TV v Monitor?

[tony draper]

Family are thinking of getting bro Draper a new puter monitor for his birthday,got a LG 22inch widescreen meself a while back and it's spiffing.
Bro drape watches a lot of TV in his puter room on a small portable because SIL will not let him watch footy in the living room, should we go for a dedicated puter monitor like mine of for a small TV say 24 inch as most of these seem to have a VGA input on the back so they can also be used as a puter monitor,
Question, is there any difference quality wise bewixt a 22" TV and a 22" monitor,I know that monitor CRTs were geneally of much better quality than TV CRTs in terms of dot pitch ect,does the same apply with LCD screens?
:)

[mad_jock]

or how about getting a telly card for the computer?


Means he can record as well onto his HD

Hauppauge Computer Works : WinTV-HVR External products (http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/prods_hvr_internal.html)

[Loose rivets]

I got wooed by a 24" Samsung which was less cost than the previous model. $200 with a penny change though 8 and a bit % sales tax added on afterwords.

1080p res, but only 60Hz refresh

As a monitor for showing still photos it was superb. I go as far as to say that I had never seen my photos with such definition and colour. However, while we were waiting for the next telly, we used it to stream NetFlix onto. Not bad, but not that hot.

Wouldn't buy a monitor that did not have DVI in as well. I learned of adapters on this forum that will allow HDMI - DVI converters to give hi def. I THINK:confused: NEED TO CHECK. HMDI in makes all the difference.

However, when I got my used computer, it had an LG with it. When I'd cleaned a studen't year's worth of goo off it, it really was very very good. 1440 res but with 75 Hz refresh, which is far more restful.

Mind you, the tv thing, most output of DVD is at 60hz here anyway, so nothing to be gained for that I suppose.

Even the so called UP-CONVERTER DVDs only put out 60hz. Disappointing that, cos the picture is often so good that I haven't bothered with BlueRay.

There in the UK, I don't know, bu if you are bound by 50 or 100 refresh, then that is problematical. It just doesn't fit so nicely into the computer output. I'll need to take advice on that when I come home.

[tony draper]

I have a usb freeview TV tuner on my puter Mr rivets and mine also has a DVI input but no bult in speakers but I can watch steamed iplayer HD progs fine,in fact they look better on me monitor than the HD on me posh new telly,possible because I am sitting a lot closer and the differentce betwixt HD and normal is glaringly obvious,not always the case sitting across the room from me telly.
Think I will go for a monitor and get him a tuner card as well.:)

[Saab Dastard]

Rivets,

I don't believe that a vertical refresh rate is applicable to an LCD screen - at least not in the way that the viewing experience of a CRT screen is dependent on a high vertical refresh rate.

The closest equivalent to a refresh rate on an LCD monitor is its frame rate, which is often locked at 60 fps. But this is rarely a problem, because the only part of an LCD monitor that could produce CRT-like flicker—its backlight—typically operates at around 200 Hz.

Every LCD panel I've attached to a PC has had a "refresh rate" of 60 Hz, and I've never, ever seen any flickering.

SD

[mixture]

Question, is there any difference quality wise bewixt a 22" TV and a 22" monitor,

Herr Draper,

My own opinion .... chalk and cheese.

One is a computer accessory. The other is a TV that happens to have a computer connector to make your life easier and remove the need for external conversion black boxes.

If you can only have one. Get a good LCD computer monitor, and a tuner card for the computer.

[Loose rivets]

SD

I'm very interested in the point you make about the back lighting frequency. Am I right in saying the actual data is being replaced at 60 frames though? I'll give that some thought.

I'm sure that I'm affected more than most. I used to read the label on propellers at tickover. Driving and riding superbikes always seemed to be in slow motion, but text jumped about on the page as though I just wasn't scanning properly. I was a very slow reader. This was a life-long problem.


As I've mentioned on the medical forum, not eating cheese practically stops this problem. I shy away from other products high in tryptophan.

In the old days, T/Vs in shops would drive me crazy. The shop settings just flickered so badly that I couldn't watch them for long. Turning the contrast way down seemed to rid the picture of flicker - if I wasn't tired.

