broken record, but I am going to keep saying this until people understand the point. Pixel size and density is relative to the viewing distance.

Most people sit around 1' away from their 21" LCD. Yes, it sports a nice high resolution of 1600 X 1050, but does it look all that beter? It depends. If you sit 1' away from a 32" at 1360 X 768 then it will look like ass. If you back up another foot? It looks better, back up another foot? better even yet. A pixel could be the size of a fricken house, but so long as you are 1 mile away from the display, it will look great. Stay 10 feet away and all you are going to see is solid colors.

Pixel size, density is relative based on viewing distance, period.

A 32" 1360 X 768 has the same image quality as a 42" 1920 X 1080 when within the same relative viewpoint. Because a 42" TV is larger, you will sit back further than one would with a 32", thus, it all equals out in the end.

Everyone is subject to their opinion, but make sure you understand what you are talking about before making some blanket statements. I bet the majority of people who complain about an LCD-TV as a monitor have never seen one in person. That is my opinion on it.

I really like the objective comment from 'duckymcse' and he nailed it for the most part.

There are a lot of well respected and well known users on this board who use 30" + LCD-TVs as their main rigs and aboslutely love it. They would never go back to their small piddly displays. I guess in the end the user has to decide if he wants to game through a small window with super sharp lines, or game through a large bay window where there isn't quite the clarify of that small window. Of course, who notices the little details of a large picture? Not me... But hey, that is my opinion, right? I could never go back to monitor. My 30" is here to stay for many more years... I also love the fact that I do not have the buy an SLI rig, or a new graphics card every 6 months just to keep up. Two year refreshes FTW

 

[dcr]

What resolution is your Dell 30" at?

 

[ArchAngel777]

1280 X 768

 

[dcr]

It looks fine to me in that screenshot, that's for sure.

 

[Dkcode]

Edit: nm

 

[Roguestar]

TV quality < LCD monitor quality. This is because TV broadcasts don't need nearly the resolutions that gamers and other LCD panel users ask for. A big LCD TV will be good for watching TV on but not for gaming. A decent sized TFT monitor will give you a much more desirable result.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: dcr
It looks fine to me in that screenshot, that's for sure.

Most assuredly it looks better than that picture in person. Photos, unless done professionally, do not display the actualy quality of the display. But at least you get an idea on the display from that picture. It is much more clear and crisp in person, FYI.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Roguestar
TV quality < LCD monitor quality. This is because TV broadcasts don't need nearly the resolutions that gamers and other LCD panel users ask for. A big LCD TV will be good for watching TV on but not for gaming. A decent sized TFT monitor will give you a much more desirable result.

Why do you say this? Do you own a 30"+ LCD-TV or Plasma display? Gaming has never been better for me. My father loves his 42" Plasma. Always plays his flight simulators and battlefield 2 on it. I always go to his house and smile, because he obviously has a lot of fun with his screen and new gadgets and what not.

Having been both a user of a high end CRT, high end LCD 20" and also LCD-TV 30" and 42" Plasma, I can say that while monitors do offer higher resolution, it is nowhere near the gaming experience that a large display will give you (subjective opinion).

 

[Rage187]

I game on my 37" and 32" LCD's and they are much better for gaming then my old 2405.

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Roguestar
TV quality < LCD monitor quality. This is because TV broadcasts don't need nearly the resolutions that gamers and other LCD panel users ask for. A big LCD TV will be good for watching TV on but not for gaming. A decent sized TFT monitor will give you a much more desirable result.

Why do you say this? Do you own a 30"+ LCD-TV or Plasma display? Gaming has never been better for me. My father loves his 42" Plasma. Always plays his flight simulators and battlefield 2 on it. I always go to his house and smile, because he obviously has a lot of fun with his screen and new gadgets and what not.

Having been both a user of a high end CRT, high end LCD 20" and also LCD-TV 30" and 42" Plasma, I can say that while monitors do offer higher resolution, it is nowhere near the gaming experience that a large display will give you (subjective opinion).

Because the dot pitch, resolution and response time of an LCD that's rated for TV use doesn't need to be anywhere near as good as one that's a computer monitor.

 

[Rage187]

Originally posted by: Roguestar

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Roguestar
TV quality < LCD monitor quality. This is because TV broadcasts don't need nearly the resolutions that gamers and other LCD panel users ask for. A big LCD TV will be good for watching TV on but not for gaming. A decent sized TFT monitor will give you a much more desirable result.

Why do you say this? Do you own a 30"+ LCD-TV or Plasma display? Gaming has never been better for me. My father loves his 42" Plasma. Always plays his flight simulators and battlefield 2 on it. I always go to his house and smile, because he obviously has a lot of fun with his screen and new gadgets and what not.

Having been both a user of a high end CRT, high end LCD 20" and also LCD-TV 30" and 42" Plasma, I can say that while monitors do offer higher resolution, it is nowhere near the gaming experience that a large display will give you (subjective opinion).

Because the dot pitch, resolution and response time of an LCD that's rated for TV use doesn't need to be anywhere near as good as one that's a computer monitor.

these days they are all the same panels. Ghosting is pretty much a non issue and resolution is a resolution. 1366x768 on a LCD monitor is the same as 1366x768 on a LCD TV.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Roguestar

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Roguestar
TV quality < LCD monitor quality. This is because TV broadcasts don't need nearly the resolutions that gamers and other LCD panel users ask for. A big LCD TV will be good for watching TV on but not for gaming. A decent sized TFT monitor will give you a much more desirable result.

