30" 2560x1600 or 40" 1080p? I can't make up my mind...

[Judaeus Apella]

I can't make up my mind between a 30" 2560x1600 or 40" 1080p LCD. I've been thinking about this for a month and I still can't reach a decision. I'll be using it for Gaming, Web Browsing, Television, Gaming, Graphics Software (PSP, Corel, PS, etc), etc.

I'd like to see some first hand encounters with 1080p LCD TVs used in all these situtations... what do the icons look like in windows? Because of the limited resolution are they large? Can you read small type on web pages? Is it harder to edit large format Pictures? What about gaming?

[cadaveca]

A good pc monitor will have far superior colour than an LCD, unless you go high-grade LCDTV. That said though, because of issues with running games @ 2560x1600, go with the lcd...


REading type on webpages on LCDTV is no problem, due to pixel size.

[zlojack]

You'd need a ton of GPU power to game on the 30" monitor, but it would look spectacular.

You could get away with a bit less on the 40" LCD TV and it would still look great, plus a larger viewing area.

[Cliff Burton]

30" H-IPS LCD Panel. If you got the money, obviously.

But be sure to grab a HD4870x2/HD4870 CF or GTX295/SLI 280GTX to get real profit from it.

[kevikev]

Definitely the 30" @ 2560x1600.

In terms of real estate, you're getting twice the real estate on the 30" resolution (4 megapixels vs 2 megapixels).

I -am- biased, though, because I use a 30" @ home.

I've never used nor would I think of using a 40" 1080p LCD HDTV for everyday PC use. I'd have to try it to truly compare.

[Strafe]

Unless you're going to be 10 feet from the screen the LCD TV is out of the question. Pixel size must be huge on a 40" screen at 1920x1080.

[cadaveca]

Well, boys, I use 30-inch Dell 3007WFP, and 42-inch Viewsonic 4280p, just a few days ago I disconnected the Dell, and attached a 1680x1050 LG 2ms monitor....


30-inch is overrated.:fact: This is coming from someone using a 30-inch for over 18 months....worst purchase ever. I mean, if ya want to have vgas taht cost as much as the monitor, fine , go ahead, but beleive me, you'll be sorry once you try to game on it, and BLu-Ray and such definately looks better on the LCDTV, due to lack of detail going form 1920x1080 to 2560x1600...

[XS Janus]

I would definitely go LCD.
No need for that resolution unless you sit les than 1m away from the monitor...
And for those claiming real estate... you guys do know that CTRL+scroll scales icons and web pages dynamically?
Fonts on 30" are damn small to...

[Xello]

2560x1600 is god-like, assuming you can run your game at that resolution, but 30" is far too small. I'd easily splash £4-5k on a 50-70" 2560x1600 panel, if one existed. The point in increasing pixel density should be allowing increased screen size without losing clarity, that many pixels at that small a screen size is just a waste because of our visual acuity, to get any benefit you'd need to have your nose literally touching the screen, but unfortunately our eyes also lose focus so close to objects so that's not an option either :rolleyes:

1080p TV's are the sweet spot for me, but you need to splash out on a top of the range model to get better image quality than a monitor, which is specifically designed to be used with a computer.

[jaredpace]

Go with the 40" LCD. If you have insane gpu power, you can use max details & 8xAA. You'll enjoy it more for movies/videos, and it looks okay as a desktop.

[veedubfreak]

I have a 42" 1080p lcd tv, a 67" 1080p DLP tv, and a 30" dell monitor. 1080p is fine and dandy for watching movies, but it just takes up too much space to be a "monitor". I love my 30" dell. Especially considering you can pick it up for 750 from the dell outlet right now.

[kill_a_wat]

I use a Samsung 40" 1080p LCD TV. I can play etc up close say about 30cm from the screen or a little further maybe about 1-1.5 metres with no problem the screen is also good if you want to sit further back. But I also still use my trusty 1680x1050 for diagnostics etc as a second monitor (well sometimes anyway)

Personally I'd just use a 1080p LCD they're great for BLU RAYs and Crysis looks awesome :yepp:

[ToTTenTranz]

I think it only depends on where you're going to use the monitor (bedroom or living room?) and how far you'll be from it.