A fast phosphor CRT was a no-go for me at 60hz, and when the flat screen came along I found that most of the problem went away. Tuning my head away would however leave a flicker as I left the view. Always, I felt that I was on the cusp of seeing it. No big deal, but it was there.

On the LG Flatron W1952 TQ that I'm on now, I'm on 75Hz and it's an absolute blessing. (I'm using it for 6 hours a day.) The new 24" is stuck up on a shelf not being used. All attempts at driving it at more than 60 failed.

Of course, that brings us back to TV frame rates. I've not tried watching a 60 hz signal on this monitor.

I'll perhaps start a blog, but following my TV debacles,(Mostly back-light bleed on dark scenes.) I've just come home with the 5th offering. A 50" Plasma. 600 refresh. What's that all about? Can't see any flicker, but not greatly enamored with the picture.

[green granite]

I agree with what Saab says.

CRT monitors only look bad at 60Hz because they have to refresh the phosphors at the front of the screen. They fade quickly after being hit. That's what makes them flicker and hurt your eyes. LCDs don't suffer from that problem because each pixels "glows" all the time...not pulsating like a CRT seems to.

It isn't a problem, even if you were to run it at 20Hz. The only thing refresh effects for an LCD user is how often the screen will change frames--which for an average (16ms) panel is an absolute maximum of 62.5 times per second...just about like your 60Hz refresh. Going higher would do absolutely no good. Also keep in mind that you are incapable of detecting all frame changes at even 60Hz, yet alone 70/75/85/+.

[tony draper]

I believe a problem wih early LCD monitor screens was the blur when objects moved fast across the screen,twas said this that made them US for gaming frinstance,this one says 2ms, not sure what that means though.
Anyway we are going to go for the same LG monitor I have there are cheaper ones of the same size but I know this one is good.
:)

[vulcanised]

7dayshop.com sell a usb DigiTV thingy for about £15 delivered if that helps.

[tony draper]

I have a KWORLD DVT USB Tuner on my kit,cost about twenty quid if I recall right, apart from the software and drivers being a right buggah to install and get working itis fine,might give that to Bro Draper I'm waiting for a HD freeview PC tuner to come out.
:)

[MG23]

One of the big issues with TVs is that you feed them a pristine 1920x1080 digital video signal and they then will usually scale it up and throw away the edges. So it not only becomes unusable because you can't see the menu bars at top and/or bottom of the screen, but it also produces a horrible picture because it's stretching the image and blurring all the pixels.

No-one seems to know why TVs still do this now they have digital inputs and discrete pixels rather than dodgy analog signals feeding electromagnets of dubious quality, and the BBC tech guy I used to know thought it was an abomination.

Edit: I would also add that my 22" monitor is 1920x1080 whereas our 32" TV is only 1366x768. So monitors probably give you better resolution and a color display that's better calibrated for computer use. I sometimes play games on our TV from my laptop, and the difference between the laptop LCD and the TV LCD is very obvious even ignoring the evil scaling the TV does on the HDMI signal.

[Union Jack]

SIL will not let him watch footy in the living room

Some people I know would be recommending a new SIL rather than a monitor - ideally a 36"!:E

Jack

[Loose rivets]

Not sure about the size thing. My guess is that they construct an algorithm that guesses at the size needed for that program. It wouldn't have too much to go on, but takes a stab.


LCDs don't suffer from that problem because each pixels "glows" all the time...not pulsating like a CRT seems to.

The pixel must have a time in which it has to have changed. I doubt that it checks to see if the next frame will have the same level for that point, and then leave it on if it does. That would be nice however, but require reading ahead.



It isn't a problem, even if you were to run it at 20Hz. The only thing refresh effects for an LCD user is how often the screen will change frames--which for an average (16ms) panel is an absolute maximum of 62.5 times per second...just about like your 60Hz refresh. Going higher would do absolutely no good.

Now I'm really confused. What you're saying is that if the fastest pixel change is 16 thousandths of a second, there can't be anymore than 62.5 changes in any second. But clearly, if the monitor is sold for such use and driven faster than this, it must mean that the pixel is capable of faster switching.

On tellies, new 120 and 240 hz refresh do exactly that. Accepted, the signal is somewhat fabricated artificially. However, the screen itself is making the change. Surely, a hi-spec monitor will have to follow the same logic?


