32" LCD as a TV and monitor worth it?

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: rbV5
Q]HD does not normally specify the horizonal pixel range... Not sure why.

Because its implied, its easier to say 720p than 1280x720 progressive.

my fathers Plasma 42" from Dell is 1024 X 768 WIDESCREEN. Widescreen? Thats right

It could be 1024x1024 and be widescreen also. With a plasma display, the HD resolutions are just mapped to those pixels, its not a 1:1 pixel mapping, just interpolated..the acual panel dimensions determine if its widescreen or not, thats why you want to check a plasma panel out pretty closely since different interpolation give different results.[/quote]

Which is why I said

Additionally, the TV modes are screwed up from MFG to MFG. For instance, my fathers Plasma 42" from Dell is 1024 X 768 WIDESCREEN. Widescreen? Thats right... The Pixels are not 1:1, they are wider than they are tall. On a PC 1024 X 768 with 1:1 pixel mapping is 4:3 ratio, but on several Plasma TV's 1024 X 768 is a 16:9 ratio... Odd huh? Yeah, it gets worse, but I will stop here, because it could get rather lengthy.

I knew why they did it... Was rhetorical

Thanks for the explanation on the first paragraph. That makes sense :thumbsup:

 

[ArchAngel777]

So far I have not noticed any ghosting in games... Looks pretty sharp. I have one dead pixel, but oddly enough, it does not bother me one bit. With a display this large it is hardly noticable. Also, every comments on how large the pixels are? Naw... they are tiny. Oh well... Looks good so far... I will post a video clip if I can here shortly.

 

[vapore0n]

cool. This weekend Ill go to see them TVs, see if I grab myself one.

I remember this guy at work. He bought a 32" LCD TV to be used for his monitor. It was bright as hell, but very sharp with text and all. I thought it was a regular computer monitor.

I think someone stole it from him.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Ok, well, it looks pretty good. I have no complaints except for the dead pixel, but that really does not bother me. This screen is a killer and works great with games. Do I notice ghosting? Not at all... But my head spins when I move fast, but that has more to do with me being 2 feet away... Way cool... Everything runs great and I definately recomend it. I am typing this from it and the text is easy to read and anandtech.com forums are easy to read and browse. Looks great

 

[ArchAngel777]

Vulcan Demo Screenshot

Screenshots do not do this screen's justice... It looks rock'n in person

 

[vapore0n]

looks neat. Thanks for the help. Ill post pics when I get mine

 

[ArchAngel777]

Cool dude, is there anything you want me to test on mine for you? Any other pictures or something? I will be happy to try and help. Just remember, the things looks killer in person... A picture really diminishes the beauty of the display.

*cheer*!

 

[alleycat8675309]

Have been using a 26" Acer LCD TV as a monitor for the last 2 weeks (1280x768 resolution). Sit about 4 feet from it, and have using it for web surfing, movies, spreadsheet. Kinda miss those 256 pixels coming from 1280x1024 resolution.

Takes a couple of days to get use the size of the screen, probably more so for a 32" screen.

I think an ideal size would be a 32" screen with 1900x1200 resolution.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: alleycat8675309
Have been using a 26" Acer LCD TV as a monitor for the last 2 weeks (1280x768 resolution). Sit about 4 feet from it, and have using it for web surfing, movies, spreadsheet. Kinda miss those 256 pixels coming from 1280x1024 resolution.

Takes a couple of days to get use the size of the screen, probably more so for a 32" screen.

I think an ideal size would be a 32" screen with 1900x1200 resolution.

30" Apple Cinema Display?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: vapore0n
Anyone ever tried to connect the computer to an LCD or plasma TV?

What I though was to join the computer and TV in one, make my computer a media center. Hardware is good enough, I just want to know if the LCD TVs are good enough for computer gaming and for internet. Yesterday I saw an 32" LCD TV with 8ms responce time on Best Buy.