[Judaeus Apella]

LOL, after seeing so many vastly different opinions... now I'm more lost than ever! :lol

I'll be sitting a few feet away most likely, 3 to 4 at MAX. I'm sick of having small screens my entire life. I WANT SOMETHING BIG! I want the theater experience I've always dreamed about, in my own home. But... I don't know how it will do with normal text on web pages, PDF's, and Word, or how it will do with stuff like Photoshop.

I'm still trying to figure out what I'm going to sit on too. A couch is fine for gaming with a pad or watching a movie... but not when you're using a mouse and keyboard which is what I pretty much use EVERYTHING with... I play games with a keyboard, I hate pads... even though I have a nice one with a fan in it that cools your hands. One Screen... one seating arrangement. I have no idea how I would arrange it so I could have both a desk experience and a couch experience with one computer. If I could, I'd buy a small LCD or just use an older CRT and get a nice LCD TV for the couch for gaming, TV, and movies.

[Nasgul]

I can't make up my mind between a 30" 2560x1600 or 40" 1080p LCD. I've been thinking about this for a month and I still can't reach a decision. I'll be using it for Gaming, Web Browsing, Television, Gaming, Graphics Software (PSP, Corel, PS, etc), etc.

I'd like to see some first hand encounters with 1080p LCD TVs used in all these situtations... what do the icons look like in windows? Because of the limited resolution are they large? Can you read small type on web pages? Is it harder to edit large format Pictures? What about gaming?

2560x1600 downgraded to 1920x1080? My guess it wouldn't look ok, since that LCDs have a "native" resolution.

Your best and safe bet is to go with the 1080p TV, everything looks fine at 1920x1080.

My 24" monitor is great and thought about buying a digital tuner card but......my 42" monitor is much better for watching digital programming, since that I have the digital package from comcast anyway.

[STEvil]

1920x1200 (and 1080 with bars) looks fine on my 30" LG W30008. I wish you could get 2560x1600 in 40" :(

Id pick the 40 if you dont want to splurge on 4870X2/4850X2/GTX295 or whatever is coming next. I like my 30" but I would even pick a 40" 1080p these days.

[S_G]

Note that with 2560x1600, you are forced to stay up-to-date with the latest and greatest in SLI or CrossFire GPUs to be able to play your games with reasonable settings at that res, so it's an expensive long-term and short-term upgrade. There are some good 32" 1080p LCD TVs that I'd look into, and also think about Dell's 2707WFP (1920x1200). I'd stick to 37" and lower if you want to use a 1080p TV as a monitor.

[Judaeus Apella]

I think I'm gonna get an HD TV and a small LCD monitor. I'm not sure how to use two screens with the computer, and still use the television for normal Television viewing though... I wanna play movies and games off my computer onto the Television. The monitor will be for typing papers, school work, email, etc. This is what I'm planning so far:

http://www.spike.http.co.il/uploads/up/A002866.jpg

I'm still not sure how I'm going to manage the use of a gaming keypad and a mouse with a couch though... I can't use game pads... I've always sucked with them big time!

[cadaveca]

Get a wired XBOX360 controller...works great with most games.

Wireless keyboard and mouse, with a rigid nouse pad(steelpad would work), and you are set.

[S_G]

Yeah, that Xbox 360 controller works pretty well. I run a 37" 1080p screen on my HTPC, and guests use it for gaming with a PlayStation 2 controller (on a USB adapter). Be careful with the wireless mouse and keyboards though. Some of them can be a real PITA to deal with, as they won't function beyond a few feet depending on where you live. I'd look into a Bluetooth mouse and keyboard.

[cadaveca]

LoL yeah, I meant bluetooth wireless...that's a gimme..

[kevikev]

Welp, then you're just going to have to get both and hopefully have purchased them from vendors with a liberal return policy :D

For better or for worse, you could get the LCDTV from Costco and try it out for ~75 days (I know it's 90 days but if you wait until the 90th day, good luck returning it).

As for the comment about use ctl+scroll, if you're in an industry like mine where it's useful to have many windows up at the same time so you can see multiple systems at once, then you're not going to want to have to hit a meta key in order to zoom into 1 of your windows, you want them up where you expect them and you want many of them. It's also good for taxes ;) so I can compare 2007 with 2008 returns side by side.


LOL, after seeing so many vastly different opinions... now I'm more lost than ever! :lol

I'll be sitting a few feet away most likely, 3 to 4 at MAX. I'm sick of having small screens my entire life. I WANT SOMETHING BIG! I want the theater experience I've always dreamed about, in my own home. But... I don't know how it will do with normal text on web pages, PDF's, and Word, or how it will do with stuff like Photoshop.

