Next Generation Emulation banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
Mmm...

Make sure that LCD TV's native resolution actually is 1920x1080 progressive scan. If it's actually 1360x768, the TV will accept the higher resolution signal and just scale it down to 1360x768.

Oh, and also make sure it can actually do 1080p. 1080i makes it difficult to read text.

A friend of mine has a media PC. He's got it connected to a 56" LCD TV in his living room. He bought a wireless keyboard and mouse so he can surf the internet, play music, and playback movies and videos from his couch. I can't imagine putting that TV on a desk and being maybe 2 feet away (at most) from it while surfing the net or playing a game. It would be like going to see a movie and sitting in the front row. (you'd get a terrible crink in your neck :lol:)
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
View attachment 201954


What I'm pointing out in the screenshot is that the TV doesn't truly support 1080i. (which I don't recommend anyway) As I mentioned in my previous post, the TV will accept a 1080i signal from your PC, but the TV will just scale it to 1366x768, making the interlacing artifacts very apparent. This will make it a pain in the @$$ to read text.

It would be wise to invest your money in a display that natively supports 1080p...
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
Yeah, it's a pretty big hit to the wallet, but by the sound of it, you're looking forward to a hi-res display.

If you buy that TV you're essentially just buy a big, crappy WXGA screen.

I'm just trying to help you out here. You can go ahead and buy the TV, but you'll be pretty disappointed with it when you can't read text clearly at 1080i.

I can try taking some pictures of my 1900x1200 laptop screen vs. my old Sony Bravia @ 1080i vs. the Bravia @ 1366x768 (native) resolution.
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
Yeah, that's a much better choice. :thumb:

As cotton mentioned, gaming at 1080p can be pretty rough on your GPU, especially with newer games, but then again you could always switch resolution to 720p. (1280x720) I play most of my games at 1280x800 on laptop and the games look damn good.

If you have aliasing issues at that resolution, you can just activate AA. Shouldn't cause nearly as much of a speed hit for you as your video card is considerably more powerful than mine. -_-

EDIT: I noticed that TV also supports 960p too. Having that as an option is pretty cool. :)
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
T_T

As I had mentioned in my previous post, if 1080p is too much for your GPU to handle for a particular game, you can switch to 720p. Since this TV has the option for 960p, that is a valid resolution option as well. (Higher resolution than 720p, but lower than 1080p, so it might run faster than 1080p while looking better than 720p.)

According to the specs, its native resolution is 1080p. Hell, I'd buy it. :)
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
Gameman, that Samsung you've listed has a 1366x768 native resolution. Always check the specifications. ;)

I couldn't check the specs of the first 2 TV's because Best Buy seems to be using an invalid Java script to access the spec tab.

The Toshiba at the bottom of your post is true 1080p...
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
LOL! Ahhhh.. ok.. gotcha , I'd say go with a WGXGA screen if you want a brighter/clearer screen it tends to have better brightness and contrast and higher contrast ratio , just my 2 cents :p
WGXGA? WTF is that? Google turns up nothing.

Do you mean WQXGA?

The standard for WQXGA states that the display must have a resolution of 2560x1600. 1080p display devices are technically 16:9 WUXGA...

I'm also 99% sure that there's no 42" Syncmaster in existence and no Samsung display has a refresh rate below 120Hz with a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio.

You *might* want to modify your sig. -_-
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
Here's what the Desktop display at CBIT looked like (proportionately)



For me here this is 1024 by 700, but for them it was listed as 1900 by 1000 or so.....

AND IT WAS SHARP and crisp.....No B.S. like I'm seeing here as I try and type this squinting....

It looked pretty attractive to me........

oh, and did I say SHARP?????: :eyemove::eyemove::eyemove::eyemove::eyemove:
I believe you. I keep my desktop at 1900x1200 at all times.

Here's a desktop comparison of your desktop size to my desktop size. (sorry about the huge size)

View attachment 202049

I recommend a WUXGA display. If you can't afford one at the moment, I highly recommend that you save up. Your display will likely be the longest-lasting piece of hardware, so make sure it's a purchase that you won't regret. ;)
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
Christ!!! I TOLD you guys many times it's 800 by 600 (Now) and actually capable of 1024 by 768 (Trinitron) - but at that point it starts to look like crap...
That's because NTSC televisions have a resolution of roughly 640x480. When you set your desktop resolution to 800x600 or 1024x768, your graphics card just squeezes your desktop into the ~640x480 size. It's like viewing a picture in your browser that is too big for your screen. Normally you can see the picture and several imperfections because it's been shrunk. When you maximize it you can see all of the details, but have to use the scroll bars to pan around the image.

Having your desktop set to 800x600 is just a farce since its native resolution is around 640x480.

