32 replies to this topic

[Crazy_Nate]

I am personally not a fan of it. I think it looks like crap compared to computer monitors but to other people it looks just fine.

So in the end its up to you if you like the way it looks or not.

It all depends on what you do. If you don't care about huge pixels (I mean, what else would you expect with 32" plus screens and only 1080p resolution?). There's no possible way they're as "crisp" - it's just not possible. Now if you sit far back from the monitor, it's not really noticeable.

But, yeah...back to the OP - taking a laptop and cable to a local store sounds like a very good idea.

[FashionFish]

It all depends on what you do. If you don't care about huge pixels (I mean, what else would you expect with 32" plus screens and only 1080p resolution?). There's no possible way they're as "crisp" - it's just not possible. Now if you sit far back from the monitor, it's not really noticeable.

But, yeah...back to the OP - taking a laptop and cable to a local store sounds like a very good idea.

Sounds like experimentation is in the works. I'll report back in a while on what I find.

Is there a way to calculate pixel density as a ratio to screen size? I'm looking for an easy way to determine if say a 32" TV with a 1920 x 1080 (2M pixels) vs say a 22" monitor at 1680 x 1050 (1.8M pixels) has a lower or higher pixel to screen size ratio. Looking at this example, it's easy to say no, the extra 200K pixels don't make up for the extra 10 inches in screen size. Also, many TVs don't support their full resolution when connected to a PC.

My Sharp Aquos which I will try in a week or two, only supports 1600 x 1200 when connected as a monitor. Which means what? 80K non-active pixels

[stackrainer]

Recently I got a brand new 42 inch lcd screen and put in next to my computer, one day i got bored and hooked my computer up to the tv and I am very impressed at the quality diference. My 42 inch only cost $400 and my 5 year old lcd monitor cost me 300-400. So its not like I bought a cheap monitor, but its also 5 years ago. With that into consideration I would buy a lcd TV, Thats if your video card supports high settings.

[stackrainer]

It all depends on what you do. If you don't care about huge pixels (I mean, what else would you expect with 32" plus screens and only 1080p resolution?). There's no possible way they're as "crisp" - it's just not possible. Now if you sit far back from the monitor, it's not really noticeable.

But, yeah...back to the OP - taking a laptop and cable to a local store sounds like a very good idea.

Actualy believe it or not, my 42 inch lcd works fine when im up close to it, but I also bought an hdmi if that does anything.

[Crazy_Nate]

Sounds like experimentation is in the works. I'll report back in a while on what I find.

Is there a way to calculate pixel density as a ratio to screen size? I'm looking for an easy way to determine if say a 32" TV with a 1920 x 1080 (2M pixels) vs say a 22" monitor at 1680 x 1050 (1.8M pixels) has a lower or higher pixel to screen size ratio. Looking at this example, it's easy to say no, the extra 200K pixels don't make up for the extra 10 inches in screen size. Also, many TVs don't support their full resolution when connected to a PC.

My Sharp Aquos which I will try in a week or two, only supports 1600 x 1200 when connected as a monitor. Which means what? 80K non-active pixels

The technical term is pixel pitch (sometimes dot pitch). That'll give you a way to compare specs

[bp9801]

The technical term is pixel pitch (sometimes dot pitch). That'll give you a way to compare specs

But not many companies actually list that on the specs...

[FashionFish]

I got my DVI to HDMI adaptors on the weekend and was able to hookup my 32" Sharp Aquos to the computer. At the TV's native resolution of 1920 x 1080, images were clear and properly scaled but text was multi-hued and blurry. At the maximum resolution supported as a computer monitor (as per the Sharp manual) of 1600 x 1200, images and text were perfect but stretched to a weird ratio.

I left it installed for all of Saturday and enjoyed the larger screen real-estate. After a while I got used to the stretched image and played a few games of BF BC2. Everything was larger and just as sharp as my 22" HP monitor. I was able to get some amazing long-distance kills with the tank and in fact, I was kicked off two servers for using an aimbot (which of course I wasn't). Guess the server admins I killed couldn't believe that kills could happen from that distance, jeez

In the end, the stretched image became too annoying when looking at photos and I re-installed the HP.

This little experiment pretty much left me convinced that I'd prefer one big monitor to two or three smaller ones but I'll continue to weight the pros and cons of each approach. My current plan is to wait for a 27-30" inch monitor capable of 3D.

Cheers all

[Waco]

But not many companies actually list that on the specs...

You can calculate it if you know the size and native resolution of the screen.

[Locutus]

I have a 47" LCD that I use sometimes for gaming. The fact that it's 240Hz is pretty important...

But it's only 1920x1080 resolution, which kind of sucks for such a big screen.

[bobby898]

I move my pc pnto my 42" 1080p TV downstairs every now and then and running games like crysis on it makes it look amazing, however the reason monitors are so much more expensice than tv's, which is why you said you were getting a tv, is because monitors are a lot quicker, on my tv i run crysis at 1080p and the tv struggles to keep up resulting in screen tearing, the other reason is the fact that monitors give a higher resolution on a smaller screen resulting in a much better quality experience. The Size of the bigger screens is brilliant and games look amazing on them however dont expect to get a better quality experience on them, because you wont. Hope this helps.

[FashionFish]

I have a 47" LCD that I use sometimes for gaming. The fact that it's 240Hz is pretty important...

But it's only 1920x1080 resolution, which kind of sucks for such a big screen.

Why is 240Hz so important?

[FashionFish]

I move my pc pnto my 42" 1080p TV downstairs every now and then and running games like crysis on it makes it look amazing, however the reason monitors are so much more expensice than tv's, which is why you said you were getting a tv, is because monitors are a lot quicker, on my tv i run crysis at 1080p and the tv struggles to keep up resulting in screen tearing, the other reason is the fact that monitors give a higher resolution on a smaller screen resulting in a much better quality experience. The Size of the bigger screens is brilliant and games look amazing on them however dont expect to get a better quality experience on them, because you wont. Hope this helps.

Yeah, this is exactly what I thought. I still believe this is true but on a 32" TV, the images were very clear and sharp and there didn't appear to be any image loss in the one game I tried.