I'm still trying to figure out what I'm going to sit on too. A couch is fine for gaming with a pad or watching a movie... but not when you're using a mouse and keyboard which is what I pretty much use EVERYTHING with... I play games with a keyboard, I hate pads... even though I have a nice one with a fan in it that cools your hands. One Screen... one seating arrangement. I have no idea how I would arrange it so I could have both a desk experience and a couch experience with one computer. If I could, I'd buy a small LCD or just use an older CRT and get a nice LCD TV for the couch for gaming, TV, and movies.

[Arkangyl]

TV will look much_MUCH better on the 1080p LCDTV, personally as far as games go: 1080p should be fine, just up the AA and AF to smooth it out, plus the added power needed for 30" will be a PITA to keep up with (I know this is XS, but seriously, think about some of the games out there and what it takes to play 30" with any AA or AF, if the game can be managed at all).

The graphics software is the only thing that might be better on a 30", with PS specifically more pixels = more win. If you use that stuff for doing a lot of work from home I'd be inclined to say that might override everything else.

However if the main focus is TV, games, interwebs and the PS | graphics stuff is either a hobby or just for minor working from home then go with the 40" 1080p


(note: I've used 30" LCDs before, I mainly run 24" LCDs, & I've used TV's as monitors; this is where my opinions come from)

[Locke]

tvs are always getting cheaper, monitors are not at that resolution. get the monitor and wait for a cheaper or better tv to come around.

[Judaeus Apella]

Is there some kind of platform you can put in your lap, while sitting in a couch, that will hold your keyboard and mouse... in a way thats very comfortable? You know like molded foam with a hard surface? Something that will let you recline in a couch or a large chair, but still allow you to use a keyboard and mouse?

[cadaveca]

Not that I am aware of...in the 70's we called them TV tables...:rofl:

[XS Janus]

Man if you are gonna use your pc from the couch, the only option is LCD 40" at a minimum.
I have a different dilemma as I will sit behind a desk, and my distance is 90-100cm. Only at that distance full HD becomes useful. And my vision is not what you'd call perfect.
So I will be going for 32" LCD.

I decided like this: I got used to working on my 15.4" notebook at arms length... so siting behind the desk at 2 arm lengths would make 30" a perfect choice. Now I didn't want 30" monitor cause of its resolution and gpu power required to run it properly would be wasted on all that pixels at that viewing distance

[JayG30]

Not going to tell you what to go with or anything, but just want to note that if you will be using your "TV" to mostly view HD content, Blu-Ray (even decently upscale DVD), HD gaming, etc. than you will want to sit approximately 5ft to 5.5ft from the screen to experience a truly immerse theater like experience. You can read and experiment with this HERE (http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html).

Oh, and I find it funny when people complain about text size and such. I've used a 15.4" 1920x1200 resolution monitor on a laptop for about 4 years. No "large font" enabled or anything like that. In fact I've made the text smaller. Everyone always says to me, "how can you read that? It's so tiny!". But I've never had a problem and actually prefer it. :)

I will say one last thing. I vastly prefer a monitor for general PC work and a TV for television and movies.

[Judaeus Apella]

Well... I think I'm going to TRY and find a good deal on a 46 inch as soon as I scrape the money together. I got a bunch of stuff to sell on ebay... so we'll see how it goes. :)

[=[PULSAR]=]

I used to run a 32" 1080p as a monitor and...:down:switch to a nice 24" monitor and much much better:up:

[BringerOdeath]

Well, I game on a 30" 3007wfp I have had for about 2.5 years. I love the image quality I get! I tried connecting my pc to my 1080p 46 lcd in my living room and it didn't look anywhere near as good.....If they made a larger monitor with a res of 2560x1600, I would buy it for sure. I watch blu-rays in my room, since it is in my bedroom and doubles as a tv with tuner card. The only Drawback is that it requires the best graphics cards to play games at that res with AA and AF, Hence why I have dual Gtx295's. I had dual 9800gx2's and I could play all games very well at 2560x1600 with those also. If you can afford vid card upgrade every 9-12months then get the 30".