Why do you say this? Do you own a 30"+ LCD-TV or Plasma display? Gaming has never been better for me. My father loves his 42" Plasma. Always plays his flight simulators and battlefield 2 on it. I always go to his house and smile, because he obviously has a lot of fun with his screen and new gadgets and what not.

Having been both a user of a high end CRT, high end LCD 20" and also LCD-TV 30" and 42" Plasma, I can say that while monitors do offer higher resolution, it is nowhere near the gaming experience that a large display will give you (subjective opinion).

Because the dot pitch, resolution and response time of an LCD that's rated for TV use doesn't need to be anywhere near as good as one that's a computer monitor.

Actually, if you read at Tom's hardware, he tested that the large panels often have better reponse rates than the smaller computer panels. Head to tomshardware and read over his LCD-TV guides. Most LCD-TV's have better responce rates than computer LCD's, except for the super high end ones.

 

[Fraggable]

I used to game on my 23" LCD TV at 1280 X 768 and it was great, but I had to sit way back to see the whole screen. It was kind of a pain since my keyboard tray doesn't come out very far. I can't imagine a comfortable setup for gaming where you have to sit 4 feet from your monitor. You would have to have something to put your keyboard and mouse on.

 

[Zap]

I have a 42" 1080P screen and don't have any problems using it in the living room with my HTPC. Won't fit on my desk under the hutch, though.

37" seems to be the smallest 1080P screen... too bad because if there were a 32" 1080P model and it was reasonably inexpensive (as in cheaper than 37" model) then that may make for a nice computer monitor.

 

[Slammy1]

Yeah, cordless accessories help a lot but (at least mine) don't work as well for things like fps. I have a keyboard in the ps2 connector and a USB mouse to plug in the front when I do gaming which requires greater control. I wrote a spreadsheet for the calculation, but going from a 19" at 1280x1024 (7440 dots/sq. in.) to my current 37" 1920x1080 (3540 dots/sq. in.) I more than doubled my viewing distance (2' to 5') to maintain the same apparant density. Now, truth be told, there is some difference not accountable in that equation, there's a certain 3D aspect to things that is lost due to the difference but the larger size more than makes up for it in gaming but there is some loss in more graphic intense applications. A 32" 1366x768 has a density of 2400 dots/sq. in., and a good 32" SD display (640x480) has about 625 dots/sq. in. for comparison. A 42" 1080p display runs about 2750 dots/sq. in.

EDIT: Your Gateway runs about 8900 DPI. Also, you'll sit closer to your PC than your HDTV, which is how you can game/browse/etc.

 

[BigPoppa]

I game on my 32" Westinghouse at 1360x768. World of Warcraft is what I play mostly. Building a core2duo rig right now, have all the components purchased except for the 8800GTS, which I'll be ordering today. Haven't played any FPS yet, but WoW is fantastic. I'll probably pull out UT2k4 and the EVGA 8800GTS comes with Dark Messiah, so i'll get back to you on those games.

 

[R3MF]

i use a 26" Hyundai TV on my second PC.

1366x768 is a pretty good resolution.

best appreciated with a 3d card that can do AA+HDR i guess.

i don't bother with AA on my main system.

 

[Matthias99]

A 32" 1360 X 768 has the same image quality as a 42" 1920 X 1080 when within the same relative viewpoint. Because a 42" TV is larger, you will sit back further than one would with a 32", thus, it all equals out in the end.

In terms of image detail, a 1920x1080 display simply has more (real) pixels than a ~1300x768 one and can display a more detailed image without aliasing.

If you sit such that they have equal (apparent) pixel density, the higher-resolution display will be filling up more of your vision (unless there is a dramatic difference in pixel density between the displays). If you are sitting such that each display fills about the same amount of your visual field, the higher-resolution one will have higher (apparent) pixel density. Everything else being equal, higher resolution is better.

If you're looking at a situation where you can't sit further away from the display (ie, you want to put it on your desk and use it as a dedicated computer monitor), it can be a big problem. I agree, though, that if you're going to use it from across the living room... not so much, unless you want to work on high-resolution photos or watch native 1080i/1080p content.

 

[Shadow Conception]

I'm typing this message on a 1360x768 resolution screen right now. Nothing's particularly bad about it, it's just much smaller (lengthwise), but a bit wider.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

A 32" 1360 X 768 has the same image quality as a 42" 1920 X 1080 when within the same relative viewpoint. Because a 42" TV is larger, you will sit back further than one would with a 32", thus, it all equals out in the end.

In terms of image detail, a 1920x1080 display simply has more (real) pixels than a ~1300x768 one and can display a more detailed image without aliasing.

If you sit such that they have equal (apparent) pixel density, the higher-resolution display will be filling up more of your vision (unless there is a dramatic difference in pixel density between the displays). If you are sitting such that each display fills about the same amount of your visual field, the higher-resolution one will have higher (apparent) pixel density. Everything else being equal, higher resolution is better.

If you're looking at a situation where you can't sit further away from the display (ie, you want to put it on your desk and use it as a dedicated computer monitor), it can be a big problem. I agree, though, that if you're going to use it from across the living room... not so much, unless you want to work on high-resolution photos or watch native 1080i/1080p content.

There is theory and then they is reality. The reality is that 30"+ displays for monitors are totally awesome. The reality is that despite being 1280 X 768 and sitting less than 2 feet away, I can surf, game, read and spend pretty much all day on here with no problem. My work LCD is so... unatractive... Yet, it does 1280 X 1024 on its 17" panel, but to tell you the truth, I don't see how anyone would be willing to take a 17" over a 30" in that situation, much less anything else.