I have a Westinghouse 32" LCD from Best Buy plugged into my HTPC with a standard PC DVI cable. Gets a resolution of 1360x768 and is very clear. I don't use it for internet or gaming, but I could if I wanted to...

 

[ArchAngel777]

From what I have read, the Apple 30" leaves much to be desired...

 

[alleycat8675309]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: alleycat8675309
Have been using a 26" Acer LCD TV as a monitor for the last 2 weeks (1280x768 resolution). Sit about 4 feet from it, and have using it for web surfing, movies, spreadsheet. Kinda miss those 256 pixels coming from 1280x1024 resolution.

Takes a couple of days to get use the size of the screen, probably more so for a 32" screen.

I think an ideal size would be a 32" screen with 1900x1200 resolution.

30" Apple Cinema Display?

I'm sure the Apple 30" Cinema Display is a mighty fine monitor, but I like the large pixel sizes.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
From what I have read, the Apple 30" leaves much to be desired...

The only thing I have seen is the fact that most video cards, in fact all cards currently can't run games at native resolution with high detail and AA/AF with one exception. The 7800GTX SlI'd can handle it with smooth results. I have read no negative comments on performance, and Apple build quality is outstanding.

What issues have you seen, and can you point out where you saw them?

 

[ajikan]

I actually have one (27") connected to my computer. I use it mostly for watching Anime, and it's pretty good!

 

[ArchAngel777]

The only thing I have seen is the fact that most video cards, in fact all cards currently can't run games at native resolution with high detail and AA/AF. I have read no negative comments on performance, and Apple build quality is outstanding.

What issues have you seen, and can you point out where you saw them?

Cannot remember where I had seen them. Just search www.google.com for the display/review and you should get some information. I had read that the latency in the LCD was ungodly. It was rated at like 25-30, but it was actually a lot high, significantly higher than most LCD's. Combined with the fact you need two DVI cables and the most powerfull video card to even somewhat support the resolution.... I did about 20 hours of research on LCD's in general. Anyway, I have never used it personally, so it might work for most users. But the general concensus was that it was for 2D work, not movie/gaming.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

The only thing I have seen is the fact that most video cards, in fact all cards currently can't run games at native resolution with high detail and AA/AF. I have read no negative comments on performance, and Apple build quality is outstanding.

What issues have you seen, and can you point out where you saw them?

Cannot remember where I had seen them. Just search www.google.com for the display/review and you should get some information. I had read that the latency in the LCD was ungodly. It was rated at like 25-30, but it was actually a lot high, significantly higher than most LCD's. Combined with the fact you need two DVI cables and the most powerfull video card to even somewhat support the resolution.... I did about 20 hours of research on LCD's in general. Anyway, I have never used it personally, so it might work for most users. But the general concensus was that it was for 2D work, not movie/gaming.

Your info is somewhat incorrect. Yes you will need the 7800GTX to game at native resuolution, most games run fine with one card. With SLI you are gaming smoothly at native. That is pretty damn special. I have heard no issues with latency, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but there are some gamers out there running SLI 7800GTX and 30" Apples with nothing but gaming goodness.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: alleycat8675309

I think an ideal size would be a 32" screen with 1900x1200 resolution.

Not sure if one is available yet. Closest 1080p panel I have seen is 37"

 

[ArchAngel777]

Your info is somewhat incorrect. Yes you will need the 7800GTX to game at native resuolution, most games run fine with one card. With SLI you are gaming smoothly at native. That is pretty damn special. I have heard no issues with latency, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but there are some gamers out there running SLI 7800GTX and 30" Apples with nothing but gaming goodness.

What is incorrect about it?

On a side note, where are all these Apple 30" LCD gamers that you are talking about?


Edit ** I doubt even a GeForce 7800 GTX could run that resolution above 60 FPS with any sort of eye candy turned on. Of course it could be argued that the resolution alone is the eye candy, but I would dissagree with that. 4.1 million pixel fill rate would be needed for games. More than 4 times that of filling a 1280 X 768 screen.