[jtdigital]

My vote goes for HDTV, Samsung ln40a650 6 Series or Samsung ln40a750 7 Series :yepp:

[l33t p1mp]

Go for 1080p, 2560x1600 will rape your video card(s).

[tiro_uspsss]

Go for 1080p, 2560x1600 will rape your video card(s).

QFT

it'll make it sooo much harder for ur v.card(s) to put out respectable fps for the latest games.. the thing u need to take into consideration is - how good do ur eyes spot quality difference, esp. at such high res's already; & how much would u 'appreciate' that difference

[Bradan]

QFT

it'll make it sooo much harder for ur v.card(s) to put out respectable fps for the latest games.. the thing u need to take into consideration is - how good do ur eyes spot quality difference, esp. at such high res's already; & how much would u 'appreciate' that difference

I disagree. The difference is like 720p-->1080p, but more pwnin.

My bro has a 30" and it's amazing for TF2, UT3, COH.

Stuff is sooo clear, you can see faces at twice the distance, and close up, they look insane.

Everything is sharp without bein blurred(AA), it looks like 1080p+2xAA, for aliasing, yet is so much clearer

[tiro_uspsss]

I disagree. The difference is like 720p-->1080p, but more pwnin.

My bro has a 30" and it's amazing for TF2, UT3, COH.

Stuff is sooo clear, you can see faces at twice the distance, and close up, they look insane.

Everything is sharp without bein blurred(AA), it looks like 1080p+2xAA, for aliasing, yet is so much clearer

umm.. theres nothing to disagree to - *u* can tell a huge diff & appreciate it, so it'd be worth it for u.. but how good is the OPs eyesight? neither of us know ;)

theres no doubt theres a MP diff, but everyone has diff eyesight

[Judaeus Apella]

Well if I want to get an HD TV, then these are probably going to be my only choices... I'll tell you why later.

Vizio 46" Class 1080p Full-HD LCD HDTV with Digital Tuner, VW46LF - $1,028.00 (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=8586330)
Philips 47" Class Full-HD 1080p LCD HDTV, 47PFL3603D/F7 - $1,098.00 (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10376354)
Philips 47" 1080p Full-HD LCD HDTV w/ Digital Tuner, 47PFL5603D - $1,198.00 (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10176514)
Sony 46" 1080p LCD HDTV with Bonus $100 Online eGift Card, KDL-46S4100 - $1,298.00 (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10891633)

I don't know much about the ones by Philips... and I have a hard time believing that they're 29000:1... is that a typo? Did they mean 2900? I know Sonys are mid grade Samsungs, and I haven't heard good things about the Vizios... I get the feeling a Vizio is like bying a vehicle by Kia. A cheap unreliable car that looks nice and has an MP3 player but the only race it will win is to a repair shop. :lol2:

I just read an interesting comment on newegg about that phillips. Seems that this TV is terrible for gaming cause it has a lag time problem. Oops! Glad I caught that!

[XS Janus]

I think that you should stop looking at this thread NOW if you wish to keep your sanity. :D
I don't think there can be a consensus here, EVER.
Personal preference, e-peen, fanboyzm gets in the way to, to much! :D

Only option left is: buy and cry :D

[Judaeus Apella]

Anyone have any recommendations on the models I listed? I'm pretty sure everyone is going to say Sony, if thats my only best choice....

[Arkangyl]

If I'm reading one of the OP's posts right, he already has an HDTV somewhere in the house? (might be making that up), try connecting the PC to that and see what it's like.

Biggest thing to take into account though: can you afford to keep up with the latest & greatest in GPU to drive a 30" LCD? I think that's the one thing everyone here agrees on.

As for the too big bit, I'll bet that just takes time to get used to.

What graphics card do you have though? I feel like that might help us make a better recommendation.

[Anemone]

Well I'll further comparison a bit by saying go have a look at two TV's of the same size, say 32". Look at one 720p and one 1080p. It won't be perfect because there is a lot of electronics behind the picture, but you'll get a quick judgement as to whether you like pixel density or not. Then take a look at a 40" 1920 and a 32 1920. Again, not a perfect comparison, but you'll get a finer sense of what YOU prefer, which is important. Wait a few days and go back and look again.

The only thing I can say is that a GTX 295 (just one) runs a 30" 2560 just fine in every single game but Crysis. Now that's a high end card. But what is a high end card now, is mainstream in a few years. However, there is a lot to love in larger screens. So the 40 or even a 32" 1080p wouldn't be bad either.