Also keep in mind that you are incapable of detecting all frame changes at even 60Hz, yet alone 70/75/85/+.

I'm pretty certain that people like me have a higher clock speed. ;) It's a b:mad:dy nuisance a lot of the time. Most of my life I've been trouble by flicker from all manner of sources and only now is it calming down. Tryptophan issue or whatever, it's very real.

I'm using the 75 hz now, and I can dart about the screen without the slightest problem. Doing that at 60 leaves jaggies on any strongly painted line.

I've just set it to 60, and it was not as bad as the big one, but still to my beleaguered mind, left artifacts behind on verticals. The whole thing was not restful - in fact, downright unpleasant.

This thread, and the not so clever 600 hz Plasma, may just prompt me to get the camera out again and snap the scans. I did this in my arguments with Sony, and the part scans can be seen with perfect clarity. See how much work I get done tomorrow, before I start to play.

[Bushfiva]

The pixel must have a time in which it has to have changed. I doubt that it checks to see if the next frame will have the same level for that point, and then leave it on if it does

Actually, that's exactly what happens. Only pixels that need changing actually get changed.

[QUOTE]Surely, a hi-spec monitor will have to follow the same logic? /QUOTE]

Yes, and in real life they do. There's suddenly a huge market for 1920 x 1080 screens, so prices are dropping very quickly and specs are going up. My latest cheapo screen is a 2 ms 27" unit. It costs about one eighth of my 2560 x 1600 5 ms 30" units. 1920 x 1080 is the current sweet spot.

Another of my 1920 x 1080 screens is a TV with DVI, D-tanshi, HDMI, VGA and RGB inputs. I only need the DVI or HDMI, but the benefit of getting a TV rather than a computer monitor right now is that all the built-in sound on my monitors suck royally, whilst the sound on the TV device is pretty good.

So right now, I think a 1920 x 1080 1080p screen in a TV-type device is a great computer screen. I didn't think that last year, and things may change by next year, but right now they're a great thing to buy.

I would still go for a pure computer screen if you need more than 100% NTSC gamut or something approaching sRGB gamut, that can be calibrated (hence my 30" screens): there's still a bit of a tradeoff in that area.

And if your TV is taking a 1080p signal and scaling it up and throwing away the edges, then firstly I don't believe you and secondly you should read the manual. High-spec chipsets are cheap as chips now (see what I did there?). There's little or no faking it now, since the same chips from half-a-dozen manufacturers are in all the TVs.

[MG23]

And if your TV is taking a 1080p signal and scaling it up and throwing away the edges, then firstly I don't believe you and secondly you should read the manual.

Then feel free to come around sometime and watch. Or you could just google 'overscan' and you'll find a vast number of people complaining that their TV manufacturer won't let them watch the signal that they're sending to their TV but decides to scale it for no sensible reason and trash their picture quality.

Here is one of the first results Google found, which seems to be a decent description of the problem (which is with stupid TV manufacturers, not the hardware):

HD 101: Overscan and why all TVs do it -- Engadget HD (http://hd.engadget.com/2010/05/27/hd-101-overscan-and-why-all-tvs-do-it/)

Interestingly, the 50" HDTV I used to have on my desk in my last job had a 'disable overscan' option in the menus... but it still didn't display the image without scaling.

[Loose rivets]

secondly you should read the manual.


Wouldn't that be a trick.

Darn 2010 52" Sony, with Bravia 3 muscle, had no manual to speak of. i-manual on the remote.

What if: Blank screen, Oh, I'll look at the i-manual. Blank screen. D'oh

Didn't matter. Twas the worst picture I'd ever seen. Got the plasma Samsung 50 for half the price*. Not bad. Not good. Back to overscan.

The first two scales are the standards...4 or 16 etc. The next is zoom 1...2 etc. Okay, covers some things, but often clips the text. Magically, it suddenly announces Fit Screen, or some such. And it does. This must be at a command from the broadcaster, surely? 'we are sending an appropriate picture, so we'll make it fit.' kind of signal.


* This was after accepting an Open Box, and rebuilding the stand after a gorilla had tried to assemble it.

Just for info, it was $1,299 minus 300 for sale, minus 100 for open box and minus another hundred for the gorilla.