Anyway, nice display for 2D and if you had the money to dump 1,000 also into X2 7800 GTX, that would be cool. But, you'd probably have to spend that every year just to keep up with new games and features etc...

Also, I cannot imagine how small the text would be for a resolution that size. On a 30" display with that resolution, your desktop would be so tiny, you litterally would have to be 2 feet from it to read it and probably closer based on the screenshot I found of the desktop in another thread.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Your info is somewhat incorrect. Yes you will need the 7800GTX to game at native resuolution, most games run fine with one card. With SLI you are gaming smoothly at native. That is pretty damn special. I have heard no issues with latency, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but there are some gamers out there running SLI 7800GTX and 30" Apples with nothing but gaming goodness.

What is incorrect about it?

On a side note, where are all these Apple 30" LCD gamers that you are talking about?


Edit ** I doubt even a GeForce 7800 GTX could run that resolution above 60 FPS with any sort of eye candy turned on. Of course it could be argued that the resolution alone is the eye candy, but I would dissagree with that. 4.1 million pixel fill rate would be needed for games. More than 4 times that of filling a 1280 X 768 screen.

Anyway, nice display for 2D and if you had the money to dump 1,000 also into X2 7800 GTX, that would be cool. But, you'd probably have to spend that every year just to keep up with new games and features etc...

Also, I cannot imagine how small the text would be for a resolution that size. On a 30" display with that resolution, your desktop would be so tiny, you litterally would have to be 2 feet from it to read it and probably closer based on the screenshot I found of the desktop in another thread.

What is incorrect is to go as far as to say that the monitor is only good for 2d work. It works well for gaming as long as you have the card to support it. And yes you would need to dump some cash to keep up with games at it's native res, but you need to dump cash to keep up period no matter what rig you run. It's all relative, and if that setup is for you you have already spent at least 4k in a monitor and cards, upgrading when the time comes shouldn't be a prob. That is a whole nother topic though. And no a single 7800GTX cannot run 60FPS on the 30 incher's native res. That's why I said with a pair you'd be running smooth.

As far as the desktop being tiny.. uhh no not at all. Why would you even think that? The high res is made up for by the size. Here's a screen shot, post yours for comparison.

30" Desktop


Anyway as far as where these gamers are.. there is not an abundance obviously. That's a statement for Captain Obvious. They are out there though, just ask Anand. Unless of course you think he has his info incorrect?

 

[vapore0n]

Anyone got pictures of a game (hl2 for example) running at lower than native res on a 30"+ monitor? Now im wondering if my video card would run smooth games at native (1360x728 or something) or lower. Currently it has no problems with games at mid to high all with 1280x1024 (9700 pro).

Would DVD playback have lag issues because of rendering too? Im thinking it wont but just in case.

 

[Ig]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Also, I cannot imagine how small the text would be for a resolution that size. On a 30" display with that resolution, your desktop would be so tiny, you litterally would have to be 2 feet from it to read it and probably closer based on the screenshot I found of the desktop in another thread.

Pixel pitch for 30" apple is .250mm vs .258mm of 20/23" apples. Text is just fine on those so the text at the native resolution of the 30" will be just fine.

 

[ArchAngel777]

What is incorrect is to go as far as to say that the monitor is only good for 2d work. It works well for gaming as long as you have the card to support it. And yes you would need to dump some cash to keep up with games at it's native res, but you need to dump cash to keep up period no matter what rig you run. It's all relative, and if that setup is for you you have already spent at least 4k in a monitor and cards, upgrading when the time comes shouldn't be a prob. That is a whole nother topic though. And no a single 7800GTX cannot run 60FPS on the 30 incher's native res. That's why I said with a pair you'd be running smooth.

As far as the desktop being tiny.. uhh no not at all. Why would you even think that? The high res is made up for by the size. Here's a screen shot, post yours for comparison.

30" Desktop


Anyway as far as where these gamers are.. there is not an abundance obviously. That's a statement for Captain Obvious. They are out there though, just ask Anand. Unless of course you think he has his info incorrect?