I keep seeing you making references to 1366x768 native res screens. Screens with this resolution are also know as WXGA and are the cheap piece of s**t screens that often come for free with many discount computers. You can think of WXGA as the wide screen version of 1024x768. (XGA) XGA isn't even considered hi-res these days. Maybe if you had a time machine and went back to 1995 or earlier...
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
Vista normally limits you from going below 800x600... :rolleyes:

NTSC is a standard. There is no way that the native res of that screen is above ~640x480. If you were to set the screen resolution to 640x480, I bet the picture will become a lot sharper and clearer to read, but with the downside being that now your desktop will be tiny. This is also the same reason as to why 1024x768 looks so bad on your TV. The picture had to be truncated so much that you lose too much quality and the picture looks bad. This is common on all CRT TVs when you output on an analog cable. (besides RGB)
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
I ain't gonna have a million icons on my desktop you know, like masta G there...
:lol:
Normally my desktop is very clean, but I was in the process of ripping my remaining Wii and Gamecube games. I just stream them via wifi from my Wii straight to my laptop's desktop. Later on I'll copy them to my external backup HDD.

Also, the reason I keep mentioning that WXGA sucks is because if you buy a flat screen TV with a native res of 1366x768 (WXGA), you might as well have just purchased a crappy $100 PC LCD screen. Settling with a 720p HDTV is also pointless because it's even lower resolution than WXGA.
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
Not quite. They still take 720P video sources, their scaler just translates it into 1024x768. Wide, but low res
Correct.

And to expand on this topic, 1024x768 is a 4:3 resolution, but only if square pixels are used. Widescreen displays that have a 1024x768 native resolution use rectangular pixels to make them widescreen.
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
Ah, I've heard of those, but forgot about them. They're not really common, especially with plasma displays being phased out in favor of LCDs, so I assumed he was listing the more standard ones. I still think it's odd how you didn't mention 1280x720 though.

By the way, technically, 1024x768 is a 4:3 resolution no matter what. It's all in the math. Making the pixels rectangle may make it natively 1024x768 in a wide fashion, but it's still 1024 pixels wide, and 768 pixels tall, which has a 4:3 relationship. The fact that the pixels are rectangle does not change that. It just makes the image appear like it's widescreen, but it's still 4:3 stretched, only the "stretching" is due to the fact that the rectangle pixels make it appear wider than it "should be", not necessarily that the television stretches the image from one resolution to another.
A 1024x768 display will only have a 4:3 aspect ratio if the individual pixels are 1:1 (square) When you make reference to all 1024x768 displays having an AR of 4:3, that is only true if square pixels are used.

Your math *does* work, but you're not taking into account the pixel aspect ratio(PAR), which affects a display's overall aspect ratio. Pics:

View attachment 202148

View attachment 202149

As you can see, the rectangular pixel's PAR will affect the overall AR of a display, even if two displays have the same resolution, but different PARs, affecting the display with the rectangular pixels' overall AR.
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
Just had a memeory: I just remembered how sharp and clear I thought the Trinitron was 2 years ago when I grabbed their last one for a quick 400.00...(Birthday Gift)

My Dad wanted to get me a HDTV back then, but I wanted the 4:3 ratio for my old Archie Bunker shows and Bob Newhart shows....

I should've listened, cause we wouldn't be having this conversation now.....:eyemove::eyemove::eyemove::eyemove::eyemove::eyemove:

Oh well, let's hope I don't make ANOTHER BONEHEADED DECISION....Tv-wise....
You'll be feeling the same way again if you go with that 720p HDTV. 1080i is problematic as it makes text difficult to read. (interlacing artifacts) So 1080i is pretty much out the window when it comes to general PC usage...

I'm sure once you buy your new TV you'll enjoy it, but once you get used to it, you'll be able to walk into a store or go to a friend's house and see the difference between your TV and another TV. The difference between true 1080p and lower resolutions is significant.

Let me put it this way:

1080p >> 720p > 1080i > 480p > 480i(SD)

I put 720p above 1080i because as a PC display, interlacing artifacts are very noticeable. For video/movie watching, it's not too bad. Progressive scan formats(1080p, 720p) still look much better overall.
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
Bestbuy apparently has that model in stock, but wants about $1400 for it. I suggest taking a trip to Bestbuy and looking at it. (As well as some other models just to get an idea of what they all look like side by side. Don't buy anything there though. Never buy from Bestbuy. :lol: the irony...)
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
Seeing as aside from physical size you will be getting the best possible in June, I would say it's well worth the wait.
Yeah, and besides, prices may drop between now and June, so you could potentially snag an even better deal on an honestly good display.

Remember the old saying: "Good things come to those who wait."?
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top