Hope you find what you'll be happy owning for a few years :)

[Anemone]

Of that list the Sony, imo. But I'd bet the LG's use ips panels. Can you look at any of those 4 IRL at a store?

[Judaeus Apella]

"What graphics card do you have though? I feel like that might help us make a better recommendation."

This one. (http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video/his-hd4870x2/his_rhd4870x2_artwork.jpg) :D It just arrived in the mail.

And I think I might go with that Sony. I remember reading somewhere that they're good for gaming, which is exactly what I'm looking for. If I do get it, I'll give the gift certificate to my folks for groceries. :)

[billdavis]

all of the guys going with the higher res 30" are full of it because the human eye @ 20/20 vision cant see the level of detail in the hi res 2560x1900 at more than 3 feet!

yes you have more desktop space but trust me i have a 52" and at 3 meters away 20/20 vision is just right unless you have 15/15 or 10/10 vision you dont need the high res moniters unless you will be sitting with in 20" of the screen

you all know you have to squint at your screens if your more than arm distance away to read small icons on your desktop
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

[Xello]

ATI card, i would stay away from 1080p.

You have been warned...


all of the guys going with the higher res 30" are full of it because the human eye @ 20/20 vision cant see the level of detail in the hi res 2560x1900 at more than 3 feet!

Not sure of the precise measurements, but yes this is what i was referring to with our visual acuity. I think you'll find most people with a 30" will use it on a desk, sitting closer to it to get around this.

[billdavis]

right but with in arms reach of the 30" lcd's you will have a nice warm face and when yuou back off to 5 or so feet your eyes dont even see that well so what really is the point you dont get 3dmark points for having a higher res lcd so it is really worthless...and if you can play far cry or crysis at that high res with max detail they you must have a computer that is 3 years or so ahead of todays tec

[Judaeus Apella]

I can't see things far away, but I can see high detail find within about 50 or more feet or so. I should probably wear glasses when I'm driving, but I've never had a problem with it... unless I'm looking for signs and I'm going 70mph. lol

[IronWarrior]

I recommend the Dell Ultrasharp 3008WFP: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=223-4890

I've looked at all the other 30" screens out there and they all have a problem one way or a other, but this Dell seems to be a very safe bet.

[Judaeus Apella]

My TV choices are in post #37, and I'm going with a 46" TV and a small 17" screen for school work, papers, email, and other related stuff. TV will be for gaming, TV, and movies.

[B.E.E.F.]

My TV choices are in post #37, and I'm going with a 46" TV and a small 17" screen for school work, papers, email, and other related stuff. TV will be for gaming, TV, and movies.

Better stick with at least a 19". Its not much more expensive, bigger pixels at same resolution so its easier on the eyes.

[Comminadian]

I side firmly with the 30" 2560x1600 camp, however, I agree that if you are not using it sitting at a desk, the benefit will be lost.

That said, the argument that 30" monitors are not good or have no benefit because you need to sit close to them seems to be coming from people that haven't actually used one. It is kind of the point, sitting close to it, its a computer monitor and not a television. Yes the pixel density is high but not significantly more than a 19" LCD (around 0.25). So yes, you should sit within two feet but this is the case will all computer monitors. More importantly, yes, it is glorious.

If you are gonna use it like a computer monitor (meaning sitting at a desk, almost like you are doing "work") then you cannot go wrong with the 30" monitor. If you are gonna use it like a TV... well then buy a TV.

Lastly, the investment in GPU power to drive 2560x1600 is not as different from 1920x1080 as many will say. We are talking about $1000+ monitors so so the "x costs less to run" argument isn't really relevant IMO. Secondly, if you were to really compare 2560x1600, you could get away with no AA on the 2560x1600 option, while the 1920x1080 screen would need AA on just to compete with 2560x1600 0xAA. With modern GPUs 1920x1080 with 4xAA is going to run pretty similar to 2560x1600 with no AA. Again, we are really talking about maybe the different between a GTX 280 and a 4870 X2 though, so $150-$200 tops?

[STEvil]

I side firmly with the 30" 2560x1600 camp, however, I agree that if you are not using it sitting at a desk, the benefit will be lost.