That is a picture of Mac OS, not Windows. The higher the resolution on Windows, the smaller the text. Mac OS must compensate for this automatically. You can modify this on Windows, but by default it will be very difficult to read if you are going to be using this from 4 feet away. Nothing a few tweaks cannot fix, your right.

But judging by this screenshot, it would be difficult to read things if you are any distance away from your monitor. That is a desktop I do not dig.

Edit ** My desktop can fit 9-10 icons a column. The screenshot above shows 30 icons a column... If mine are barely readable at 6 - 7' away due to size, I doubt 3X smaller icons/text would be visable at more than 3' away.

I never said the monitor could not be used for gaming, just that the horsepower required to run it will put a big hole in your wallet every 6-12 months.

Edit 2 **

I would be a huge supporter of the Display *IF* they gave it a resolution more common. It has an oddball resolution and in many games, that will create a problem.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Anyone got pictures of a game (hl2 for example) running at lower than native res on a 30"+ monitor? Now im wondering if my video card would run smooth games at native (1360x728 or something) or lower. Currently it has no problems with games at mid to high all with 1280x1024 (9700 pro).

Would DVD playback have lag issues because of rendering too? Im thinking it wont but just in case.

Yeah, the fill rate requirement of 1280 X 1024 = 1.31 Million Pixels. The fill rate of 1366 X 768 = 1.04 Million Pixels. So, you would actually gain about 20% improved performance from running 1366 X 768. I run 1280 X 768 and that requires .98 Million Pixels. Also, I sometimes run 1024 X 768 with 4:3 aspect ratio (no scaling) it brings it down to a 26" Monitor, but it still looks great.

Basically if a game supports 1280 X 768 properly, meaning FOV and so on being properly rendered, then I choose that resolution. If a game does not support widescreen correctly, or at all, I choose 1024 X 768 and disable scaling. That way it cuts off the edges of the screen and gives me a 26" 4:3 Monitor. I am very anal about have a perfect aspect ratio in anything, whether it be movies or games etc... Always bothers me when I see someone watching 4:3 material stretched on a 16:9 screen.

1024 X 768 = .79 Million Pixels

1280 X 768 = .98 Million Pixels.

Keep in mind, the 1024 X 768 is considered the same quality as native and maintains a 1:1 pixel ratio if you disable scaling. So when talking between the two, they offer the same quality, except that one is 4:3 and the other is 15:9 (yes 15). 1366 X 768 is 16:9. Therefore, native is 30" viewable area and 1024 X 768 with scaling disabled is 26" viewable area.

With the said, imagine if you were able to sustain 60 FPS at 1280 X 768, what would you get at 2560 X 1600? About 14.3 FPS... Big difference. Hope this helps.

 

[vapore0n]

went to see the tv's today. They had the 28" viewsonic on display, and image wasnt really that good. Image was rather blurry. I tried messing with the settings but couldnt get it to display something good. It could be because its the floor model, even samsung had a blurry display. HDTV just didnt seem HD at all on some of the LCDs that I saw. Plasma otoh looked really nice on HD.

There were a few LCDs that really looked nice on HD, like the Philips. They are supposed to release a 32" model this september, with 8ms responce too, so I should wait.

My observations from todat, $1200 LCDs just dont looks as good as $2000+ panels.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: vapore0n
went to see the tv's today. They had the 28" viewsonic on display, and image wasnt really that good. Image was rather blurry. I tried messing with the settings but couldnt get it to display something good. It could be because its the floor model, even samsung had a blurry display. HDTV just didnt seem HD at all on some of the LCDs that I saw. Plasma otoh looked really nice on HD.

There were a few LCDs that really looked nice on HD, like the Philips. They are supposed to release a 32" model this september, with 8ms responce too, so I should wait.

My observations from todat, $1200 LCDs just dont looks as good as $2000+ panels.

Find out where the closest Dell Kiosk near you is, and then check out the LCD 30". That should give you a good idea and may change your mind.