That said, the argument that 30" monitors are not good or have no benefit because you need to sit close to them seems to be coming from people that haven't actually used one. It is kind of the point, sitting close to it, its a computer monitor and not a television. Yes the pixel density is high but not significantly more than a 19" LCD (around 0.25). So yes, you should sit within two feet but this is the case will all computer monitors. More importantly, yes, it is glorious.

If you are gonna use it like a computer monitor (meaning sitting at a desk, almost like you are doing "work") then you cannot go wrong with the 30" monitor. If you are gonna use it like a TV... well then buy a TV.

Lastly, the investment in GPU power to drive 2560x1600 is not as different from 1920x1080 as many will say. We are talking about $1000+ monitors so so the "x costs less to run" argument isn't really relevant IMO. Secondly, if you were to really compare 2560x1600, you could get away with no AA on the 2560x1600 option, while the 1920x1080 screen would need AA on just to compete with 2560x1600 0xAA. With modern GPUs 1920x1080 with 4xAA is going to run pretty similar to 2560x1600 with no AA. Again, we are really talking about maybe the different between a GTX 280 and a 4870 X2 though, so $150-$200 tops?

Well done post

Also a pair of 4830's with 1gb ram are cheap and handle 2560x1600 quite well :up:

[Judaeus Apella]

Well the thing is, I don't know how I want to sit... and I don't know what I really want... so I think I'm gonna go both ways. I'll buy a TV now and use an older monitor as the 2nd monitor, then upgrade it later when I find a decent one on sale to something in the 20's.

[billdavis]

good choice,

just for fyi i tried the wireless rf type keyboard and mouse from microsoft and the receiver had to be with in 3 feet of the mouse and keyboard with nothing in the way to block the weak rf signal, so if you try to go wireless for your hd lcd then use the blue tooth ones IMHO.

i ended up just going wired with a long usb cable and usb spliter put up on my desk for the wired mouse and keyboard...at least with the rf wireless i could see some of the lagg when playing games!!! and crysis totally rocks on 1920x1080p 60hz @ 52" but MAKE SURE the high def lcd can do 60 hz in computer hdmi mode.

**you may want to invest in another AC unit for that room**

[DeathTyrant]

I'm not the first to say it, but it bears repeating:
2560x1600 is a massive resolution, it is in fact pretty much TWICE the MegaPixels as a 1920x1080 display. It will look crips and great even if you sit very close to it, but it really needs powerful hardware for games like Crysis.

I have a 37 inch HDTV for my main PC Display now, and my 8800GTX is able to cope with everything except Crysis on the highest settings. If you sit very close to your desk, then 32 inches or less for a 1080p display may be more ideal, so you don't have to see 'screen door effect'.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/4274/1001296um4.th.jpg (http://img255.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1001296um4.jpg)http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/9151/1001295ih4.th.jpg (http://img158.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1001295ih4.jpg)
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/4958/1001297ry2.th.jpg (http://img119.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1001297ry2.jpg)http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6649/crysishdtv3go5.th.jpg (http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crysishdtv3go5.jpg)

[Judaeus Apella]

Actually I own a Logitech wireless RF mouse and its good for about 14 feet. :D

[Soulburner]

But it may not play well with all LCD monitors and give you input lag (slow response).

[Judaeus Apella]

We'll see.... we'll see....

[STEvil]

But it may not play well with all LCD monitors and give you input lag (slow response).

Input lag would not be due to mouse + LCD. Both can and do have their own amount of input latency.

[Soulburner]

Input lag would not be due to mouse + LCD. Both can and do have their own amount of input latency.
That was what I was referring to. Both the LCD and the wireless mouse will cause slow response.

[Judaeus Apella]

I thought Sony LCD Televisions had good responce timing?

[STEvil]

I thought Sony LCD Televisions had good responce timing?

Its not a brand thing (though i'm sure some brands could be better).

Really its whether there is a scaler or not. I think pretty well all TV's have scalers..

[jtdigital]

samsung is #1 in lcd sales in the US and for good reason... they are the best. get the samsung ln40a650 40" $1100 & up

[Bradan]

That was what I was referring to. Both the LCD and the wireless mouse will cause slow response.

I have a 32" samsung 5 series and a logitech G7 Wireless.

I'm feeling ~15-20ms, it's not bad at all

[DeathTyrant]

The input lag on my HDTV is not at all noticeable to me, as I have disabled all of the extra processing effects that are usually taken advantage of by consoles and DVD players and the like. I don't need any of the 'Fast Motion' nonsense, nor any of the special scaling options as I am running 1080p native. No 360/PS3 is my rig, it has to be said.

[Levesque]

I have the best 1080p display on the market, the latest gen Pioneer Elite Kuro plasma, fully calibrated, and I MUCH prefer gaming on my 30'' LCD at 2560X1600.

No contest for gaming. :) But for Blu-ray watching, the Pio Elite is winning hands down with those awesome blacks and crazy ANSI CR. :)

[Anemone]

In July 2007 Samsung promised an update to the 305T to bring a scaler, displayport and so forth. Sadly I'm still waiting on that "update". But I'd agree, I have 40" of 720p and 60" of 1080p and a 30" would be the way to go :) for pc gaming

[Soulburner]

Its not a brand thing (though i'm sure some brands could be better).

Really its whether there is a scaler or not. I think pretty well all TV's have scalers..
But does the scaler even come into play if you only use a 1:1 resolution?

[STEvil]

But does the scaler even come into play if you only use a 1:1 resolution?

Might have some dependency on the manufacturer but i'm sure the answer is no because they would see no reason to deactivate it in a TV.

[Xenogias]

I have the best 1080p display on the market, the latest gen Pioneer Elite Kuro plasma, fully calibrated, and I MUCH prefer gaming on my 30'' LCD at 2560X1600.

No contest for gaming. :) But for Blu-ray watching, the Pio Elite is winning hands down with those awesome blacks and crazy ANSI CR. :)

This is pretty much my ideal setup. Consider plasma for movie and TV viewing. Unless all you watch is sports or the news or your room is small 11x11 or less (plasma would raise the temp 5-10deg). I have a Panasonic Viera, calibrated. I envy Kuro owners though and can't stand LCD TVs and their fake contrast specs.

Monitor-wise, I haven't heard anyone mention this when I went up to a 24" when they first came out (from a 21" 1600x1200 CRT) basically left me sitting in front of the screen more often than not just idly surfing the web and not doing much of anything more than basking in its warm glow. 24-30" desk monitors fill up so much of your vision that you really do get immersed and semi-hypnotized! I think productivity actually DECREASES and that is why I would never use them to type papers, or use them at work. I find I am most productive on a 19-20" 4:3 LCD. That said, photoshop and other image programs like Lightroom/Aperture, etc. are much better on 30" with files now in the 10+mpix range, it is quite a benefit. Just my 2c but I hadn't heard anyone mention those points yet.

[Xenogias]

Might have some dependency on the manufacturer but i'm sure the answer is no because they would see no reason to deactivate it in a TV.

TV scalers process all content that comes into a tv. So if you have a 480p or 720p TV channel, video game consoles prior to ps3/xbox, VCRs, etc they all run through the scaler so you get full screen images. If you could turn off the tv scaler and connected a PS2 to a 1080p class TV you would see a tiny image surrounded by HUGE black borders. Even if your video feed is already 1080p (went through an upscaling DVD player or a native 1080p Blur-Ray) the scaler looks at the feed and formats it to fit exactly the screens pixels (not really any quality loss though). Some scalers are better than others. Oppo DVD players with Farudja scalers are much better than no-name upscaling dvd players for example because they use more sophisticated methods for stretching the image. My xbox1 xbmc looks a hell of a lot better than most upscaling dvd players because it uses an updated software scaler with all current techniques for filtering and cleaning up an image. Hardware scalers are rarely firmware updated and usually get surpassed. Scalers built in to TVs or LCD monitors are usually the worst class of scalers because they must be compatible with the most kinds of video feeds and be cheap.

I would assume the same would be true for 30" 2560x1600 screens with no scalers (Dell 3008FPW is the only one right now with one to my knowledge). That said, the device you have connected to it (nVidia or ATi card) should be able to scale all images better than most built-in TV scalers because most are crappy. It just wont look as good as native resolution just like an upscaled dvd doesn't look as good as the same movie in Blu-Ray. This mostly only applies to gaming though as 2d content is easy to run at huge resolutions.

[STEvil]

Only new model 30" without a scaler is the LG W3000H (the panel Dell uses for their 3008).

edit - though i've not done a bunch of research since buying this one..

[iTravis]

Might be a silly question but how do I actually set my monitor running @ 2560x1600 and my TV @ 1920x1080 at the same time with my HD4870X2? I tried to play around with CCC and couldn't find any options that let me do that.

[knissel]

I have a 40 inch lcd, one thing to consider. LCD = 1920 x 1080. 30" = 1560X1600. Also the dot pinch and things like that make it much harder to use somthing that was designed for video for use like a computer. font will be much harder to read if you go the 40 route.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_Dvao8GBzo

[Judaeus Apella]

WOW, I can't believe this thread is still active! I thought it would have died a long time ago!

Well, seeing as its still up, I need some help. This CRT, which was a temporary solution has suddenly started to die. I'm surprised because its of such high quality.

Anyway, I'd like to know how to calculate the hight and width of a screen based on the ratio and diagonal measurement. I wish for pete sake they'd just freaking include that with the basic info when you're looking at screens online. For me its hard to get a mental picture of its actual size.

I was thinking maybe something like this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005114

But how tall and wide is the screen?

[3Z3VH]

Ok, enough speculation from people who have not used both.

Here is my setup:
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii184/3Z3VH/AquosComputer.jpg

This is my 52" Sharp Aquos D64U TV running 1080p (1920x1080) resolution, and right next to it is a Dell 2405FPW. This is my main gaming/video computer.

The reality of the situation is... 52" is too big to play games close up. Period. You do get a lot more of a sense of immersion with it, because you have things happening in your peripherals relating to the game, but at the same time, if that same image were on a 30", you would see them a lot clearer, and be able to react to them better.

I -personally- prefer the immersion factor, rather than being "Uber leet" at the games I play, but I understand that the vast majority of people do not. For games like Eve Online, this monotir is nothing short of spectacular, because you really get a sense that you are flying in space (rather than just watching a ship flying in space). For games like TF2, I find myself not seeing things on the side of my screen till it is too late, or that if I saw it, by the time I reacted, I missed something on the other side.

If your only choice is between a 30 and a 40 ? I say go for the 30. If you have the option of both, I rather like what I have done, where the side monitor (which I now use in portrait mode) is where I keep all of my web browsing, icons, machine status/temperature monitors, etc. The big screen is strictly for gaming and movies. (now that I added some Z-5500s to it, movies sound a lot better).



Anyway, I'd like to know how to calculate the hight and width of a screen based on the ratio and diagonal measurement. I wish for pete sake they'd just freaking include that with the basic info when you're looking at screens online. For me its hard to get a mental picture of its actual size.

I was thinking maybe something like this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005114

But how tall and wide is the screen?

Well, this is the simple Pythagorean theorem applied to a practical purpose !

I assume you mean the screen itself, since they already tell you the dimensions of the monitor with the stand.

Looking at the resolution, you can see it is 1920x1200.... This is a 16x10 aspect ratio (1920 divided by 1200 == 1.6... 16 divided by 10 == 1.6)

Knowing that, and the diagonal size of the screen 25.5"... you can use the pythagorean theorem to figure out the sides of the screen itself.

Imagine you drew a diagonal line from one corner of your monitor to the opposite corner. On that monitor that diagonal line equals 25.5 inches, and also would give you two triangle shapes in your monitor (The height, width, and the diagonal). The Pythagorean theorem says that the square of two of a right-triangle's sides, will always add up to the square of the longest side.... a^2 + b^2 == c^2

So... plugging in the numbers 10 for 'a' and 16 for 'b', using the theorem, you get a c of ~18.867962264113207622641320755245.

Well, we know for our monitor c == 25.5 inches, so compare that to the 16:10 by dividing it....

25.5/18.867962264113207622641320755245 == ~1.3514972970081089729700946046594

Sooo.... multiply 16 by 1.3514972970081089729700946046594, and you will see that the screen in that monitor has a width of ~21.623956752129743567521513674551, or 21.6 inches.

Multiply 10 by 1.3514972970081089729700946046594 and you get ~13.514972970081089729700946046594 or 13.5 inches.

The screen on that monitor should be about 21.6 x 13.5 without the bezel.

[Judaeus Apella]

:eek:

Thanks!

Knowing its THAT big, I might just go for a 23 inch or so. The CRT monitor I have is already plenty big enough. Its just not wide screen. It's 21". So I think a 23" monitor should be just fine for me. It's also less money.... I really don't want to spend THAT much for a monitor, when I'm trying to save up for an HD TV.